Talk:Cassandra Clare

Criticism

Does Cassandra Clare meet the criteria for notability? I had held off from creating an entry for her book/series because I did not think it met grounds for notability. Currently the sources cited are her own website and links to fanfiction which is attributed to a different spelling of her name (without making light of the name change).

At this point in time I don't believe this author merits an entry Nancy Vandal 06:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if she's notable in herself, but the controversy on LiveJournal and in the fanfic community surrounding Clare's plagiarism of novelist Pamela Dean in her Harry Potter fanfic might be notable. Although, honestly, this article probably belongs on AfD.75.17.201.223 01:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I love how this controversy, despite being arguably the most well-known thing about her before she altered her pen name and got the Mortal Instruments published, is completely and utterly unmentioned in this article - she's notorious for it, and it verifiably happened, and it's just not even MENTIONED. It's like it's been completely whitewashed from it. Unsettling... 68.202.85.105 (talk) 04:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra had a unicorn in his closet dead and when the police saw it she was nearly to take her own life — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.21.215 (talk) 06:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

AfD result

The consensus of the debate was keep, but there was also a suggestion to merge the the article. Editors are certainly free to come to a consensus about merging content. Cool Hand Luke 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

copyvio or COI?

This whole article is pretty closely cribbed from:

• http://www.cassandraclare.com/bio.html

by User:Cassieclare

Comments before I tag it as a copyvio? --Jack Merridew 10:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Draco Trilogy

Where's the mention of Draco Dormiens/Draco Sinister/Draco Veritas that we KNOW belongs in this article? The Draco Trilogy was largely responsible for a number of highly common portrayals of Draco, in addition to extremely popular methods of 'shipping him. I suggest working off of [ here ] in terms of information, and the actual text can be found here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.21.94 (talk) 17:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, it was one of the early works that shot her to fame, and then subsequently shot her to infamy after it was found a portion was lifted from a Pamela Dean novel without proper credit (regardless of whether you feel fanfiction.net was right to ban her for it, it DID happen, and it WAS an infamous case in fandom). The fact that it is just completely absent is strange and disconcerting. 68.202.85.105 (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sources

In my search for some sources to show notability, I found these interviews but I couldn't figure out how to work them into the article:

• Blog Critics
• Powells
• Write Words

If someone else could weave them in, that would be great. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of City of Bones

An article that you have been involved in editing, City of Bones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Bones. Thank you. Jack Merridew 12:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources on Fan Fiction, Plagiarism debate

I've journeyed into Lexus Nexus to add more than a half-dozen relevant legal journal, newspaper, and book sources for these claims. Can we please put this to rest now? The last thing this article needs is a reliable host for CC's well-known fan fiction. How can this be accomplished? Infoaddict1 (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I love how those references to the whole thing have been erased from everywhere but the talk page. If someone can track down the stuff that's clearly been removed, please do so. It's such a gap I'm not sure where to start... 68.202.85.105 (talk) 04:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

the Very Secret Diaries - http://www.ealasaid.com/misc/vsd/ or http://web.archive.org/web/20040115101006/http://homepages.nyu.edu/%7Eamw243/diaries/ Alanthehat (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

the Draco Trilogy - quite a lengthy article here - http://fanlore.org/wiki/The_Draco_Trilogy - including references & links Alanthehat (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Neither Fanlore.org nor Ealasaid.com can be considered reliable enough for controversial information about a living person. See the BLP guideline. Binksternet (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Awards section

it seems that most authors' articles don't list every award/nomination. Some articles include a link to a separate "Awards earned by Author X" article, others, like JK Rowling only note a few awards within the article's text. For now, I'm going to remove all the nominations and leave the wins, and note that she has received numerous other nominations. If someone else would like to create the page "Awards and nominations of Cassandra Clare" they would be more than welcome to. Infoaddict1 (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The current dispute

Right now we have an edit war occurring on this article, and I'd like to head this off before any sanctions need to be handed out. Reverting edits you disagree with as "vandalism" is factually incorrect and not productive, but any BLP concerns regarding controversial material must be addressed. At least one party has tried to bring this to the talk page, so maybe we can come up with a compromise. I've left a message with a few of the recent contributors to ask if they're interested in giving input as to how they'd like to settle this dispute. -- Atama頭 06:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There are two issues as I see it. For some reason, the other editor doesn't see CC's fan fiction as being at all notable; furthermore he sees the inclusion of fan fiction on her wiki article as being an attempt to embarrass CC. If she were embarrassed about this, she wouldn't have kept her pseudonym, I imagine!

Beside that, I did not originate much at the fan fiction material on this page; as far as I have read back on the CC page, fan fiction has been mentioned, because it is how her career started. As far as I know, that hasn't ever been a disputed piece of information. Furthermore, CC has been interviewed or mentioned in numerous publications due to her relationship to the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings fan fiction, as I've cited.

When I originally sourced the article back in June, I didn't have access to a better search portal than Google to find valid publications about CC. However, when an editor earlier today pointed out the unreliability of some of the citations I used, I spent the entire day gathering very credible and appropriate citations from: io9, The Age, Mail on Sunday and a number of law journals and books via Lexis Nexus. Many of the mentions of CC in these articles/books can be found in abstracts online for free. As I stated above, I removed ALL blog sources for the plagiarism debate, and have only now cited published works.

As I see it, all my citations about Clare's fan fiction, plagiarism scandal, famous fan fiction stories, and relationship between The Mortal Instruments series and The Draco Trilogy stand fine. If there are issues with some of the personal (still cited, mostly from her own website) information posted that need to be addressed, I'd like to understand what those issues are. I'd like to resolve this issue quickly, however, before the page requires extensive editing to be reverted back to an adequate state. Infoaddict1 (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline. The edit history of this article isn't going anywhere, not unless there's some BLP violation so terrible as to require oversight, and if there is then this discussion is moot anyway. On that note, I need to sleep, but I'll be around tomorrow to help out. Thanks. -- Atama頭 07:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Question to clarify dispute

Are we talking primarily the differences between these two versions [1]? Active Banana (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe that is the case. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz believes that the sourcing is inadequate for those statements in a BLP and went as far as to call it "vandalism". It might be best to discuss each piece of information and source individually. -- Atama頭 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

With a quick glance, I have to say that I share Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's concern that many of the sources appear questionable at best. Twitter, some sites that are being blocked access for questionable material etc. Some of the sites that should be reliable dont really seem to support the phrasing and content as included in the article. With a BLP article, we need to be on very firm ground with the quality of sources used and with the proper representation of their content. Active Banana (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting to my last version + changes that have been made since then. Please look this over to see that everything is adequately covered. Unfortunately I've changed the lede from "controversial" fan fiction to mention the plagiarism scandal because the other editor strongly objected to the term "controversial", so I figured I'd just post the terms used in the sources.

