Talk:Melville House Publishing

External links modified (January 2018)
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012194114/http://www.publishers.org/press/releases.cfm?PressReleaseArticleID=366 to http://www.publishers.org/press/releases.cfm?PressReleaseArticleID=366
 * Added tag to http://mhpbooks.com/mobylives/?page_id=2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319102819/http://www.pierogi2000.com/flatfile/meriansv.html to http://www.pierogi2000.com/flatfile/meriansv.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080201115551/http://racked.com/archives/2008/01/22/now_open_melville_house.php to http://racked.com/archives/2008/01/22/now_open_melville_house.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818063537/http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10224 to http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/10224
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114062836/http://www.charlierose.com/guests/renata-adler to http://www.charlierose.com/guests/renata-adler

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Books and authors missing
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)
 * Promoting authors' books is something publishers marketing department does. What was deleted was mostly inserted by people associated with Melville. If such contents can only come from primary source, then perhaps the items are not notable. After reviewing additional edits, I've found a pattern of some accounts making edits to author's biography that focuses on books by authors published through Melville. Graywalls (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Graywalls, in this series of edits 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)
 * Thanks for the reminder. I am wondering if you have something to comment about the extensive undisclosed connected and paid editing occurring around Melville, and its associated authors while you're at it. Graywalls (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no COI with this company. You saw and tagged the COI editors. Seeing as how they used their real name they had nothing to hide and were obviously unaware of our rules so you should be assuming good faith and working with them by improving the article, showing the way by example, not wholesale deleting everything on site which causes problems longer term. --  Green  C  01:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I was not saying or hinting that you were. These small errors you pointed out were something that happened while addressing the issues I pointed out, but you didn't say a thing about the underlying issues, so naturally I am wondering if you had anything to say about it. It appears that these bothered you more so than COI editing and promotional editing by agents of Melville House Publishing as you're not out fixing them or tagging them. The problem in retaining COI editor contents is that they cause articles to lean towards the presentation desired by the publisher more so than encyclopedic. Graywalls (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem of deleting reasonable content which is fundamentally encyclopedic (like books and authors published by a publisher; or what does "activist" mean) is unless you plan on watching the article for the rest of your life and afterwards, they will eventually fill the void again. So do it right now and they won't feel the need to do so. You assume they are here to advertise, maybe, but they are also filling in a gap of information since no one else has done so. They might take a spin on it but that is understandable they are not regular users, which is why we need to help not combat. -- Green  C  02:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems like you and I have different values, because it seems as you find punctuation errors more troubling than the occurrences of undisclosed and promotional purpose editing. When promotional editing is allowed to get by, it causes articles to be used for public relations and promotional purposes. A look into the editing pattern of accounts and IPs tagged above shows a strong evidence of compensated connected contribution. They didn't just add list of authors into the page, but they created some of the author's pages as well as massively editing in the presentation they want to be seen. As publishers stand to gain profit from sale of books and marketing them is part of it, there's a significant conflict of interest in their editing and causes pages to become as if they're extension of their websites and blogs. "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." from WP:SPS makes a good point. Graywalls (talk) 09:41, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Activist
Regarding this edit:

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)
 * "it leaves a gap in understanding." that's the whole point. Per policy on contents must be directly supported. If sources say they're known for "activist publisher" and other sources talk about their leftist perspectives, you can't merge them together to form "leftist activist publisher" as this is not a source-drawn conclusion. I looked at the sources. I don't find that they DIRECTLY support the claim, but rather, it's a inferred conclusion. Leave it up to the reader to infer this conclusion. We don't put it in article unless reliable sources directly say so. Graywalls (talk) 02:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, if we hold an RfC, you think the wider community would agree with you? My sense is you are now doubling down against the obvious. -- Green  C  02:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , since you reverted, can you show which sources DIRECTLY support what you reverted back-on without having to make any interpretation? Which sources draw the conclusion that the publisher has a "reputation of a left leaning activity press" rather than making the inference of their leftist attitude, and a reputation as an activist press? They also publish novels too and I find the conclusion you have drawn inadequately supported. Thanks for providing explanation. Since you seem to be familiar with this article, it would be best if you could just find the sources that directly support it. Graywalls (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * * "works of political reportage with a leftist streak" (New Yorker)
 * * "liberal publishing house" (American Booksellers Association).
 * * "Melville House publishes many books that are liberal and left wing" (LA Times)
 * * "Brooklyn's Melville House, an activist press, is having a heyday as a voice of the resistance" (The Resistance (American political movement))
 * "Activist" can mean anything. The political spectrum needs to be included otherwise it is meaningless. They are clearly activist (they claim to be), and clearly liberal/leftist publisher (as others observe). These terms inform one another conceptually they are related. Yes they publish novels and those are also often leftist in nature like Hans Fallada who is anti-fascist. -- Green  C  02:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So, you can say they have a reputation as an "activist press" and they publish many books that are liberal and left wing" without drawing inferred conclusion that they have a "reputation as a left wing activist press". Wording matters a TON. See WP:SYN. Graywalls (talk) 02:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * They are a leftist press (source) with an activist agenda (source). This is not SYN. -- Green  C  02:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

