Talk:The Tales of Beedle the Bard/Archive 1

Why?

Why was this nominated for deletion by PageantUpdater? How can s/he do that without posting here?

I see no reason to delete this.

s/he can, if s/he wants, but the reasoning is explained there. This article could sensibly be made a redirect to Deathly Hallows (objects), and if this was not now an AfD, I would do that now myself. There is lots of info already in that article, more than ought to be here, and it explains the part played by the book. Also, there is a list of fictional books within the Harry Potter series where the book should just be mentioned, and I have put it in the list. Sandpiper 08:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As you may see now, the book is not a fictional book anymore.Pmuean (talk) 13:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazon.com Review / Summary

Amazon.com has now posted two reviews / summary of two of the tales ( "The Wizard and the Hopping Pot" and "The Fountain of Fair Fortune"). The summarizes can be found here [1]. Does Amazon.com's synopise consitute a relable source to update this entry and other Harry Potter enteries? Jvsett (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering they are the purchasers, I would say so. They have now posted reviews of Tales #3 and #4: "The Warlock's Hairy Heart" and "Babbitty Rabbitty and Her Cackling Stump." The problem now is, how do we include the info in the article about the tales? Amazon is already summarizing the stories. Do we summarize the summaries? Or should we just do big quote sections? I'd rather not do that, but I don't have any other ideas. Anakinjmt (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't supposed to have this much detail for the story. The story itself is published on here. The summary should only include major beginning, middle, and ending details. Other major info about the book should also be included, but everything else should be disposed of. I'll try to work at fixing the article.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

A link to the review may be sufficient. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I finally had a nice moment to fix up the stories, but now they are all gone! Wow, well, it's not shocking that this happened, this was a major spoiler to all.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 05:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Spanish

Why is there a link to "Spanish Translations of Beedle the Bard" on the English Wikipedia? I am inclined to remove it. What is its purpose? -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Doesn't bother me too much, but feel free to take it out, if you haven't already. Anakinjmt (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have taken out the link to a Spanish blog repeatedly, and a changing IP of the range starting with 201.210 keeps re-inserting the link without comment. I see no purpose to a blog in another language on the English Wikipedia. The onus is on our anonymous editor to justify the link's inclusion. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Is that a word?

What is with "duuuuuupty?" im going to delete it. Bmc152006 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Added summaries

I have added the summaries. There might still be problems with spelling - I haven't checked it. diego_pmc (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Is it not enough to link to Amazon's? -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, no! That's why WP is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of useful links. The link to Amazon is still there (in both External Links and references sections) in case someone wants a more detailed summary of any of the five stories, or more pictures. diego_pmc (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Naturally. My point, however, is that we don't have any sources for the long summaries in the article now. How do we verify the contents? If it's a re-hashing of Amazon's summaries (or a summary of a summary?), there's not much point. If there's another reliable source, we need to cite it. -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

These need to be rewritten as actual summaries of the stories in a proper encyclopaedic tone ("The story is about an old man..."), rather than the current cut-down versions ("There once was an old man...") which I took at first glance to be straight copyvios. --McGeddon (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with improving the tone. About the refs, the summaries are cited, but not in the standard way. If you look at the References section, you'll see I added the Amazon link there. diego_pmc (talk) 17:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The Amazon link already existed under the External Links. But the summaries as written in the article are original research. We cannot synthesize existing summaries that way; WP:V isn't negotiable. We'll have to remove the summaries if they cannot be sourced. I'm sorry, but "the summaries are cited, but not in the standard way" won't cut it. -Phoenixrod (talk) 07:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how they're O.R.; why isn't every other summary on Wikipedia O.R. then, if these summaries are? I simply had no better way to reference them, then by just placing a link in the References section. There is only one big ref for all the summaries, it just wouldn't be practically (nor esthetically if you think about it) suitable to place the same reference throughout the whole section. diego_pmc (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a fair question. I think they're OR because the actual stories are not publicly available; we have to rely on other people's statements to know what is in the stories. And if we're relying on those accounts, we need to cite them. Otherwise it's our original synthesis. What is the source for those summaries? Where can I find the information that led to the summaries in this article? If the source is exclusively Amazon, then summarizing a summary is silly. The link does that already. -Phoenixrod (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The only summary that shouldn't fall into this discussion is The Tale of the Three Brothers (I've made the summary based on the story from HP7). At any rate I am against the claim that a link is enough, because WP is an encyclopedia. Anyhow, whether this is OR, or not is disputable, and I personally don't agree (and not because I've done the summaries). The Amazon link (reliable, BTW) is still the only source we have, regarding the summaries, and probably the only one we'll have for at least another 75 years (when the book will enter PD). diego_pmc (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with details from "Three Brothers" coming from HP7, since HP7 is a publically available, verifiable source for such information. I agree that the Amazon link is likely the only reliable source on the other stories; that's why I want simply to link to Amazon per previous discussion above.