Twitter (for a direct reference to her boyfriend) was used because it had already been used to establish CC's location. She has never been shy about her boyfriend; he's mentioned off and on in her personal blog not usually by name, but by mostly by handle (protean, and previously something else which I've forgotten). I've removed the link, however, and anything that's now blocked (I see that the Mortal Instruments original story has been blocked from archive.org)

As to phrasing, I suppose because MOST OF these articles mention the plagiarism ACCUSATION but don't go into many details (which can be found online easily), that should be amended. I've only included the details directly stated in each of the sources. I've also added a link to cassandraclaire.com, but am not quoting anything from there, just adding it to show that it exists. Is that an okay use? I've kept the lede "best known for" as I've seen it on other pages, and I don't know that it conflicts with "has written" if both the fan fiction and pro writing is mentioned there; those are the only 2 things the author is known for, from what I understand.

One quick thing--is there a reliable place to host some of her fan fiction? as fan fiction, it's doesn't qualify for DMCA protection, but most sites have removed her work due to cease & desist letters. The original "Mortal Instruments" story is the one I really care to preserve, due to its name and content similarities to her published work. Any ideas? Thanks! Infoaddict1 (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I started going through to verify and found far too much that was far too questionable re WP:BLP and WP:V and WP:RS to allow your changes to stay. I have reverted back to the minimal version and suggest that each proposed change is community vetted on the talk page first. Active Banana (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

First, Infoaddict1, please don't revert to a version that contains questionable information. Biographies of living people are very sensitive subjects and it's best to not have that information available to the "viewing public" to run across during the discussion. There's no need to have it in the article to review it, it's all present in the article history and can be linked to (as Active Banana did above). I know that you're new and I won't hold this against you, but just know that it's not necessary to restore material for others to review it and in this case it's especially important to avoid doing so.

Twitter is really just unacceptable, please see WP:BLPSPS where it explicitly mentions "tweets" as an unacceptable source. The only exception is if the tweets are from the article's subject, but even doing that has certain restrictions. As for using self-published sources, they aren't disallowed in BLPs, but go by the guidelines at WP:SELFPUB to make sure that they're being properly used.

As I'm not a lawyer, I can't really advise how to avoid lawsuits or cease-and-desist letters when publishing fan fiction online. -- Atama頭 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure why we would want to link to her fanfiction? Active Banana (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We wouldn't. That would possibly be a violation of WP:LINKVIO. But I assumed that Inoaddict1 was asking for personal reasons, I have had similar questions asked of me by other editors who wanted to publish their own works online somewhere. -- Atama頭 21:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't violate WP:LINKVIO because her fan works are not copywritten by their very nature of being fan works. Disclaims on the works state clearly she doesn't own the characters, places, etc. Potentially there could be an issue with JK Rowling but she's publicly stated she doesn't care about racy fan fiction. Infoaddict1 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That's completely wrong. Fan fiction is copyrighted, but the master copyright belongs to the creator of the underlying material, who has the exclusive right at law to create "derivative works." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Completely wrong? I said the only issue there could possibly be is with JK Rowling, the original author of the material. But the Legal issues with fan fiction page cites confirmation from Rowling's attorneys that she has no problems with HP fanfiction being released online. As the owner of the material, she has given her approval for it to be linked wherever. Infoaddict1 (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick things:

• 1) Her 3 most well-known stories were a) The Draco Trilogy b) The Very Secret Diaries c) Mortal Instruments. Her works have no copyright protection, and most authors whose work falls in the the PD have their works linked on their wiki pages. Very Secret Diaries has its own Wiki page, Draco Trilogy was deleted yesterday by HullaballooWolfowitz. IMO either they should all have pages or they should all be deleted. If links exist for those 2, Mortal Instruments should also be linked to due to its relevance to her published work.
• 2) no tweets are cited. CC's twitter page was used to show that CC lives in NYC, as per her personal, verified account. She has since changed her bio on her twitter page, but her official livejournal lists her as living in Brooklyn, New York http://cassandraclare.livejournal.com/profile. Her myspace lists this as well.
• 3) Her first "fame" came as a fan fiction author--as the numerous sources on the page mention. This fame was enough to get her mentioned in major publications..
• 4) The Anelli book mentions, on page 223 "[stories were] moved over to FictionAlley, the site that Heidi [Tandy, Clare's friend and attorney] set up after Cassandra Clare had been banned from Fanfiction.net for including large, unsourced patches of other published work in her fanfic." Anelli has defined plagiarism in this passage, and there is no mention of accusations. This is not a self-published book, in fact it was published by Simon & Schuster, the same publisher that publishes CC's novels. CC was a contributor to this book, and is thanked in the acknowledgments.

That being said, I understand the point about not having questionable content public as we edit. So let's just look at the citations in the last edit I made one by one to discuss.

• 1) NYT Bestsellers listed. No questions there.
• 2) Telegraph -- mentions accusations of plagiarism. Does it really matter who accused her when the accusation is published in a credible source like the telegraph? I'm unclear as to how nitpicky we get on sources on wiki.
• 3) Geek Speak magazine article. This is a notable blog, but IMO could be removed since it just repeats the mention of the accusations already mentioned in the Telegraph article.
• 4) The Anelli book, see above. The Anelli Book also mentions CC's fame as a fic author and her works.
• 5) Author's blurb at Sony.com, a reputable seller. Blurb was provided by the publisher, includes mention of her work at the Hollywood reporter, specifically. Don't see why this is suspect.
• 6) Cassandra Clare's twitter page, mentioning her living in Brooklyn. Since this isn't spelled out clearly enough, we can use her Myspace and/or Livejournal for the same purpose.
• 7) Q&A Interview with Powell's bookstore, a reputable seller. Available online, again don't see any issues here. This just mentions her cats.
• 8) CC's FAQ page on her official site. Mentions her living in Massachusetts, her writing group based there, and the works that inspire her. Don't see an issue here, obviously very official info.
• 9) This is news report, just used to again specify that Clare lives in Amherst near friend Holly Black. Don't see anything biased/off about this one. Am I wrong?
• 10) This book simply cites that CC was a famous fan fiction writer. Nothing not established previously.
• 11) CC's official bio on her site, which mentions her moving around/avid reading/origin of pseudonym
• 12) JIVE magazine interview. This interview has been on most incarnations of this page since the interview took place. Seems reputable to me.
• 13) The Age, very reputable Australian paper. Mentions Draco Trilogy, # page views.
• 14) Mail on Sunday, again reputable. Mentions CC's autograph signing, fame, age, more about draco trilogy
• 15) Law journal specifically discussing fandom and legality. LONG article. Relevant passage is reproduced here: "The fan fiction community takes plagiarism very seriously. n146 Simply by being presented as fan fiction, these works are unlikely to be mistaken for original works, but it is still common practice to include disclaimers (generally something along the lines of "I do not own these characters, this person does, please do not sue me"). n147 Although disclaimers do not have an effect on potential legality, they showcase the respect that the community has for the original author. n148 Fan fiction authors concede that they are borrowing worlds and characters, but are always quick to note where those elements originated rather than taking any credit of their own. n149 Cases where [*753] fan fiction allegedly plagiarizes by wholesale copying or fails to cite source material have brought about some of the most severe sanctions within fandom. n150 In one well-known case in the Harry Potter fan fiction community, fans accused a popular fan fiction writer of lifting lines or scenes from various television shows and novels without proper attribution to the original sources. n151 The fall-out from this incident lasted more than five years and continued to haunt the author, even when she went on to publish original novels. n152"

