![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of publisher headquarters be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Melville House Publishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mhpbooks.com/mobylives/?page_id=2When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It's strange that an article about a publisher doesn't mention anything they actually publish. Look at other publisher articles it is a major focus, this is what the company actually does and their reason for existence. A history of notable authors and books is oddly missing from the article. -- Green C 14:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, in this series of edits [1] you neglected to close sentences with periods four times. I don't usually nit pick stuff like this but it is a notable lack of stoppage. -- Green C 00:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: [2]
What does "activist" mean? "campaigning to bring about political or social change". What kind of change is Melville House trying to enact? Look at what they say. Johnson once said they formed the company with the notion of "getting Bush out of office". They have published a series of anti-Trump books including one quite significant The Making of Donald Trump. They published the Pope's Laudato si' about climate change. They published Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture. They published books by Hans Fallada who was anti-Fascist. They publish Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook; and Collusion, by Carlo Bonini, the reporter who was the primary source for disproving the Bush Administration’s fraudulent “Niger-gate” documents; and Torture Taxi, by Trevor Paglen and A.C. Thompson, the first book on the CIA’s rendition program, which included the first photographs of torture facilities. Other titles include The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting ..., Digital Civil War: Confronting the Far-Right Menace.
The New Yorker says it publishes "works of political reportage with a leftist streak".
These are all books about issues important to the left and titles that only a leftist publisher would make. If we are saying they are activist, without context of where they are on the political spectrum, it leaves a gap in understanding. -- Green C 02:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I want to remove "Melville House has won several AIGA (American Institute of Graphic Arts) awards for its cover and interior designs." that cites the AIGA page itself. The argument presented Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_310#PETA makes a good case. Is this award notable? If so, where can I look that attests to this award being notable that isn't the organization itself? Graywalls ( talk) 03:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
First off, there are WP:BLP issues so any sort of negative content will need to have appropriate weight. A single tabloid-sensationlist interview is thin gruel to hang "Johnson is known for picking fights with other publishing houses", much less in the lead section of an article about a publishing company. Secondly, this article is about the publishing company and the source says "Dennis Johnson", "he", etc. Third, it says "possibly" best known, as in, the author made this up and it is their opinion but there is really no evidence of this being Johnson's "best known" reputation other than this singular author's opinion. Fourth, the Verge has come up often at RSN and has had mixed reviews of reliability, again, not a good source for such an opinionated claim about the reputation of a BLP. -- Green C 05:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@ GreenC:, it's a fact that the cited claim was unverifiable and personally I think the information is unimportant trivia, and I could have just removed it as unreferenced, the citation did not support the claim. Instead I marked it as "verification failed". I feel you're not WP:AGF in this edit summary with "make an effort at improving Wikipedia not wearing down editors which is disruptive". If you come across something you find rather unimportant and unsourced (or have a citation that doesn't support it), I'm unaware of any expectations that other editors go find sources for them as opposed to just removing it. So, if you don't like the tags, would it have been better if I just removed it? Keeping in mind that this is an article that has experienced massive undisclosed paid editing by the company earlier. Graywalls ( talk) 21:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
These are not all, but the largest chunks of UPE that have occurred. The recent trims are to minimize the editorial discretion exercised by undisclosed COI editing as far as contents selection and phrasing.
Graywalls ( talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The list at the top of "paid editors" is dubious. There is little evidence they were paid expressly for the purpose of editing Wikipedia. That notion is usually reserved for third party organizations that are editing farms. When someone who belongs to an organization, in particular small businesses where everyone pitches in and does work outside their expected job title or work hours (such as from home on the weekend etc), it's very difficult if not impossible to say it was a "paid edit". No question many of these are COI but that is not the same as a paid editor. Tagging them as such without evidence is a problem. Furthermore, some of those listed are being tagged as COI/Paid simply because they added links to MHP as if this fact alone is sufficient. A more simple explanation is that MHP content is being added by unconnected editors because they produce reliable content about specialized topics that is generally unavailable anywhere else, and people who are interested in that specialized content are updating Wikipedia with a source they found - their interest is in the topic not MHP. -- Green C 14:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | The
Wikimedia Foundation's
Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see
WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see
WP:COIRESPONSE.
|
![]() | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
![]() | It is requested that an image or photograph of publisher headquarters be
included in this article to
improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific
media request template where possible.