Let me try a different tack to explain my position. Obviously WP is an encyclopedia, as you point out, but that doesn't mean it's an indiscriminate collection of information. According to what Wikipedia is not, "A concise plot summary is appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work." The key word is "concise": I strongly question how a summary on WP can be nearly as long as the only publically known information (via Amazon) about each story. Additionally, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(writing_about_fiction)#Plot_summaries says, "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections." I think such lengthy summaries give undue weight to the plot of the stories when the emphasis should be on why this book is significant in the first place. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

They're not exactly 'nearly as long' as the ones on Amazon [2] Anyway, the problem of the article (after looking at the policies you pointed) would be that the summaries are still a bit too long. It would be ideal if they all were approximatively as long as The Tale of the Three Brothers or The Wizard and the Hopping Pot. And also the other sections could be expanded, though a quick search gave me no extra information about the subject. So I guess we could try to further shorten the summaries. diego_pmc (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs with the "nearly as long" comment. I must have been looking at the unexpanded versions of Amazon's reviews, but the point about undue weight is still primary, as you note. I think we're getting onto the same page here. I don't greatly mind short summaries, but given the dearth of citable material, they'd have to be only a couple sentences rather than long paragraphs. (And if they're only a few sentences, I'd prefer the simple link for the full versions. But again, I'm okay with very short summaries). -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask for a review. Is there a project that takes care of such things? diego_pmc (talk) 10:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

We could try Wikipedia:WikiProject Harry Potter or WP:THIRD if you like. I am trying hard not to WP:OWN this article, but since I've been working on it since saving it from a merge last year, I have an interest in making sure it's a quality article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand you want to make sure this article doesn't go wrong, but I'd also like you to understand I also have the same interest, since I contributed with a pretty big part at it. The HP project is quite dead. I asked for a reassessment of this article quite some time ago, and the request is still there. Of what I understood you also agree the summaries would be fine if they were shorter. Well, we could try to fix this, since we've reached this agreement. Does the League of Copyeditors also do these things? Of course, we should ask them only if we can't deal with it ourselves. diego_pmc (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: I shortened'em diego_pmc (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Bede

Can we assume Beedle is derived from Bede? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.117.92.219 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

We could, but we couldn't include it in the article, since that is original research. diego_pmc (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Availability

Is the text of this book available online. I'm curious how we can include summaries if it is not. Also, has there been leaks? Stargate70 (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I am concerned with the same issue. If the summaries aren't attributed to a source, they must go. We already link to Amazon's summaries, which ought to be enough. -Phoenixrod (talk) 07:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The reference is this one. It simply is not enough to just place a link in the article, and this is a general rule, to all articles, not just this one. This Amazon link is also placed in the references section, because in-line referencing is not appropriate in this case. This kind of referencing is also used in other articles (see: Caesar cipher, which is a featured article). diego_pmc (talk) 10:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:CITE#Maintaining_a_.22References.22_section_in_addition_to_.22Notes.22, I have made separate sections for the footnotes and your reference. I'm still baffled why it must be included when it's already in the External Links, but whatever. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually that policy seems to refer to something else. When there are multiple notes from, let's say a book, with pages indicated, and such, it is also useful to make a References section that would only mention the book(s)/work(s) used. This is not that case here. diego_pmc (talk) 11:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, how on earth do you interpret that policy as irrelevant? I'm sorry, but I don't understand your position. It's the policy on citing sources.... We are citing sources. I'm thinking of an article like Learned Hand, which many editors are trying to bump up to FA status right now, and that article has the same layout I've used here.

So what do you think the policy refers to? I'm curious what makes you think it "seems to refer to something else". -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I said above. Anyway, I asked here, and it seems the person who answered agrees that there's no need for separate sections in this case. Where can we ask for this article to be reviewed so tha this would be solved? diego_pmc (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"Seems" again. I don't think you have accurately described the situation going on this article. I don't interpret the reference issue the way you did in your talk page post at WP:CITE, and I don't think the response you got there reflects this article (rather, it reflects the question that you asked, which again doesn't seem to me to be the case here). Also, you have chosen to re-combine the Notes and References sections under the "References" banner while maintaining an incorrect format, as pointed out at the same section, Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Non-in-line_citing.

This is a matter of the interpretation of policy. The policy at WP:CITE says, "When footnotes are used, some editors find it helpful to maintain a separate 'References' section"; I am such an editor. I think it looks horrible to have two different citation styles in the same section; consistency should be the principle we strive for on Wikipedia. The way that Learned Hand cites is what looks best to me for this article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That's just POV. Anyway I'll try to explain what I understand from that policy once more. If multiple pages from multiple books are cited within the article, some editors find it helpful to also have a References section where to mention what books were used, without mentioning the pages or any other details, just the books, so that it'd be easier to know which books were used. Anyway, seems this part isn't going anywhere at the moment, so I'll try to concentrate on the summaries first. diego_pmc (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: I have made a change to the way it looks, trying to address this issue you presented: "I think it looks horrible to have two different citation styles in the same section". diego_pmc (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Tale of the Three Brothers and The Pardoner's Tale

I the fan interview JK rowling gave after DH came out, she said that The Tale of the Three Brothers was inspired by The Pardoner's Tale by Chaucer and the two tales have similarities. Should a mention be made of this? {font-weight:bold;color:#002b78} (talk) 12:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Good thing you mentioned, cause I didn't know that. It seems pretty important so we should include it. At the moment, I'm trying to improve the article, but it's all going pretty slow. There also are a few other things that haven't been mentioned, and I plan to do. But sources are needed. Do you have a link to the interview? diego_pmc (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if there was anything more after Rowling's original statment, but a web search turns up that original statement (looks like) here, or here. There's also an extensive comparison of the stories (both Brothers/Pardoner's and HP/Canturbury) here. Pi zero (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

JKR's statement is the most reliable source for this kind of information that can exist, IMO. If it was from another source (reviewer) , we probably couldn't have included it, or could only mention it very briefly. diego_pmc (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Publishers?