• Citations in the above specifically mention Cla(i)re:
• n150. See Fandom Wank Wiki, Plagiarism and All That, http://wiki.fandomwank.com/ index.php/Plagiarism and All That (last visited Feb. 16, 2008) (summarizing a set of plagiarism accusations that led to a well-known writer being banned from FanFiction.net; as another forceful form of ridicule, an anonymous person registered the domain of her name and redirected it to information about the scandal).
• n151. Posting of White serpent to JournalFen, http://www.journalfen.net/community/ bad penny/8985.html (Aug. 4, 2006, 13:46 UTC).
• n152. See generally Fan History Wiki, Cassandra Claire, http://www.fanhistory.com/index.php?title=Cassandra Claire (last visited Feb. 16, 2008) (describing the alleged plagiarism in detail). The original accusations surfaced in 2001, and a lengthy account of the entire affair brought it back into the spotlight in 2006. See Posting of White serpent, supra note 151. Even after changing her name slightly, discussions of her newly published original novels among fans mentioned the scandal. See Posting of Seto fangirl to JournalFen, http://www.journalfen.net/community/fandom lounge/ 309198.html (July 21, 2006, 14:15 UTC). Additionally, a Google search for the author's new name, Cassandra Clare, turns up several pages about the plagiarism issue on the first page of hits, such as the Fan History Wiki entry on Clare and postings to JournalFen about Clare and the scandal. See Google, http://www.google.com.libproxy.usc.edu/search?hl=en&q= Cassandra+Clare&btnG=Google+Search (last visited Feb. 16, 2008).

• Perhaps you'll argue that this persons citations don't meet Wiki standards; but the sources were more enough for the publication it appeared in, and its appearance in that publication meets Wiki standards.

• 16) Cassandraclaire.com -- as I mentioned earlier, I don't know if this link can be included. I've just included it to show that it exists, not to prove anything.

• 17) i09 is part of Gawker Media, a legitimate online publishing source. Article mentions that CC wrote slash fiction and that she removed it from online.

• 18) the dedication page of City of Bones. Don't see any issue here.

• 19) Blog interview with Cassie, mentions her grandfather died before the book sold and that's why the book is dedicated to him. It's a blog, but I don't see a major issue here.

• 20-31) Undisputed various references from her books, publishers, and YA award wins Infoaddict1 (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm particularly unimpressed by the "law journal" mention in n15 as a reliable source, given the current state of several of the pages cited for factual content in the referenced article. [2] [3]. Looks like anybody can edit there without much oversight, even a cranky geezer with an axe to grind or a point to make. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've used toe law journal mention not as a source to prove the plagiarism happened, but to prove the accusation happened. Again, the editors of the law journal found it worthwhile enough to publish. Does wiki usually cherry pick which sources' sources are credible? That opens a whole can of worms that's not really worth getting into. I think at this point no one is denying a) that she was a fanfic writer and b) that there were AT LEAST accusations. The journal_fen article cites numerous primary sources, the plagiarized text itself, and CC's response. There is clearly no lore or rumor being fabricated here, the question is simply whether the sources of the allegations are substantial enough for Wiki to publish her as a plagiarist. The answer seems to be no, BUT the allegations are substantial enough for Wiki to publish her as an ACCUSED plagiarist. Why don't we make the official word that she was accused, and leave it at that? Infoaddict1 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi -- just a thought. I don't think anyone is denying that the subject here was a well-known fanfiction writer, and that her role as a fanfiction writer was covered in newspapers and the like. But an article was created for her, before she had any original work published (AFAIK), and it was deleted per the (at the time) Articles for Deletion standards. (This is also before the new BLP standards went into place, I believe.) So while perhaps the fact that she was a fanfiction writer who now is a published writer of original fiction is a notable fact about her, all the detail of her travels and travails within the world of fanfiction online would seem to have been already deemed non-notable and the facts of her fanfiction have not changed at all since the article for deletion went through; I'd take this as guidance that fanfiction-specific stuff about her should be kept to a minimum since it's clear that it doesn't mean normal WP standards for notability. (As a side note, I'd make this argument about the existence of the Draco Trilogy page, created by User:Infoaddict1 earlier, since I don't believe individual works of fanfiction -- however well-known in their time -- are considered notable works, especially when they were taken offline officially in around 2007 and the only sources for them are now Wayback Machine archives or (in the case of the Draco Trilogy) PDFs hosted on Russian servers of dubious provenance.

It's also, I think, pretty clearly not the purpose of WP to provide links to fanfiction for interested parties. Perhaps Clare did indeed write a piece of fanfiction with the same title as her first trilogy of published original work, but since the title is itself from a Shakespeare quote, who cares? That seems like a tiny piece of trivia, not a major fact that requires that the old work be not only mentioned in detail but linked to directly.

I'm not experienced enough with the WP:BLP standards to really know what the citation standards are -- I'll leave that to the rest of you to discuss -- but my two cents would be that it's common sense that blog posts making unsourced assertions about a piece of fanfiction that is no longer available online except through dubious channels don't mean credibility standards. In places where I've in the past removed uncited material it has been because either it was unsourced, or the sources provided didn't actually in any way verify the claim being cited.

