Talk:Conlan Press

NPOV Dispute
The article's contents and numerous external links appear to contradict Wikipedia's neutrality policy as they serve to attack the subject, Conlan Press (see WP:NPOV). Considering a re-write of this article to make neutral. JRHorse (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

The article has been rewritten to ensure WP:NPOV. NPOV tag has been removed. JRHorse (talk) 14:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This "article" is not neutral in any way- It sounds like the publisher wrote it himself, please include following facts about this business too: 2010 - Baker and Taylor sued Cochran for approximately $6300 for breach of contract. http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=50720808&z=fdf68f18 2011: Sydney Clemens sued Cochran for for the return of $25,000 http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=43270119&z=0a6c436a 2012: Penguin Group sued Cochran for approximately $3400 plus legal fees http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/download.html?id=50720808&z=fdf68f18

You could also include the following Consumer Complaints for Conlan Press : http://www.bbb.org/greater-san-francisco/business-reviews/publishers-book/conlan-press-in-montara-ca-153083/complaints#breakdown — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:8600:B080:C1C2:A679:AFDC:4CDD (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

NPOV v2
I also agree that the current stub version of the article largely written by JRHorse is neutral while the expanded version that a few editors have attempted to insert is not. We can't use court documents that have never been reported on in secondary sources to form an attack page against the publisher; it's not neutral. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:15, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

To the contrary, numerous secondary sources are presented in the most complete version of the article. These adequately overcome challenges to "due and undue weight" by bearing out previous edits that were reported as not "neutral". The story has developed beyond these out-of-date complaints and the proof has been both filed in court and reported in the media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosscoe99 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that was all reported in the original version which didn't include things like the sentence linking to BBB complaints (a primary source) or the numerous court filings. The fact that there's some legitimate information in there (which was in the article before) doesn't justify the other changes. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:22, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

The previous version was heavily biased against Peter Beagle, with viewpoints that have been judged invalid in court. That information is reported in new secondary sources, and none of it was in the article before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosscoe99 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * References to blogs, court filings, etc. are not reliable secondary sources. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:32, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Vice is a well known journalistic source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_(magazine) - Bleeding Cool is maintained by "the oldest extant comic news reporter on the web." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Johnston The information reported by all of these sources provides converging evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosscoe99 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Vice is reputable, which is why it could be used in the original small section. It doesn't justify an expansion to fill the entire article, nor does it justify using the court documents for statements not covered in vice. I won't comment on the citation of a comics new website for information about court proceedings, as I think that stands on its own. ~ Rob 13 Talk 04:47, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

That is backpedaling. Why not rewrite, instead of wanton removal to vandalize an important story, and revert it to heavily biased public relations sourced only from the owner of a company. Those statements are now disproven in court and by medical evidence cited in secondary sources. Repeating them without the contradicting proof cited in the most complete version of the article is a defamatory attack on Peter S. Beagle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosscoe99 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to see those statements go too unless sourced to reliable sources. I'll be rewriting the section later today, given the BLP issues. WP:BLPRESTORE applies. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)