Why are there publishers in the UK, Canada and the US listed for this book? If each book was handwritten and crafted by her, then there shouldn't be any publishers. Since the publishers are hardcoded into the HPBooks template, per WP:BRD I've changed from the HPBooks template to the regular book template, and I've left a note at WT:HP so someone can resolve this. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The HPBook Template puts those automatically, I don't know how to remove them. diego_pmc (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed, all you have to do is simply not fill it in and it wont show up in the article. Jammy (talk) 11:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You fixed HPBooks? I just tried using the template without the Publisher field and it still put it in. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If we're taking the position that it wasn't published — and for now I'll just accept this nuanced interpretation of the word publish — then surely it can't have a publication date? I'm asking here, rather than editing the article, because I'm not comfortable with just removing it from the template. It seems like "2007" ought to appear in there somehow; publication date just isn't the right name for it. Pi zero (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but there aren't any other better fields in Infobox book. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

How about a generic infobox, modeled on the source for infobox book? The greater question would then seem to be, what should the field name be changed to. Perhaps simply  Date ? Pi zero (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a lot of work for such a small fix. I don't really have the time to deal with such a thing, but you're more than welcome to take a shot at it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Differences

Where exactly should differences be placed? I think there's an issue here, cause it can't be in the Real Version section because it talks about certain aspects which would rather fit into the the Fictional Version section. And a separate section just for this doesn't feel like necessary, since there's not that much to say. If I were to choose one of the existing two I would chose the Fictional section. But maybe that would mean the real version would have to be presented first. But if the real version would be presented first the summaries should also be moved next to the real section, so in the end it would look like Summaries/Real/Fictional/the rest, which I don't really like. diego_pmc (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, it shouldn't really be here. It's entirely unsourced, which makes it WP:OR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, the fact that one of the stories is not mentioned is said by the author on her own site. diego_pmc (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Then it needs to be sourced. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

...?!? It is. As I said the statement about the unmentioned story is said on her site. This is one, and the second statement (about runes) is also referenced here, but I thought that just citing the book would be enough. Oh well, I added this one too, anyway. diego_pmc (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You've come about as close as can be come, I think, to fitting the paragraph on differences into the section on the fictional version; but it ultimately doesn't, and can't, work there, because most of what the paragraph says is predicated on comparing the known list of tales in the real version to the less-completely-revealed list of tales in the fictional version. So the discussion of differences inherently refers to both versions. Supposing there were no paragraph on differences (which would be an unfortunate loss of encyclopedic content, I think), the discussion of the fictional version has no reason to refer to the real version, while the discussion of the real version inherently refers to the fictional version because the real version is modeled on the fictional version. Rowling's comments on the differences between the two are, in fact, in a discussion of the real version. Pi zero (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me rewrite the real version section, and then I'll see. Guess I'll just expand the text a little, and place the differences in a new section. diego_pmc (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it warrants a new section. It's information about the way the real version diverges from the fictional version (asymmetrically — not how the two differ symmetrically from each other), and thus, with the right phrasing, it ought to fit naturally into the section on the real version (which naturally goes after the section on the fictional version). Clearly the phrasing of my earlier attempt didn't work well enough. At that time, though, I didn't fully appreciate the nuances that this discussion has brought out. Pi zero (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you have any ideas on how it should sound, you're invited to give it a try. At the moment I'm writing the rest of the information. Also the fictional section might need a bit more expansion, for aesthetic reasons, so that the image would fit well. Then again it could just be scaled down to 170px instead of 180. Do you recall anything else from the book that would be relevant in that section? diego_pmc (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Tales of Beedle the Bard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I will be reviewing this article.--Finalnight (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewed below--Finalnight (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

While the article is moving in a positive direction, it does not meet GA criteria at this time as laid out below. It should be rated "B" though. Good luck with your continued efforts to improve it!

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Article is well written and easy to read with a good flow.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Non-compliant due to excessive detail, plot summarization, and in-universe style of summarization.

The summaries have been shortened as much as I could. Since I did, there have been no more complains on this subject. They might need a bit of rework to present them in a more non-in-universe style, but this was a reason to place on hold, not to fail. diego_pmc (talk)

I failed it so you wouldn't have to deal with the time constraints of a typical 7-day on-hold window as the affected parts comprise almost half the article. Later today, I may present some shortened summaries, I have helped other fictional GA's with this before, its a common but fixable issue.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   There are sources used very well until the "real version" section where the wheels kind of come off the article.

What exactly do you mean by "cut off" and an example f possible. diego_pmc (talk)

I am not sure what you mean by "cut off", I don't remember writing that anywhere.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)\

I meant "came off". diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   The entire second half of the article is uncited. The first half is in good shape. I was somewhat worried about your reliance on a www.leakycauldron.org for so many references, but I researched it usage and discussion on other parts of wikipedia and the community has decided it is a reliable source.

The second half (I guess you mean Synopsis section) is entirely cited, using this link. The link is included in the References section. In-line citation was not used here, as it would have been impractical to cite one source for a whole section. diego_pmc (talk)

The citation should be attached to the header of the section it was used in as that section comprises a large section of the article and is likely to be challenged due to lack of context which means in-line citation should be used according to GA criteria.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also thought about putting the ref in between the == ==, but I don't like the fact that the number of the ref is also shown in the Contents box. Is there a way to make it only show the ref in the actual section title, and not in the contents box as well? Or maybe an introduction should be made in the synopsis section, where the ref would fit well. diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

1. C. No original research:

   The second half appears to be either content copied from the book or a editor-written summary, I can't tell due to lack of context or citations.

See above. diego_pmc (talk)

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The first half of the article gives a fairly broad treatment of the topic.