In general, though, let me say that I'm really pleased that this article is seeing some attention -- in the past it's been something of a honeypot for vandalism with the problem that it wasn't really viewed enough to garner much effort to make it a good article. Glad to see a bunch of people interested other than me in working on this! Rkramden (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there was some discussion as to whether mentioning her fan fiction past was vandalism or not. Clearly not -- she kept the same pseudonym, she kept the same livejournal, she made no effort to disconnect herself from her fan persona OTHER than to remove her stories, ostensibly because they contain adult material, but one can't truly be sure. The publishers may have had other reasons. The fan fiction past of the author is clearly made relevant by her subsequent professional publication. I wouldn't be surprised if the reason her original Wiki page was deleted was because haters didn't want her to have one, and perhaps that page was not adequately sourced as I have done with the above citations, most of which were not original to this article when I started editing. Also aside from the geekspeak blog which was mentioned as unnecessary above, all current sources mentioning the plagiarism accusations are book/newspaper/credible online newsmag sources. no personal or self-published blogs are cited at all. I agree that the FACTS haven't changed since the article was put up for deletion, but the CITATIONS absolutely have. Infoaddict1 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(←) I'll give my response to Infoaddict1's comments regarding sources above, please anyone feel free to weigh in as well.

2) We get really nitpicky with BLPs. Basically, if we say something, we really need to back it up. If Cassandra wants to sue Wikipedia or malign it in the press, Wikipedia can "shift the blame" to another publication of that other publication is solid. It has happened before. Perhaps we might be able to specifically mention that The Telegraph claims there were allegations of plagiarism, but that's still a grey area and with a BLP the rule is almost always better safe than sorry. Really, how important are these plagiarism claims to mention in the article? When we can't specify who made the accusation on what was a plagiarism of what, and what evidence backs that up, it's more like Wikipedia is spreading a rumor. I like The Telegraph as a source, with Cassandra herself acknowledging the low quality of some of her fan fiction, but using it as a source for plagiarism accusations is probably unwise.

Yeah, what's frustrating about the whole thing is that there are clear records of a) who made the allegations b) what text was plagiarized and where c) what CC's response was, they just don't meet wiki verification. Honestly, I think that because the author is a professional writer, the plagiarism accusation at least is necessary to make sure the page is fair & unbiased. I totally understand that Wiki needs to protect itself from possible litigation, but at the same time, there are plenty of Wiki articles that mention accusations and rumors. In this case, I see the descriptors of "rumored plagiarist" as too soft and "plagiarist" as too strong, given the sources, but "accused plagiarist" seems to fit in okay. Infoaddict1 (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The "clear" fact that joblo on a forum website called someones work plagiarized is not in any way compatible with including that claim or references to the claim into an article. Active Banana (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that she's a published author means that we need to be very, very careful about including any accusations of plagiarism to the article. They have to be air-tight. I don't see "rumored plagiarist" as too soft, anything negative that we can't verify by Wikipedia's standards is a BLP violation and we can't even call her a rumored plagiarist if we can't source that very well. There are certainly other BLP articles that have unsourced negative information and rumors, but that doesn't justify repeating the problem here, that only means that those other articles need to be cleaned up. This past year there has been a pretty strong push to do so, see WP:BLPPROD which is a stronger version of our proposed deletion process specifically for BLPs that requires every BLP to have sources or risk deletion.That policy is less than 6 months old. -- Atama頭 19:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

3) Blogs are very rarely reliable sources, see WP:SPS. Blogs that are attached to a major publication, such as a blog for a newspaper, can be acceptable. Since blogs aren't generally subject to editorial oversight, they aren't suitable as references.

Agreed. As I mentioned, this citation is basically a duplicate of the Telegraph article citation, so isn't totally necessary.

6) Uncontroversial information that is provided by the subject herself should be acceptable even from a self-published source.

8) See answer to 6.

11) See answer to 6.

After removing the problem mentioned in #3, the only blogs used as citations are Q&A interviews with the author herself, also uncontroversial. Does this clear up any issues with blog use for this article? Infoaddict1 (talk) 00:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

16) Her personal web site is more appropriately listed in the External Links section, per WP:ELOFFICIAL, where it is currently located.

Just a note -- this is NOT her official site. cassandraclaIre.com is different from cassandraclare.com -- it is a direct link to a wiki page about the scandal (with many of its own references). I noted it in my edit because it was one factor in Clare altering her pseudonym, and an example of how the scandal has not yet died down even to this day. Infoaddict1 (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I need to look over the law journal cited in #15, it might be worth querying the reliable sources noticeboard for other opinions about it. -- Atama頭 23:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Again, as I've mentioned in previous edits, there isn't really a debate as to whether plagiarism occurred, but whether it can be adequately shown via wiki-approved sources. The most important citation to me is the Anelli book, which mentions that plagiarism occurred and doesn't acknowledge the incident as only an accusation. If this is the only source that flat-out states it was plagiarism then perhaps the best thing to do is knock it down to "accused" for the Wiki article, but if the Anelli book is a valid source, that the Telegraph article back into play. Infoaddict1 (talk) 00:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, where accuracy takes a backseat to dick-waving and ass-covering every day of the week. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.226.200.27 (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

'Fan fiction' should not be mentioned in this article

This article currently states that Ms. Clare is partly notable 'for writing Harry Potter fan fiction'; I'm going to remove this claim. Firstly, it's poorly sourced: the information in the source is trivial, and there isn't enough there to even verify that it's referring to the same Cassandra Clare, or just some Harry Potter fan who happens to have the same name as a published author. But even if it is the same person (and I'll WP:AGF that it is), it seems in no way relevant or significant enough to deserve mention in a Wikipedia biography, least of all in the lead. If anyone wants to re-insert this claim, they'd need to provide two things:

• Clear attribution to a reliable source that links this Cassandra Clare with Harry Potter fan fiction.
• Some indication of why this is relevant to her biography or worth mentioning. I'm sure lots of modern authors self-published things on the Internet before getting a book published; in 90% of cases, that's not interesting or significant.

Robofish (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Sources are very easy to find as Cassandra Clare herself is not quiet about it.

"...my guest today is Cassie Claire. She's one of the best-known writers in the fandom for her Draco Trilogy, which she's bringing to a close soon after six years. She's a professional writer in her real life and the first installment of her Mortal Instruments Trilogy will be available in bookstores early in 2007."

---------

"Emma: Oh that's really interesting; we'll look forward to that. And you are publishing under the name Cassandra Claire, correct?

Cassie: Without the "i".

Emma: Without the "i", okay. So now people will know how to look for you on Amazon.com and that kind of thing.

Cassie: Yes."