Wikipedians in New York City may be able to help! The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Melville House Publishing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://mhpbooks.com/mobylives/?page_id=2When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
It's strange that an article about a publisher doesn't mention anything they actually publish. Look at other publisher articles it is a major focus, this is what the company actually does and their reason for existence. A history of notable authors and books is oddly missing from the article. -- Green C 14:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Graywalls, in this series of edits [1] you neglected to close sentences with periods four times. I don't usually nit pick stuff like this but it is a notable lack of stoppage. -- Green C 00:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding this edit: [2]
What does "activist" mean? "campaigning to bring about political or social change". What kind of change is Melville House trying to enact? Look at what they say. Johnson once said they formed the company with the notion of "getting Bush out of office". They have published a series of anti-Trump books including one quite significant The Making of Donald Trump. They published the Pope's Laudato si' about climate change. They published Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture. They published books by Hans Fallada who was anti-Fascist. They publish Antifa: The Antifascist Handbook; and Collusion, by Carlo Bonini, the reporter who was the primary source for disproving the Bush Administration’s fraudulent “Niger-gate” documents; and Torture Taxi, by Trevor Paglen and A.C. Thompson, the first book on the CIA’s rendition program, which included the first photographs of torture facilities. Other titles include The Destruction of Hillary Clinton, It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats Can Build a Lasting ..., Digital Civil War: Confronting the Far-Right Menace.
The New Yorker says it publishes "works of political reportage with a leftist streak".
These are all books about issues important to the left and titles that only a leftist publisher would make. If we are saying they are activist, without context of where they are on the political spectrum, it leaves a gap in understanding. -- Green C 02:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
I want to remove "Melville House has won several AIGA (American Institute of Graphic Arts) awards for its cover and interior designs." that cites the AIGA page itself. The argument presented Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_310#PETA makes a good case. Is this award notable? If so, where can I look that attests to this award being notable that isn't the organization itself? Graywalls ( talk) 03:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
First off, there are WP:BLP issues so any sort of negative content will need to have appropriate weight. A single tabloid-sensationlist interview is thin gruel to hang "Johnson is known for picking fights with other publishing houses", much less in the lead section of an article about a publishing company. Secondly, this article is about the publishing company and the source says "Dennis Johnson", "he", etc. Third, it says "possibly" best known, as in, the author made this up and it is their opinion but there is really no evidence of this being Johnson's "best known" reputation other than this singular author's opinion. Fourth, the Verge has come up often at RSN and has had mixed reviews of reliability, again, not a good source for such an opinionated claim about the reputation of a BLP. -- Green C 05:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
@ GreenC:, it's a fact that the cited claim was unverifiable and personally I think the information is unimportant trivia, and I could have just removed it as unreferenced, the citation did not support the claim. Instead I marked it as "verification failed". I feel you're not WP:AGF in this edit summary with "make an effort at improving Wikipedia not wearing down editors which is disruptive". If you come across something you find rather unimportant and unsourced (or have a citation that doesn't support it), I'm unaware of any expectations that other editors go find sources for them as opposed to just removing it. So, if you don't like the tags, would it have been better if I just removed it? Keeping in mind that this is an article that has experienced massive undisclosed paid editing by the company earlier. Graywalls ( talk) 21:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
These are not all, but the largest chunks of UPE that have occurred. The recent trims are to minimize the editorial discretion exercised by undisclosed COI editing as far as contents selection and phrasing.
Graywalls ( talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
The list at the top of "paid editors" is dubious. There is little evidence they were paid expressly for the purpose of editing Wikipedia. That notion is usually reserved for third party organizations that are editing farms. When someone who belongs to an organization, in particular small businesses where everyone pitches in and does work outside their expected job title or work hours (such as from home on the weekend etc), it's very difficult if not impossible to say it was a "paid edit". No question many of these are COI but that is not the same as a paid editor. Tagging them as such without evidence is a problem. Furthermore, some of those listed are being tagged as COI/Paid simply because they added links to MHP as if this fact alone is sufficient. A more simple explanation is that MHP content is being added by unconnected editors because they produce reliable content about specialized topics that is generally unavailable anywhere else, and people who are interested in that specialized content are updating Wikipedia with a source they found - their interest is in the topic not MHP. -- Green C 14:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)