   B. Focused:

   The second half of the article uses uncited, in-universe and overly detailed summaries of the tales. Does not follow WP:PLOT. This was noted previously in the talk page discussions but not acted upon.

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No edit wars per say, but I noticed a number of unresolved disputes in the discussion and there has been enormous changes to the article over the last couple of weeks and that seems to be still going on.

Since I shortened the summaries Phoenixrod has not posted any more comments, his last objection being in May. About the changes: they have not been controvesil, except one in which Man in Black complained about the lack of importance of a statement. This dispute has been solved, the statement being removed in the end. Also the criteria says positive actifity is not to be judged as instability. diego_pmc (talk)

Is the editor even still active? My concern was that the issues presented appeared to not have been fully addressed which could lead to further conflict at any point, hence it being unstable. Though, if it were to be reevaluated, I could see this part being changed to pass.--Finalnight (talk) 14:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

His last edit was on June 18^[1] so I guess he's pretty active. At least he was when I shortened the summaries. Anyway after they are re-re-shortened, I will ask for his opinion. diego_pmc (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, someone could have given me a heads-up on my talk page. I felt that the above discussions were not being resolved with only two editors disagreeing, and I left this article for some time to clear my head; I just returned to it. My main objections, as I recall, were 1) Too much lengthy summary of the Amazon information (I still believe that a link would be simpler and not take up a disproportionate chunk of the article, although short summaries should be workable); and 2) Citation issues, including a lack of references for the stories' summaries. The GA review seems to have raised those issues again. I can certainly reserve my evaluation until the new summaries are ready, though. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   All fair-use rationale appears to be in order on the images used.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   All in-body images are captioned.

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I was originally tempted to do a quick fail due to the article's lack of stability (100+ edits in just the last couple weeks) and near-complete lack of citations in the second half, but I felt that it was moving in the right direction and needed a more thorough analysis. Good luck on the improvements

Suggestions

Here is a rewrite I did for the first summary:--Finalnight (talk) 15:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This story is about the legacy of an old man who, in his generosity, used his pot to brew magical potions and antidotes for other people when they needed his help. Upon his death, he leaves all his belongings to his only son, who has none of the qualities his father had. After his father's death, the son finds the pot and a single slipper inside it, together with a note from his father that reads, "In the fond hope, my son, that you will never need this".

Bitter for having nothing left but a pot, the son closes the door on every person who asks for his help. Each time he does this, the pot takes on the symptoms of the ones who ask for help. This continues on until the son finally gives up and provides aid to the town. While he does this, the pot empties and a mysterious slipper falls out — one that perfectly fits the foot of the pot, and together the two walk off into the sunset.

Second summary:--Finalnight (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

In this story, there is a fountain where once per year, people may come to have their problems answered. This is how three witches meet. The first witch, Asha, suffers from a disease. The second, Altheda, endures poverty due to a robbery. The third, Amata, is distraught after she left by her beloved. The three witches decide to try and reach the fountain together, but along their way, a knight also joins them.

On their path to the fountain, they have to face three challenges. The first two involve a giant worm who demands "proof of your pain" and a steep slope where they have to bring the "fruit of their labours". The third challenge, crossing a river, requires them to pay with "the treasure of your past". Amata passes the challenge by using magic to withdraw the memories of her ex-lover and drop them into the water.

At the fountain, Asha collapses from exhaustion. To save her, Altheda brews an invigorating potion that also cures Asha of her disease and need of the fountain. Altheda realises that her skills are a means to earn money, so she also no longer needs the fountain. The third witch realises that washing away her regret for her lover removed her need as well. Only the knight bathes in the water, after which he flings himself at Amata's feet and asks for her "hand and her heart". Everyone gets an answer to their problem, not realising that the fountain held no magical power at all.

Third Summary:--Finalnight (talk) 15:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The story is about a young and handsome warlock who decides to never fall in love, so he uses Dark Arts to prevent himself from doing so. His family, hoping he will change, doesn't do anything. However, one day, he hears two servants whispering about him not having a wife, so he decides to find a talented, rich, and beautiful girl and marry her to gain everyone's envy.

He meets that girl the very next day. Though the girl is both "fascinated and repelled", the warlock persuades her to come to a dinner feast at his castle. During the feast, she tells him that she needs to know he has a heart. The warlock shows her his beating hairy heart inside a crystal casket in his dungeon. The witch begs him to put it back inside himself. After the warlock does so, she embraces him. However, being disconnected from its body for so long, his heart is "pierced" by the beauty of her skin and the scent of her hair. Later the other guests find their host and the witch dead.

Thanks a lot! Can I ask you however, if you want to trry and also do the last two. Not only that I'm not all that good at making summaries, but these two are also a bit harder to make, IMO, in order to leave the story understandable. If you want of course. diego_pmc (talk) 18:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I am back online now and will get the last two up sometime today for sure.--Finalnight (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Tales of Beedle the Bard/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hola personas! I am reviewing this article, and praying that I can pass it, as I love Harry Potter. On to the critera! spider1224 15:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC) PS If you have any comments, post please!

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 10, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass! Clear, grammaticly correct (yeah I know that's spelled wrong)

2. Factually accurate?: Pass! Contains quotes, excellent references, and no original research!

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass...yeah, no comment.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass! Could very well have been written by someone who has never read the HP series. Well done.

5. Article stability? As far as I can tell, Pass, no edit wars, etc.

6. Images?: Pass! Brilliant! Where'd you get those pics of the handdrawn pictures?

Great article, can't wait for it to be nominated for FA! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— spider1224 15:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

GA

Glad to see this finally passed.--Finalnight (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ballad Writing Contest

Amazon also organized a ballad writing contest, the winner getting to go to London to read the book.[3] Do you think this is encyclopedic information, or more like trivia - I'm not sure if I should add it or not. diego_pmc (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Which book template?