----------

Interview here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/slashcast-episode-6-even-if-you-dont/id137515774?i=1000008327843

Transcript here: https://sc-transcripts.livejournal.com/1324.html

As for point two, this is as relevant as her writing is itself. It is almost impossible to bring up CC without someone mentioning her plagiarism. While it's true that in 90% of cases it would be not be significant that an author has written work (fan fiction or not) prior to being published however Cassandra Clare's work was not your average work of fan fiction. A now published author being banned from writing on a website due to plagiarism is clearly relevant to their work as writing is their work. If the rest of Wikipedia were held to these same standards, I would wager over 75% of articles with Controversy sections would need to be completely rewritten. PoisonIvyTV (talk) 22:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

'Fan fiction' section back

any chance any admins are still keeping an eye on this article? i agree with Robofish above that, whatever attributions there may be for the relationship of this author to the fanfiction author of the same name, i have no idea why "author writes some things online before being published" is notable enough to be part of the article. besides, the massive discussion above is, to me, a convincing argument for keeping this section out of the article -- the intricate details of online politics and scandal of interest, and indeed comprehensible, only to the people who were involved at the time, seems clearly to be cruft. i'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast, vast, vast majority of readers of this article are here for information about the publishing career of this professional author, rather than some stuff that may (if the same person) have happened in an internet community a while back. admins? any thoughts? 76.118.3.91 (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering all the trivial nonsense that goes unchallenged on the articles for other "professional" authors, I don't see why a brief mention that she wrote fanfiction is so offensive. It's not as if every author wrote fanfiction, or in fact first became notable for doing so. It is a distinguishing characteristic from many other writers, and it has no doubt in some way influenced her "professional" writing.174.31.191.189 (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering why Cassie's fanfic is not important enough to warrant a mention here, whereas EL James's fanfic was. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL_James (Especially considering Cassie's fics were a lot more well known.) 108.15.50.162 (talk) 10:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"i'm going to go out on a limb and say that the vast, vast, vast majority of readers of this article are here for information about the publishing career of this professional author" The vast majority of readers of the article are fans of her books and would be very interested to learn about other things she has written, including fan fiction.

Aidan.ofFire (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

First - It is the same Cassandra Claire/Clare, a simple Googling would have told ANY of you that. She changed the spelling of her pen name likely because trolls (for lack of a better term) parked a domain on the original version leading to nothing more than links to the plagiarism accusations, and obviously, she can't just buy the domain from them and they haven't let it lapse. But she is definitely the same person - it's open knowledge, she barely even changed her pen name, AND she's never made any effort to deny or hide that she once went by Cassandra "Claire". Asking for a better or clearer citation is fine, but just deleting it is to remove accurate information just because you're too lazy to find it on Google. This is what the "citation needed" tag is FOR, people.

Second - While her fan fiction is no longer online, two of her fan fiction pieces, the Very Secret Diaries and the Draco Trilogy, were her original claim to fame before she was professionally published - and they were notable enough to get modest media attention at the time, considerable attention considering their status as "mere" fan works. Considering that they helped establish her original readership, and by proxy (due to the accusations regarding it) may have impacted even the official spelling of her pen name, they are definitely notable in this context. I strongly suspect people are just frankly too lazy to get the cites in order.

Third - Just because it references fan fiction does not make it "cruft" - in this case MOST especially. Cassandra Claire (under that original pseudonym) was infamous amongst a large group of people because of an incident involving that fan fiction that involved plagiarism accusations (NOT just "fan fiction" level borrowing, but claims that whole swaths of another, original fiction novel, had been pretty much copy and pasted in with only minor tweaks such as character names) - I would say that is pretty worthy of mention. I get that people are paranoid about "OMG! It's BLP! We could get sued!" but the thing is, it's not "libel" if it is true . And it is definitely true that these accusations exist, and have been referenced by sources other than just random private blogs and such. The end effect of the article, to someone who has ever even remotely heard of this writer outside of a bookstore, is to look as if the article is white-washed in her favor, to ignore an uncomfortable aspect of her reputation that she's had to deal with over the course of several years. It is not Wikipedia's job to improve people's reputations for them. It is merely our job to report the information available from third parties, and "reliable source" third parties have covered these accusations. The more you remove them, the more you compromise the integrity of this article towards a Non-NPOV status.

Fourth - For the record, "writing things online before being published" is... well. There are several things wrong with that sentence. For one (in fact, my biggest quibble!), when you put fiction or any other writing online, you ARE publishing it. Legally, you are "publishing" it, and it counts as "first publication". You are just self-publishing it, in an electronic medium. I don't mind people being a little quibbly about self-published stuff when that's all a person has done and they're not notable, but for accuracy's sake it IS "being published"; and I feel that in a professionally-published author who started out self-publishing, it's a perfectly legitimate thing to mention that she self-published some things that were well-known before she "went pro" - especially since there seem to be mentions that her now-bestselling professional work started out itself self-published online in an earlier form (which is VERY relevant to the history of her work, obviously!). I'm not saying it should take over the article, but I fail to see why there is not even one sentence mentioning before going professional, she authored two popular online fan fictions, least of all when a.) it helped establish her in the first place b.) there was media coverage of it in what Wikipedia would consider "reliable sources" and c.) there was a notable, well-known controversy surrounding at least one of those pieces which is also covered in various "reliable sources" per Wikipedia standards. If I weren't so exhausted by putting my finger on why this article and discussion have bugged me so much, didn't have to go to bed, and didn't have to catch up on an entire chapter's worth of Stats, I would be getting the damn cites myself. As it is, suffice it to say that I believe if you haven't gotten them into the article yet, the only reason is either you're too lazy, or somebody has been removing them for the wrong reasons. ALL of this should be easily-verifiable, and the Talk page indicates plenty of previous excellent work on referencing, most of which is now completely absent from the article a year later, for I would hope merely no other reason than people mistakenly believe that we can be sued for reporting very well-known third-party accusations as "accusations".

Apologies if any of that sounded harsh, but I think a LOT of things have been overlooked here, and that it is seriously hurting the quality of the article. :\ And the worst part is, it doesn't seem like those things should have been "overlooked" so easily. 68.202.85.105 (talk) 05:50, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as a Random Average Wikipedia User, I came to this article because I wanted to find out if the published author Cassandra Clare was the same person as the noted fanfic author Cassandra Claire. Because the article made no mention of her fanfic, I would have assumed that they were different people if I hadn't decided to look at the talk page just in case. In other words, by not mentioning that she was a fanfic writer, this article is actively misleading. AJD (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed that there is nothing in this article about Cassandra Clare's fanfiction plagiarizing past. I thought this was an encyclopedia - not a fanpage. I guess her lawyers are doing a pretty good job in removing evidence from the Intternet! Wormow (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• The only factors which bear on whether plagiarism is covered can be seen at WP:RS and WP:BLP. On Wikipedia, biographies of living persons must have strong reliable sources for critical or controversial information. If someone can find, say, an article in the New York Times about Clare and plagiarism then it can be put into the biography. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, I believe the plagiarism thing falls under OR: taking a look at the select scenes (Nightmare Grass, ya know) and comparing them side by side would reveal it quite clearly, but as Wikipedia's stance is published sources, we either have to wait for someone in the Times (as an example) to do it, or forget it entirely. Hackeru (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Infernal Devices Titles

