Talk:The Lonesome Place

Claim story was used by another author

(WP:BRD: When you boldly make a change and another editor reverts your edit, it is time to discuss the issue.)

Another editor has repeatedly added the claim that this story was used by another author in their novel. Essentially, this is an unsourced claim that the other author stole the story. This is a WP:BLP issue. Please do not restore the claim until the issue is resolved.

The first restoration of the claim added a cite to this story. Yes, the story exists. The claim that it is similar to the novel is synthesis. There are two sources, this story (A) and the novel (B). comparing the two, the editor reaches the conclusion (C) that they are similar. This conclusion is not directly stated by either source.

"Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources....If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." - WP:SYN

The second restoration of the claim adds a blog as the source for the claim. The blog states, "I'm almost certain it was floating around somewhere in the back of Stephen King's mind or in his subconscious when he conceived It." This statement is quite different from the editors list of "elements" they consider to be similar. More to the point, the source is a blog, a self-published source.

"...self-published media, such as ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources. ...if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." - WP:SPS - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:38, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Quite the contrary: The editor has not "added the claim that this story was used by another author in their (sic) novel." On the contrary, this editor is only pointing out similar/shared themes and elements in the genre, which is common to Wikipedia literary entries (see Dracula, for example). No "claims" are made. As for the blog listing, that same blog post had been used as a prior reference before this editor cited it again as a reference. In effect, the similarities are real, and factual, and deserve to be pointed out in a comprehensive review of the work. Andreldritch (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, other articles exist and there is other material in this article. Some other articles might be among the best articles we have and still have problems. They might also be quite different from this article. There are also articles which violate Wikipedia's core policies. Somme of those articles contain spelling errors. Should we add a few in here? Of course not: We should correct the other article. If someone adds a misspelling here, we should correct it here, not say, "But the other article..." Saying other articles do X, Y or Z demonstrates only that another article did something, not that it should. What demonstrates what should be done? Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Your comparison is synthesis or unsourced, take your pick. If you are comparing two stories, it is WP:OR/WP:SYN because you did not present a reliable source making that comparison. If your source is a blog, your "source" is not a source so it is unsourced (that the blog doesn't say what you are citing it for is an added problem).

"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." - WP:BURDEN

You do not have a reliable source directly supporting the comparison. The apparent implication that the other author stole the story (or, gee, maybe got permission and "neglected" to mention it or are you saying it's an amazing coincidence?) is not supported by a reliable source.

It's a bit hard to figure out which policies and guidelines apply here as you have several competing claims here (it's not a comparison it's a "fact", it doesn't need to be sourced, the source though not reliable is acceptable, we do this all the time, etc.). I am saying you have not provided a reliable source for the comparison which needs a reliable source. Which part of that are you disputing?

Incidentally, I used singular "they" as I consider the implication of the comparison to be controversial. No sic required. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Overt pendanticism aside, you have missed the point of adding common thematic genre elements by stating that there is an implication where none exists. This is based solely on your opinion, and not factually supported. Additionally, your defense of the use of the singular "they" is incorrect because you are considering that an implication has been made against more than one author, when no implication has been made at all, as I have reiterated. This entry still deserves to have such a comparison included in order to be more comprehensive. Andreldritch (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah, "pendanticism (sic)", blah, blah, blah, you don't like singular they. Maybe it's a coincidence. Whatever.

Bottom line: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." IMO, following the project's core policies is not pedanticism. YMMV. IMO, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research — such as facts, allegations, and ideas — for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

If you'd like to change that policy ("Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it is probably OK. If someone wants to add that -- through plagiarism or cosmic coincidence -- an author copied another author, the Queen is a human-alien hybrid, or Nostradamus totally predicted the last season of GOT, it should be fine, as long as you have a blog that kind of alludes to it and you don't use singular they in a way another editor doesn't approve of.") you have a long road ahead of you.

Core policies apply to this article. If you feel they shouldn't it would be your burden to explain why this case is special. If you feel you do have reliable sources for the analysis, please present it. If you feel the blog is a reliable source, I'm afraid you are simply mistaken. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Your Achilles' heel, and lack of understanding of the English language, is on full view. As is your style of blah, blah, blah, quasi-hipster, low-brow pendanticism (but I'm glad you caught the actual use of sic for pendant vs. pedant). It's been fun to watch. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pedanticism

Great, we're done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)