Folks, I've got a bit of a problem with this edit. I see no reason why we have to make our own book template - Infobox book is more than fine, or we could even try using HPbooks. If no one objects, I'm going to change it back to one of the regular templates. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The auction date is not a date of publication, which was a problem before and has become more of a problem now that there actually is a date of publication. I really am surprised to hear you have a problem with it. When we discussed this topic at more length earlier, you said "I don't really have the time to deal with such a thing, but you're more than welcome to take a shot at it." (Here.) Has something changed? Pi zero (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I do have more time now. :) — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah. :-) I would have thought there'd be two possible objections to using the more general template — that it would be some bother to work out how to do, which no longer applies since that bother is already in the past; and that it might make the page a lot messier, which I was pleased to find, when I actually worked out the code for it, was not the case: I, at least, found it neither significantly longer nor significantly harder to read (for routine adjustments) than the more specialized template that it replaced. If there is a way to trick either of the more specialized templates into doing the right thing despite itself... well, I'm not sure why one would bother now, actually, but I admit to some curiosity as to how it might be accomplished. Pi zero (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Restructured page

As you can see i have restructured the page, as it became a little unorganized. I used other FA book articles as a model, but this book has a kinda special history, so it wasn't really all that easy. It still needs a little polishing, for example some information on the standard and collector's editions from the Production section would rather fit into a Publishing section.
I have also used some advices from the peer review I requested (which unfortunately I was unable to respond to as I was out of town).

P.S.: I also added the {{British-English}} template to this talk page since there were quite a few edits in the last period changing some words to American English. diego_pmc (talk) 13:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely clear on what it was about the old organization that you felt called for such an extensive reorganization. Perhaps you could explain a bit more about the motivation?

One thing that makes me uncomfortable about the new outline is that its top-level section headings seem to be defying the natural logical trichotomy between  (1) the fictional version, (2) the handwritten version, and (3) the published version. Not all information in the article splits that way — notably the synopses don't — but it seems that a significant amount of it does. I'm concerned that information naturally following this trichotomy would be artificially scattered amongst sections in the new outline. The other two fictional-to-real book articles, Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch, each have a section on the fictional book; and this one is that extra layer more complicated by the logically distinct phases of its real existence, handwritten and published. Just because other book articles that have achieved FA status are arranged a certain way doesn't mean this one has to be arranged just that way; were any of those articles about books with the sort of peculiar multi-phase history that this book has? Honestly, I'd say this article will be better if it's arranged in a way that naturally brings out the particular structure of its subject. I'm not claiming the old outline was perfect; I am suggesting, though, that some things about it were advantages relative to the new outline.

If I get a chance at some point — I'm pretty busy in the "real" world right now — I'll apply myself to how one might combine characteristics of both outlines.

BTW, I wouldn't get my hopes up too much about the {{British-English}} template. It's good to have it there to clarify the situation, certainly, but I suspect it won't make much difference in the frequency of such edits. I doubt most people check the talk page before such routine helpfulness as fixing a spelling error, so the miscue that resulted in such an edit before will probably still do so. Pi zero (talk) 04:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the old layout as it was too segmented, and in many cases it did not look very professional (so to speak). Even though this book has a special history, I still think we should try to follow the guidelines as much as possible. For example there are a few sections that are definitely better now, like Background, Synopsis, and probably Reception. However i would not revert the remaining sections to the old layout, cause, as I said, that one was too segmented. I would rather think that simply splitting the main sections into subsections would solve the problem nice and easy. (I've tried this, please tell your opinion — Auction might need a better place.)
There are a few things i absolutely do not want to revert back, like for example the lists of features for the standard and collector's editions.
About those two other books, neither of their articles are really great, you know? The old layout fitted better when there was no public version of the book, but now it isn't very practical any longer.
I know the template might not change to much, but it can only do good if it is there, even if it does very little good. diego_pmc (talk) 06:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's helpful background. I'm still not quite ready to make a specific proposal, but I'm getting there.

• You say "I still think we should try to follow the guidelines as much as possible." Setting aside the evident fact that guidelines are not policies (most guidelines are pretty good, in my experience, although there are a few that really aren't... and there's always IAR) — are you using a guideline per se, or are you imitating some FA-class articles you've looked at? My impression earlier had been that there wasn't an actual guideline in play.
• I'm not entirely certain what you mean by "too segmented". Is it, perhaps, that the old layout tried to divide a bit too much of the content along the lines fictional/handwritten/published? I rather agree with that.
• It seems awkward to title a section "Contents", especially a top-level section, since that is the name of the auto-generated table, just below the introduction at the top of the article, in which the section titles are listed.

I do quite agree, by the way, that the other two articles (Fantastic/Quidditch) aren't very good; and I too disliked the list of features for the standard and collector's editions. Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I menat by segmented. About Contents section; Overview might also be a good name IMO. Also do you think it should be moved between Background and Synopsis? I am also awaiting any further suggestions. diego_pmc (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose the following outline. This is an adaptation, to the particular circumstances here, of the organization recommended in WP:NOVSTY. Tales isn't a novel, which accounts for some adaptations, and other adaptations are meant to accomodate the unusual history of the Tales.