In numerous cases the Infernal Devices series are called The Clockwork Angel, The Clockwork Prince, or The Clockwork Princess. This is wrong, but I can't edit them unfortunately. 174.84.238.186 (talk) 02:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed - thank you. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Cassandra Claire

I noticed that the copyright notices for the "Cassandra Clare" books are consistently by "Cassandra Claire":

• City of Bones, trade paperback 19th printing, "Copyright © 2007 by Cassandra Claire, LLC."
• City of Ashes, hardcover 1st edition, "Copyright © 2008 by Cassandra Claire, LLC."
• City of Glass, trade paperback 1st printing, "Copyright © 2009 by Cassandra Claire, LLC."
• City of Fallen Angels, hardcover 1st edition, "Copyright © 2011 by Cassandra Claire LLC."
• City of Lost Souls, hardcover 1st edition, "Copyright © 2012 by Cassandra Claire LLC."
• Clockwork Angel, hardcover 1st edition, "Copyright © 2010 by Cassandra Claire, LLC."
• Clockwork Prince, hardcover 1st edition, "Copyright © 2011 by Cassandra Claire LLC."

The whois page for the domain name cassandraclare.com can be viewed here. That reports that the owner of the domain is Cassandra Claire, LLC but also "person: Cassandra Clare"

I've seen authors that use their legal or real name on copyright notices while writing under a pen name. The odds are that's what happened here. For example this news article says "Cassandra Claire , who now publishes her own popular young adult series called "The Mortal Instruments" under Cassandra Clare, wrote successful Harry Potter fanfiction titled "The Draco Trilogy," featuring Draco Malfoy."

I see that earlier attempts to mention the name "Claire" in the article get reverted.

The question here is if a news article such as the The Champaign-Urbana News-Gazette item I cited above is a sufficiently reliable source that we can include "(Formerly Cassandra Claire aka Cassie Claire)" in this article. --Marc Kupper|talk 22:17, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I found another source. An anthology published in 2004 includes a story by "Cassandra Claire." You can verify this by looking at the the last which I linked to Amazon as that Amazon record has a "Look Inside" for the book. Cassandra Claire is credited on the table of contents, in the story which runs from page 59 to 76, and the "About the authors" on page 290 which says "Cassandra Claire is a twenty-something writer living in New York City, where she has painted her apartment green. She has loved fantasy since her father introduced it to her when she was a child. This is her first published story."

Also, we don't have a WP:RS for "Cassie Claire" yet and so I'd propose adding "(Formerly Cassandra Claire)". --Marc Kupper|talk 22:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2013

Please change the titles of Ms Clare's upcoming untitled The Dark Artifices books to Prince of Shadows (book #2) and The Queen of Air and Darkness (book #3). Cassandra Clare herself has revealed these titles on her tumblr Thank you. Cat1987 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2013

Change the information under the "The Bane Chronicles" heading from [ "Vampires, Scones and Edmund Herondale" "The Rise and Fall of the Hotel Dumort" "Saving Raphael Santiago" "What To Buy The Shadowhunter Who Has Everything (And Who You're Not Officially Dating Anyway)" ] to [ "What Really Happened in Peru"(April 2013) "The Runaway Queen"(May 2013) "Vampires, Scones and Edmund Herondale"(June 2013) "The Midnight Heir"(July 2013) The Rise of the Hotel Dumort"(August 2013) "Saving Raphael Santiago"(September 2013) "The Fall of the Hotel Dumort"October 2013) "The Course of True Love (and First Dates)"(November 2013) "What to Buy the Shadowhunter Who Has Everything: (And Who You're Not Officially Dating Anyway)"(December 2013) "The Last Stand of the New York Institute"(January 2014) ] Can Amazon be used as a source? This is one potential link (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_st?keywords=the+bane+chronicles&qid=1375303897&rh=n%3A133140011%2Ck%3Athe+bane+chronicles&sort=daterank) This change would update the list, arrange it chronologically and include approximate dates. Without it, the list is incomplete and confusing. I would not abuse my account if given the chance to update this page myself. Turquise001998 (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Not done: You should already be auto-confirmed and able to edit this semi-protected article. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Why is there no mention of plagiarism. There is proof that she's been banned from a fanfic sight in the past for this. They have the proof. Is wiki protecting her? Annah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:1412:0:0:5EFE:A34:B58F (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? No mention at all? Turkeyphan^t 23:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source. Robofish (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidence? She has an entire exposé about it--and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Multiple independent fan wikis attest to her plagiarism (e.g. PPC wiki, Fan History, Fandom Wank Wiki), alongside a plethora of bloggers, and at least one online newspaper, the Daily Dot. And if you look really hard you can still find the Draco Trilogy being passed around on the web & verify for yourself.

Furthermore, she even got accused of plagiarism just before her movie premier recently (reported here and here) when an iconic line from the Hunger Games movie was found in one of her recently published ebooks.

I don't think any one's asking WP to take sides or anything, if that's what the problem is (at least, I'm not, anyway), but the plagiarism thing is a really big deal, arguably the main reason CC's at all famous, and it should be covered, fully & impartially. Not doing so not only confuses visitors (a significant proportion of which, probably even the majority, will come here looking to see what the score is on the issue), but also looks very bad on wikipedia, effectively acting as a lie by omission, and will only serve to undermine Wikipedia's credibility to the public. To quote the author of the ONTD article I linked:

"If you don’t believe me, go to her Wikipedia page regarding her plagiarism, her (former) friend, Heidi the lawyer, comes at her defense and gets Wiki to delete any mentions of plagiarism (that’s why her entry is locked from changes). Another incident of her friend Heidi coming in is the writer’s university message board. Every SINGLE time CC is criticized for plagiarism, she got her lawyer friend to threaten people into deleting any mention of CC and plagiarism."

And lo & behold, the plagiarism debacle is magically absent from the article.

