Wikipedia:Peer review/Works analogous to Harry Potter/archive1

Works analogous to Harry Potter
OK. First off let me say that this is not a peer review in the conventional sense, because this is not a conventional article and wasn't intended to be. I do not expect this article ever to be rated as an FA or even a GA. I created this page in an attempt to corral and control the exploding number of edits by people convinced that JK Rowling ripped off their favourite authors. Some of the claims (such as "JK Rowling ripped off Alan Moore because both of their works reference Guy Fawkes") are too ludicrous for inclusion, but a number have been discussed elsewhere. This article consists of two main sections. One, "Cited works," deals with those works for which I can find authoritative sources comparing them to the works of JK Rowling. The other, "Other examples", is an OR "sandbox" for people to post their own rants. Occasionally, an "Other example" gets promoted to cited works. The "Other examples" section is a pressure valve to allow for the anger of editors to be constructively released. Therefore I must ask that you take in stride the huge amount of OR in this page.

That out of the way, my problem concerns the section on Jill Murphy. It's hard to deny the similarities between Rowling and Murphy's work. I can provide a number of sources comparing them. However, a rumour has circulated for years concerning a purported lawsuit mooted by Murphy against Rowling. In all likelihood this lawsuit never happened, but a number of editors have rewritten pages to claim that it has. IMDB still claims that this lawsuit took place. But since it didn't (or at least almost certainly didn't), there's no reference to it anywhere online. I'm stuck in the unenviable position of having to prove a negative. What should I do? Serendipodous 16:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You don't have to prove a negative. If no information exists in reliable sources, then the disputed facts can be removed without prejudice.  IMDB is user edited.  User edits have to pass through a kind of editorial review, but the site is no more reliable than a Wiki, and is generally deprecated for use in reporting facts any more complicated than the actors and crew of a film.  Basically, if it only shows up in the IMDB trivia pages, don't trust it.  Simply put, the onus is on the editor trying to ADD the fact to prove, by the use of reliable sources that the fact is verifiable.  If it isn't verifiable, it shouldn't be in the article, period.  If editors continue to push the issue, there are means of remediation... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see automated peer review suggestions here. Thanks, APR t 23:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)