(Lead section)

Background

Production history

Handmade edition

Auction

Public editions

Overview

Public editions

Synopses

Reception

This is mostly a minor reshuffling to follow the order recommended by the guideline. I've suggested putting "Auction" under "Production history" (which is a slight generalization of the section title from the novel guideline, "Publication history"); it's part of the story of the production, and as a top-level section it was completely outside the paradigm and so didn't sit comfortably in any particular place. "Overview" still has the same substance, but I recommend removing the first subheading, "Handmade edition", because that first paragraph applies to all real editions equally. Pi zero (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try this outline on the article, to see how it looks. Pi zero (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. I didn't adjust the contents of any sections for the revised outline, as I didn't notice anywhere that the content didn't already flow smoothly in this order. With "Auction" under "Publication history", my discomfort over scattering of information has disappeared. Pi zero (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This current layout looks great. I also expanded Background a bit, and Overview section, to include some details about the handmade edition. diego_pmc (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Daphne Durham interview

Can anyone find the interview (seems like it is a video) with Daphne Durham, Managing Editor of Books for Amazon.com, that is mentioned here. It seems to contain some useful information about the production, but the Yahoo! video has been removed, and i can't find it on YouTube or anywhere else.

I found out about this while looking for the original link of this YouTube video (used as a ref and in external links). If you have the original link to this, post it, please. diego_pmc (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

confusion of stories

The synopses state that story 3 (hairy heart) is the only one NOT mentioned whilst story 5 (the three brothers) is the only one featured. There may be a distinction to the use of the words "mentioned" and "featured" but this is not clear to a casual reader and is confusing. It should be made clear which stories are referenced in HP7 and which are not. --Brideshead_{(leave a message)} 20:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to clarify the wording of the lead sentences of the synopsis sections for each of these two stories. I'm not certain whether those were the places where you observed difficulty. Pi zero (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"How about rephrasing"

I think what AnonMoos was worried about was the continuity of the phrase, not the actual wording. I guess i should have given an edit description when I reverted his edit, since I probably gave the wrong impression. Anyways I reverted it because I thought that the whole phrase was more fluent the way it was before.

About the rephrasing, I don't really find it an improvement for a few reasons. I don't think using "muggle" is too recommended, since non-HP fans are likely to have no idea what it means. Also it just sounds too simplistic now, which wouldn't be a bad thing if the phrase was complicated before (but it wasn't IMO). It's not actually such a big deal, but hey. Diego_pmc ^Talk 07:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The sentence as originally phrased, with a comma and "thus", wasn't grammatical — a run-on sentence (or, I see from that article, possibly a "comma splice"... or possibly there's some even more obscure technical name to cover just this situation). And no, it isn't such a big deal — my first instinct was to agree with AnonMoos that it should be a semicolon, and then I immediately looked for alternatives to changing it back again because it just seemed completely beneath everyone's dignity to have even a very brief tussle over whether a comma should be changed to a semicolon.

The rest of the rephrasing was, I suppose, a bit of an experiment; the original phrasing had seemed ever so faintly garden-path to me, so I started looking for ways to move the "non-magical" earlier — which turned out to have some problems of its own, as you saw, and which on reflection bothered me about as much as the original. So that it took very, very little to nudge me back to the original arrangement.

All of which might be taken as a case study in why upgrading prose to Criterion 1a is a really dire task. Pi zero (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Updates

The book has been released and reviews have started to appear. here's a little summary from TLC that links to a few reviews. More can be found through Google. If anyone is willing to update the Reception section, they're welcome. I don't know when I'll have time to work on it, but I'll help if I can. Diego_pmc ^Talk 21:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Publisher

The article currently lists the publishers as Bloomsbury, Scholastic, and Amazon.com. From what I can tell from this press release, the book was "printed and distributed by Bloomsbury, Scholastic and Amazon" (more specifically, printed by Bloomsbury and Scholastic and distributed by Amazon), but "published by The Children’s High Level Group". Am I out in left field, or is this article incorrect? Mr. Absurd (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you seem right. I checked my book and it reads:

Published by the Children's High Level Group,

in association with ARTHUR A. LEVINE BOOKS, an imprint of Scholastic Inc.,

§hep • ¡Talk to me! 03:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Literature as a commentary on the reaction to literature

For many years there have been people ("Muggles") who have objected to the portrayal of witches and wizards in the Harry Potter series. Quite often the objections took the form of protests against school and public libraries, often in the form of requests to remove the Harry Potter books from the shelves.

Could Dumbledore's recollection of Lucius Malfoy's requests that the Tales of Beedle the Bard be removed from the library at Hogwarts for their portrayl of Muggles be a commentary on some people's reactions to the earlier Harry Potter books?

N5yat (talk) 05:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC) n5yat (ken)

One, this is not a forum. Two, that's original research and doesn't belong anywhere near this article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Uh, look at the entry on Hamlet, for example. There is a whole section on meaning, analysis, and interpretation of the work. I was merely asking if such analysis needs to be included in the Beedle the Bard entry, not trying to start a debate. However, if this is not appropriate, then I'll just drop it and forget it...

N5yat (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)n5yat

A section talking about the theme and/or interpretations of the work is appropriate and desirable, as long as there are sources in which these subjects are discussed. We cannot add any information that we come up with — it must first be published elsewhere in a reliable source, otherwise everyone could simply add their own interpretation if they want to. And as you can see the Context and interpretation section on Hamlet is very well cited. Diego_pmc ^Talk 18:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand the process now. N5yat —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:22, December 11, 2008.