Again, no one's asking that she be named and shamed, but the fact that she is embroiled in a plagiarism debate that has thus far spanned an entire decade needs to be addressed. The Talking Toaster (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, why not even mention she's accused of plagiarism? 37.250.21.144 (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC) Caroline Levén

• The only factors which bear on whether plagiarism is covered can be seen at WP:RS and WP:BLP. On Wikipedia, biographies of living persons must have strong reliable sources for critical or controversial information. If someone can find, say, an article in the New York Times about Clare and plagiarism then it can be put into the biography. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

What about the Daily Dot news article, does that not count as a reliable source at least? And what about the material published by Cassandra Clare on her livejournal, and written by her in other places? Can that not be cited?The Talking Toaster (talk) 17:02, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the Daily Dot article is reliable enough to use. In composing text about the allegations of plagiarism, make sure that you do not add any material not found in the Daily Dot article written by Gavia Baker-Whitelaw. Best – Binksternet (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, written an entry using only the Daily Dot one, but what about using any material that we can verify were written by her? E.g. Tweets, livejournal entries, etc.? I was under the impression they would be OK, since she would have written themThe Talking Toaster (talk) 01:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources such as things she wrote herself would be fine if they were only used for non-controversial information. A further danger of using her writing is that these can be used selectively to put forward a novel analysis of such writings.

I reworked your Daily Dot material, trimming the detail down quite a bit, and making it more obvious who said what. Thanks for staying inside the lines—for using only the Daily Dot as a source. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No probs. Also, I noticed you removed the mention of Cassie also reusing the backstory she gave to Draco in the DT, giving it to Jace in CoB--was this intentional? If so, could you please elaborate?The Talking Toaster (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It seemed to me to be less important, that's all. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering that it spanned two pages of the book (a lot longer than the line of dialogue abotu Clary & Jace's love), and the fact that it constitutes another charge of plagiarism, makes it quite important, I would argue. I strongly believe it shoudl be readdedThe Talking Toaster (talk) 01:23, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, cool. As an exercise, see how few words you can use to express this second example of Clare recycling Clare's previous work. Binksternet (talk) 01:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I have 2 other third party sources detailing Clare's plagiarism, though I'm not sure if they meet the 'reliable' criteria.

An article in Carnegie Mellon University's student paper, by Satvika Neti: http://thetartan.org/2013/9/9/forum/instruments

A piece in Paper Droids, by Cristina Guarino: http://www.paperdroids.com/2013/09/16/cassiegate-cassandra-clares-alleged-plagarism-in-the-mortal-instruments/

Saintvlas22 (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

This is utter crap. BLP requires a great deal more than than a single not-very-prominent blogger's comments and truckloads of online jealousy. Plagiarism in fan fiction and juvenalia is barely noteworthy at best, and these exaggerated claims (particularly the bizarre Zaentz-like insinuations of self-plagiarism as impropriety) don't belong in an encyclopedia. There are some angry adolescents of all ages who approach apoplexy because her book's been made into a successful film. Their spite doesn't belong here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a WP:NEWSBLOG, not a personal blog. The source is good enough if we follow the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV guideline and say who said it. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing to assure that the sites which host the relevant blogs exercise sufficient editorial control to meet BLP/RS requirements, or that the non-notable blogger qualifies as a professional journalist. ATTRIBUTEPOV is not a free pass to allowing content that would violate BLP without attribution. And, since it relates to not-really published fan fiction (amateur work as well) it hardly deserves such prominence in an article which contains next to nothing concerning the critical reception of her best-selling professional work. The level of malice directed at Clare is unfathomable by rational standards -- note this piece, for example, characterizing the repetition of a three-word phrase from a movie (and hardly an original bit at that) as "plagiarism" [4] -- and we shouldn't be enshrining it here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Online jealousy? What would 'they' be jealous of, her mediocre works of fiction, or her aggressive and bullying behavior? In any case, her online persona and reactions to the plagiarism, in addition to the plagiarism itself, has already been deemed notable. It's not malice - it's fact.Saintvlas22 (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Hulla: First and foremost, you have presented no evidence that this source constitutes a BLP violation. According to WP:NEWSBLOG, the guidelines clearly state that they should be used with caution as "the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process".

Not only has Gavia Baker-Whitelaw clearly checked their facts (something which you can verify yourself by cross-referencing the multitude of links I posted above), but the Daily Dot, in its ethical policy, clearly states that their reporters (which includes Baker-Whitelaw) are required to do a significant degree of fact-checking. Specifically, I thinking of this section:

The Daily Dot’s first and most important responsibility is accuracy. We make reasonable efforts to verify information by publication time and we disclose to readers transparently what we do and do not know to be a fact.

This clearly applies to individual reporters like Baker-Whitelaw in the following section:

Individual employees will never manipulate the facts for any kind of personal relationship, and they will not put themselves in a position to profit, financially or otherwise, by their reporting.

Furthermore, the piece in question is not marked as a blog (the Daily Dot has a different sub-site for that here), and the about section clarifies that the DD considers itself to be an actual, online newspaper, as shown by [http://www.dailydot.com/about/ their about section, calling themselves "the paper of record for the Web, the Internet’s community newspaper", and comparing themselves to traditional newspapers with lines like "Like traditional community newspapers, we are tribunes, defenders of people’s rights and interests". As far as I can gather, the Daily Dot sees itself as an actual newspaper, simply one that's completely online.

As such, Baker-Whitelaw's article is equaivalent to any other newspaper's online article. It is not marked as a blog, and it is very clear that the facts were promised to have been checked, and that they have. There is absolutely no reason to remove any information from it, therefore, from Clare's article.

I would also like to point out that accusing people of being motivated by "spite" and "jealousy" are meaningless ad hominems, and not adequate reasons to revert someone's edit. The important factor here is the truth, not why people deliver it.

Lastly, you claim that fanfic plagiarism isn't notable, but the precedent is against you. Cassandra Clare was an extremely influential figure in her fandom days--hence why we're covering her fanfic history in the article, and why so many people, including myself, know of her. As such, plagiarism related to those incidents is by extension important too. I don't think I need to discuss why her cyberbullying past is important as well

The Talking Toaster (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

P.S.: Also responding to this by Hulla:

"The level of malice directed at Clare is unfathomable by rational standards"

There was nothing malicious in the article, only the truth. However, on the subject of malice directed at Cassandra Clare: who are you to judge people for their grudges? Do you even know what went down at the time? The fact that you wrote the above quote suggest not, and that you have absolutely no knowledge of Clare's fandom history.

To reiterate, Clare's Draco Triology was a big f**king deal in the HP fandom in 2001 (she was the most popular author on ff.net at the time), and so when it was discovered that she'd passed off quite a a lot as original material, and then denied it, so was that. Not only is it an important issue, the reason many know of her name, even, it's also an understandable reason for some people to be upset with her, especially with how she reacted to the situation. However, this isn't about people's motivations, as I stated earlier; it's about the truth.

