User:SOTO/Forum Archive/Inclusion debates/@comment-31010985-20190928203157/@comment-24894325-20191013223925
More actions
There was another round of strong rebuttals of what I never said or meant.
Let me start with AthenodoraKitten and answer her question whether "this is actually what [I am] arguing for?" where "this" represents her long post. The answer is, "No, it is not."
Next there is Scrooge MacDuck's "rebuttal":
Plus, you don't seem to follow your "if we follow one definition we have to follow the other" to its logical conclusion. If one cannot rely on the dictionary definition of "publisher" without also accepting the dictionary definition of "fanfiction", then the reverse ought to hold: you can only try to argue that the stories are invalid based on T:NO FANFIC for being fanfiction if you also accept the non-legalese definition of "publisher". And if you accept said non-legalese definition, then the stories are no longer "posted by a fan", they are released by a publisher.
The problem with this "rebuttal" is that just because Bwburke94 said that I had proposed to use MW definition of fan fiction, does not mean that I actually proposed it. The clue was when I said, "I myself do not particularly like this definition." (There is also a logical fallacy hidden there because T:NO FANFIC is not tied to Merriam-Webster definition of fan fiction. So there is no problem using T:NO FANFIC while rejecting the MW or some other layman's definition of publisher. But since that was not what I was arguing, this point is academic.)
It was not me who proposed to use layman's terms instead of professional commercial ones. It was Borisashton when he used Merriam-Webster as a source for Arcbeatle Press not being a self-publisher. Scrooge MacDuck at first enthusiastically agreed calling Merriam-Webster "America's most trusted online dictionary". After which I showed why it is a bad idea, both for defining publishers/self-publishers and fan fiction by showing how precise Merriam-Webster is in other situations of interest to this validity debate.
If Arcbeatle Press were a commercial publisher, its commercial partners selling its books would have known about it. Barnes & Noble, for instance, sells many of Arcbeatle books. For some reason, Barnes & Noble completely ignores the clear instructions of "America's most trusted online dictionary" and provides no hits when one searches for "Arcbeatle". For instance, here is one of 10,000 Dawns books, the crossover with which we are discussing. According to Barnes & Noble, the publisher is CreateSpace Publishing, not Arcbeatle Press. Moreover, if you read the blurb about himself by James Wylder (emphasis mine),
An eternal Science-Fiction fan, James Wylder was born in Elkhart Indiana, and later attended Hanover College where his play "Cryptos" had an extended run. He's since gone on to produce the popular Doctor Who poetry book, "An Eloquence of Time and Space", two other books of poetry, a short story collection, and several other plays. James is also a writer for Shotgun Angel Games, LLC.
Barnes & Noble reports a publication date about half a year after the creation of the Facebook page for Arcbeatle Press. However, just like in his even later interview quoted in my prior posts, the author does not mention Arcbeatle Press as a company he owns. Instead, he bills himself as a writer for Shotgun Angel Games, LLC. (Perhaps, one could also make a case for the author billing himself as a book producer.)
I did not see sources for Arcbeatle Press being a publishing company other than Arcbeatle Press, James Wylder and other people listed as his collaborators. In particular, the alleged acknowledgment of Arcbeatle Press as a publisher by Decipher, Inc., mentioned by Scrooge MacDuck above, is also sourced to the website of James Wylder/Arcbeatle Press rather than that of Decipher. It is not another publisher stating that Arcbeatle Press is a publisher. It is Arcbeatle Press stating that it is a publisher and implying that another publisher agrees.
To quote from T:NO SELF REF (emphasis from the policy),
It is a fundamental truth of show business that people lie about themselves.
Accordingly, in order to avoid getting into verifying veracity of anyone, the rule has always been to use facts that are independently verifiable. Outlets selling books by all other DW publishers know about these other publishers and, hence, provide such a requisite independent verification. Arcbeatle Press is the only exception I know of. Professional bibliographical databases also provide independent verification for all other book publishers, again except for Arcbeatle Press.
James Wylder himself called himself a self-publisher (see quotes above) just two years ago, when most Arcbeatle books had already been published. Those claims have a clear confirmation in standard publishing commercial practices. All commercial distributors and databases agree that there is no (as of 14 October 2019) publisher called Arcbeatle Press.
Now James Wylder says that Arcbeatle Press is a publisher and lists many books he previously described as self-published. And the only proposed argument in support of this change (other than "James Wylder said so") is Merriam-Webster, if we are to accept the common sense definition of publisher instead of professional one.
In fact, here is his current self-description of his work on Facebook (emphasis mine)
Freelance writer
Writer · 2010 to present · Elkhart, Indiana
I have self-published a book of poetry, and my play "Cryptos" is a part of Hanover College's Fall Theater Season. I am accepting commissions.
(I am not providing a link to prevent further complaints of privacy violations that can lead to the deletion of this thread the same way as the first one.)
If you are still in doubt, here is his current self-description from his professional Facebook page as a writer (emphasis mine):
Author of "10,000 Dawns", "Cryptos", "Cascade", "An Eloquence of Time and Space", and "Death! And the Doubling Cubes." A Freelance Writer open to commissions.
He is not an owner of a small press. He is a freelance writer.
UPD: It was later pointed out by Borisashton that it was also his description of Merriam-Webster as the most trusted dictionary, not Scrooge MacDuck's. Scrooge MacDuck did embrace the use of definitions from Merriam-Webster, however, by stating "But User:Borisashton's point that Merriam-Webster's defines it rather differently stands." Apologies for the unintended misquotation.