I can't remember if this has been disscussed among fans (the obvious), or if JKR actually answered a question about it. But in Beedle, there is a woman who is a reference to Laura Mallory, who wants to censor the books because she thinks they're dangerous to children... Will look up if JKR actually confirmed this. — CHANDLER^#10 — 00:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sort of discussion of the critical response to Tales of Beedle the Bard is surely appropriate, and in keeping with the typical analysis of literary works on Wikipedia. Much of the initial newspaper coverage was superficial and weak(inevitably so in view of the media requirement for instant commentary). As far as I know there is only one book of literary criticism of Beedle the Bard in print - my own Exploring Beedle the Bard. This offers analysis and interpretation, and goes well beyond the overviews in the newspaper coverage. It may well be a means of referencing the sort of points that contributors above have made. It is noteable in that it appeared in remarkably quick time after the publication of Tales of Beedle the Bard. It is by a UK university lecturer (me) with solid credentials for literature criticism. I am of course involved in this project and if I tried to post a reference to it on the Beedle the Bard front page I would presumably have my knuckles rapped for self-promotion. It needs someone in the Wikipedia community, not me, to make a decision on whether publication of a critical book eight days after the publication of Beedle the Bard in itself says something about the amazing impact of Beedle the Bard, and someone to decide whether a properly researched book through an established US publisher is a source for critical response. Graemedavis (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, we know you want to advertise for your book in the article. Some other articles may have analysis, though those books are generally a lot better known around here. If there were multiple analyses of this book, then perhaps we could consider it, but since it's pretty much just your book that's out there, then the inclusion of an analysis section that sources only your book would be an issue of WP:WEIGHT, not to mention bordering on WP:ADVERT. Again, your desire to push this onto the article most certainly counts as a conflict of interest. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec)What kind of criticism are we talking about? I must say I've not heard of Exploring Beedle the Bard. It doesn't seem to have gotten much, if any attention by fan sites, though it perhaps deserves it (maybe its many fans being very touchy about things critical to the books or JKR). I guess it can be mentioned in the Reception sections? Though as you say, probably someone who has the book and is, no you, may have to add the text... I'm not too knowledgeable on the policy WP:SELFPUB, though there is a line that reads Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations., so perhaps its possible. — CHANDLER^#10 — 15:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't fall into the acceptable-to-use case of WP:SELFPUB. Pi zero (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've read the Wikipedia policy, and I'm posting on this discussion page not the article itself because I don't want to breach policies. A lot of the problem seems to arise because I've been up-front in saying that it is me the author who is drawing attention to Exploring Beedle the Bard. Incidentally this is NOT a self-published book as suggested above - I paid nothing for publishing it and I receive a royalty on sales. I would like to suggest to the Wikipedia community that the key issue is whether the fact of publication of this work of criticism (by an English literature specialist lecturing at a UK university) eight days after JKR's book should or should not be considered a fact worthy of note. If the Wikipedia community were to say that the fact is suitable for inclusion but that it will not be included because of who first suggested it, then surely this would be an encouragement for people not to be up-front as I have been, but rather to ask friends and colleagues to make postings on their behalf. I don't think this would be right, and I don't think Wikipedia's policies are designed to create this outcome. I think the person who suggested it issue is a red herring here - rather is it noteworthy that a book of literary criticism appeared in just eight days? Graemedavis (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, you keep mentioning this "eight days after" thing, but that's not usable here. Strictly speaking, it's WP:SYNthesis of two sources. My immediate answer is, no, it's not a fact worthy of note. Your publisher being able to push a book out the door in eight days is not important, since it hasn't been covered by reliable secondary sources or anything like that. Similarly, your book is not particularly notable under the Wikipedia book criteria. Does this help? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell no I don't think this helps. I cannot think of any example of a work of literature which has had a critical book about it published in as short a time as 8 days. If there is one (or more) I've missed it. That a book was published so quickly about Exploring Beedle the Bard is a significant fact about the critical reception of JKR's book because such speed of extensive critial response is very unusual indeed. The notability of the book lies first and foremost in its prompt publication (written by a UK university lecturer specialising in English literature and through an established, commercial publisher) - which is something not considered in the Wikipedia book notability criteria (it is of course a most unusual criterion). Reviews of Exploring Beedle the Bard will come in time - reviews are never that quick - but the notability of this book rests on what its publication date (as listed by Amazon if you want a source) says about the reception of JKR's book, not what a reviewer might say. For that matter save for the initial media coverage there are few reviews yet of The Tales of Beedle the Bard. Graemedavis (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has notability criteria for a reason. If you want to establish notability for a book based on the date that it was published, then go post on the talk page of the book criteria guideline and see the response you get. Until then, there is a guideline in place, and we have to follow it. As a sidenote, Amazon does not count as a reliable source on the grounds that it's a bit of an advertisement to buy the book there. If there was a press release or something, then that would be a better source. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Some requested additions

Sorry, I don't have much editing time right now. Would someone please add a note that Beedle is #1 AP link on USA TODAY's Best-Selling Books list and some backup stats that might be useful. Found these two links from the Mugglenet Beedle page. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