AIGA
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 Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_310 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)
 * We usually and frequently cite the award page itself for verification purposes. This is standard across Wikipedia. There is no requirement that an award be notable. The notability guidelines concern topic-level not content-level. If there is a plurality of awards listed, or in certain spheres like movies and music which spawn endless variations of awards there are some arguments for using notability guidelines but I don't see that being a problem here. You'd have to explain specifically why this award is so problematic you want to remove it. Trying to piggy back on that PETA conversation lacks the context of this article and this award.  --  Green  C  03:38, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:VNOTSUFF clearly sides with the burden being on INSERTION, not REMOVAL. Where's the justification that burden falls on the removal? I was asking someone.. not necessary just you, what the level of importance of this award. If it is basically the equivalent of a Jr. High honor roll, I'm tempted to remove it. Graywalls (talk) 03:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL an award by Jr. High honor roll.  --  Green  C  04:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Verge etc..
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)

unverifiable contents
, 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)

Observed COI inserts explained
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.


 * Set 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melville_House_Publishing&type=revision&diff=189193866&oldid=186314315
 * Set 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Melville_House_Publishing&type=revision&diff=741312100&oldid=737241572

Graywalls (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The AIGA award has been investigated and readded by neutral editors. -- Green  C  15:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

"Paid editors"
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)


 * If I understand this correctly, we're in a disagreement over threshold of evidence for "paid editing". There's nothing that says in-house editing by employees are treated differently than third party public relations editing services. At least you recognize that what those accounts are connected and making those edits to "pitches in and does work". There is no requirement that to constitute a paid editing, that a payment exchanged for the express itemized, documented purpose of making edits to specific articles. The company has shown that they use implicit shared accounts named under the title, company brand, or titles that are used to make edits to the articles clearly linked to the company business endeavor (the company itself, adding references to the company in books and authors they published and substantial edits being overwhelmingly confined to those where there's close-proximity financial interest of the publisher) through accounts Melville House, Melville Interns, Mobylives, Mobylives9. The use of accounts named intern builds fairly good supposition that they're doing so as part of their internship. Given the very strong financial stake the publisher has in the sale of the authors books published through the publisher, the generally promotional (adding links to book buying links for example), I believe it sufficiently passes the duck test that these edits are done in connection for the editing person's professional position (internship, employee, proprietorship) that is in general interest of the employer. The other accounts and IP edits that are not necessarily in violation of user name policy still show adequate signs of paid editing, when taking the totality of editing pattern similarity together with the affirmatively related accounts. Graywalls (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Accounts dubious paid editors:
 * User:Mitchmar - self-declared COI (MHP author) but their editing history is varied and not always concerns MHP
 * User:Herman9 - looks similar to Mitchmar, probably a MHP-connected author but not enough evidence of paid editor.
 * User:69.38.160.162 - Likely a COI perhaps a loyal customer (lives in Queens), a friend of the family, etc.. not enough evidence of paid editor
 * -- Green  C  21:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the definition you're suggesting as connected, but not paid? Someone editing a page on their spouse is a good example, but I'd say co-owners, major shareholders and such fall under "paid". The company was named after Herman Melville. The similarly between the name Mobylives9 and Herman 9 together with the edit pattern is an indication. Based on the preponderance of evidence, I would say suggesting they're paid is reasonable.Graywalls (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)