RECEPTION. The first book of literary criticism of this book is now in print: Exploring Beedle the Bard by Graeme Davis, published Nimble Books, 13th December 2008. ISBN-10: 1934840793 ISBN-13: 978-1934840795 On Amazon.com . This is a serious work of literary criticism. It notes the padding of Dumbledore's notes, and suggests that two of the five tales are relatively weak (Babbitty Rabbity and her Cackling Stump, which is too complex for the genre, and The Wizard and the Hopping Pot, because there is no inward development of the young wizard). It suggests the remaining three tales are excellent, though with concerns at the bleak world of The Wralock's Hairy Heart. Indeed if JKR is to be considered a great writer (rather than merely a very good one) this reputation might rest on the qualities of these three tales. 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 (which is in fact longer than JKR's book). Graemedavis (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your book, as best as I can tell, is largely non-notable. Only 2 ghits and 0 news hits makes the book not really stand out to me. Furthermore, your desire to include it in this article comes off as rather advert-y, which is a little unsavory. Maybe once your book gets some actual coverage, we can talk about it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The ghits will build quickly - this book is just out, and in the nature of things could not have had pre-publication advertising. At the moment Google isn't even picking up the Amazon listing. This will all change in days. (NOTE ADDED 16th Jan 2009 - ghits are now 857 for this book. Graemedavis (talk) 23:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)) Perhaps a relevant question is what critical comment on Beedle the Bard is actually out there? There have been newspaper reviews (all inevitably short), and some coverage on JKR fan websites, but I'm not aware of anything as substantial as this 80 page book which makes a serious effort to assess The Tales of Beedle the Bard and for that matter is written by someone with academic qualifications in English literature (MA and PhD) and in a position to offer a serious assessment. I'm not quite sure where Wikipedia will consider the line should be drawn between advert-y and of relevance to the topic of The Tales of Beedle the Bard (that's why I'm posting to the discussion page) though my personal view is that it is firmly in the second category. That The Tales of Beedle the Bard has generated enough interest for a serious book of literary criticism to be published in days is itself noteworthy. Precious few books have ever managed this. Graemedavis (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, we would have a reliable source, independent of the author of this book of criticism, that says it came out unusually soon. Alternatively, we could collectively agree to take it as obvious that eight days is noteworthily soon. (I'm only addressing whether to mention that it was published so soon, not whether to mention what it says about Beedle.) Pi zero (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The simplest source for date of publication is amazon.com: http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-BEEDLE-BARD-tale-tale/dp/1934840793/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229793835&sr=8-1 Graemedavis (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As publisher I can confirm that eight days is indeed quite fast. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wfzimmerman (talk • contribs) 18:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Both you and Graeme seriously need a look at Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest. Seeing as how you are both very connected to this topic, you need to be careful about your edits here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, my contribution is to this discussion page only, and I'm making it here rather than direct to The Tales of Beedle the Bard article precisely because I am connected to the topic. The decision has to be made by the Wikipedia community. I've been up-front about my connection to the topic (as I see has my publisher). I think there is a case for including in the paragraph on the reception of The Tales of Beedle the Bard the information that a lit crit book about it was published in eight days - this is a factual contribution to an account of the reception of The Tales of Beedle the Bard. Presumably a decision one way or the other on this should be made on the merits of the case, not the identity of the person who first suggested it. What does the Wikipedia community think? Is it worth noting that a book of literary criticism on The Tales of Beedle the Bard was published eight days after JKR's book was published? Graemedavis (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. Not unless a reliable source takes note of that fact. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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)

It's not my intention to be unnecessarily harsh or rude, and it's only my opinion of course, but judging from what I read in the Google Books preview, this is not what I would call a work of serious literary criticism; rather it reads as a transparent and rather poor attempt to capitalize on the Harry Potter phenomenon. The rating of the stories ("Stars ******* (7/7). Pure genius! A remarkable and satisfying story which entertains as it teaches. A masterpiece!"); the poor punctuation and grammar; the generally poor writing style ("Dumbledore glosses the tale giving it a meaning it needs were it to work properly, but which is in fact a meaning that the tale does not have"); all these suggest a book that was rushed out in the hopes of riding Beedle's coattails. This book has no citations -- at least, none that I noticed, which is too few for a serious academic work of literary criticism -- and reads like an opinion piece or a high school essay: all very well, but not a suitable or a notable source for an encyclopedia article, and not a notable contribution to Potter studies, if such a field exists. In addition, the author isn't someone well known or important to the Harry Potter phenomenon (which might make his opinions and analyses notable and relevant to this article), and there further appears to be some doubt about the notability of the publisher (it is not, for instance, a well-known or academic press). This is not to say that the book might not become notable, for example, by being widely cited in academic papers, but as of this moment it isn't so.

With regard to the Leaky Cauldron website, it is indeed notable with regard to Harry Potter. It is one of the largest and best known Potter-related sites; it has been recognized by Rowling herself, who has praised the site on several occasions; it has been granted interviews with Rowling; it produces Pottercast, the best-known Potter podcast, which has also interviewed Rowling (during which interview she called the site her favourite fan site); Rowling also wrote the introduction to a book about Harry Potter by one of the site's founders. The Leaky Cauldron is extremely notable and therefore it is entirely appropriate for items published on the site to be cited in Wikipedia articles. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to state that IMO Pottercast is one of the best known Potter podcasts. MuggleCast is surely as well known as Pottercast and I don't think you could call either one "the best known Harry Potter podcast." Just wanted to clarify that. Anakinjmt (talk) 07:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'see also' section

I see boxes to the HP Portal and Book have been added in the See also section. That's fine by me, but that section contains only those two boxes and I think they look a little ugly. I solved the 'problem' by adding links to the other three spin-off works by JKR (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Quidditch Through the Ages, Harry Potter prequel). People might object to this since these are already mentioned in the article itself, and links are available in the box at the bottom. I'd argue that links to the Portal and Book can also be found in the box at the bottom, so since these two can be in two places, so can these three links. :) (Besides, it's probably good to emphasize the other spin-off titles better, right?) -- Diego_pmc ^Talk 17:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)