"note this piece, for example, characterizing the repetition of a three-word phrase from a movie (and hardly an original bit at that) as "plagiarism" "

The controversies section never discussed plagiarism in the movie, only the books and fanfic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Talking Toaster (talk • contribs) 03:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

What the Daily Dot says about itself is irrelevant. Before we can even begin to consider this, you need to establish consensus that it meets BLP sourcing standards and RS requirements. And BLP requires a lot more than that for claims like these. Particularly encyclopedic value. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you are recommending that someone take the matter to WP:RSN to see what people there have to say about the Daily Dot relative to WP:BLP, whether WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is sufficient. Binksternet (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, Hulla, you have not cited any wikipedia guidelines but merely made seemingly baseless claims, such as the source in question is not strong enough for BLP. However, I have taken Binksternet up on his suggestion, and taken it to RSN, so watch this space The Talking Toaster (talk) 12:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No mention of plagiarism, seriously?

That is THE REASON she is known. When you Google her name, that's the first word that comes up. Why have such a bland, publicist-approved bio and not include the only reason she's notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.116.103.10 (talk) 21:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Why have such a bland, publicist-approved bio and not include the only reason she's notable?"

Two words: Heidi Tandy.The Talking Toaster (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• The only factors which bear on whether plagiarism is covered can be seen at WP:RS and WP:BLP. On Wikipedia, biographies of living persons must have strong reliable sources for critical or controversial information. If someone can find, say, an article in the New York Times about Clare and plagiarism then it can be put into the biography. Binksternet (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And does Slate count? http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2016/02/author_sherrilyn_kenyon_sues_cassandra_clare_for_copyright_infringement.html It has gotten to the point that this is actually being written about and yet even the current lawsuit is not mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertwillow (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

———

What about The Guardian? Does that count as a reliable source? These two citations, particularly the first, should establish that the accusations exist and are relevant enough to be mentioned by a prestigious mainstream newspaper

1) https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2014/may/21/what-meeting-cassandra-clare-mortal-instruments-really-like

Relevant quote:

"Every celebrity has a hidden past and Clare's is just as dark and thrilling as the fan fiction she used to post online. As her online stories began to gain fame, people began to notice that her work contained several pop culture quotes and references-ones that weren't cited anywhere. Dipping casually into the scripts of shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer and other infamous fantasy series, and sprinkling then through her own work, Clare had written a hugely successful fan fiction series, and had landed herself with a number of plagiarism accusations. Plagued by these when trying to get The Mortal Instruments, she dropped the "i" in her pen name "Cassandra Claire" and deleted all traces of her work from the Internet. Clare was never formally charged, as plagiarism laws don't apply to fan fiction in the same way as they do to other fictional work, though her past life often comes back to haunt her, in the form of other writers and readers of her old work, bitter about how she's risen to fame despite her methods."

2) https://www.theguardian.com/childrens-books-site/2015/feb/04/magisterium-iron-trial-cassandra-clare-holly-black-review

Relevant quote:

"Of course, with Clare steering the helm, we shouldn't be surprised – her dubious past involving plagiarism of the Harry Potter series, and sketchy fan fictions mean she's earned herself quite the reputation."

Db105 (talk) 16:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is weird as heck - she's obviously plagiarized and there are reputable sources out there for it. Not sure why that isn't included on her page 47.186.222.141 (talk) 17:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 September 2013

Please change clokwork princess from to be released to released on March 19, 2013. Dualdragoon (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This appears to have already been addressed? Both of the mentions of the book on the page appear to have the correct release date. If there is an incorrect date (or a tbr) left on the page, please provide the specific section and/or paragraph in which it appears. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: The Last Hours

Clare announced on her tumblr that the new Trilogy will be called "The Last Hours". It is set after Clockwork Princess in 1903. One book is titled "Chain of Thorns" and will be published probably 2017. The other two books will be called "Chain of Gold" and "Chain of Iron". The order isn't clear. I can't edit the Wiki page so I wanted to ask if someone else can do that. Here are my sources:

http://cassandraclare.tumblr.com/post/77422013165/walker-acquires-new-cassandra-clare-trilogy-the

http://cassandraclare.tumblr.com/post/77823512422/tlh-tid-tmi (Section with the timeline)

Thank you, V

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

Add to Bibliography

Tales From The Shadowhunter Academy Serial -Welcome to Shadowhunter Academy (February 17 2015) -The Lost Herondale (March 17 2015) -The Whitechapel Fiend (April 21 2015) -Nothing but Shadows (May 19 2015) -The Evil We Love (June 16 2015) -Pale Kings and Princes (July 21 2015) -Bitter of Tongue (August 18 2015) -The Fiery Trial (September 15 2015) -Born to Endless Night (October 20 2015) -Angels Twice Descending (November 17 2015)

The Dark Artifices -Lady Midnight (2015) -The Prince Of Shadows (?) -The Queen Of Air And Darkness (?) It is the sequel to The Mortal Instruments, takes place 5 years after TMI. Goodbelle (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done as WP:CRYSTAL - we normally wait for books to actually be published before adding them to a bibliography - sometimes they don't appear. - Arjayay (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014

Please, could you guys add Cassandra's new series: The Last Hours, The Wicked Powers, Tales from the Shadowhunters' Academy and the Secret Treasons. Also, there are more books in the Magisterium Series. It should be something like this: The Last Hours: Chain of Thorns (unknown), Chain of Gold (unknown), Chain of Iron (unknown). The Wicked Powers: Three books, unknown titles and release dates. Tales from the Shadowhunter Academy (co-written with Sarah Rees Brennan, Maureen Johnson and Robin Wasserman): Welcome to Shadowhunter Academy (February 17 2015, Cassandra Clare and Sarah Rees Brennan), The Lost Herondale (March 17 2015, Cassandra Clare and Robin Wasserman), The Whitechapel Fiend (April 21 2015, Cassandra Clare and Maureen Johnson), Nothing but Shadows (May 19 2015, Cassandra Clare and Sarah Rees Brennan), The Evil We Love (June 16 2015, Cassandra Clare and Robin Wasserman), Pale Kings and Princes (July 21 2015, Cassandra Clare and Robin Wasserman), Bitter of Tongue (August 18 2015, Cassandra Clare and Sarah Rees Brennan), The Fiery Trial (September 15 2015, Cassandra Clare and Sarah Rees Brennan), Born to Endless Night (October 20 2015, Cassandra Clare and Sarah Rees Brennan), Angels Twice Descending (November 17 2015, Cassandra Clare and Robin Wasserman). The Secret Treasons: The Secret Treasons is the graphic novel project telling the story of the early days of the Circle. It was co-written by Cassandra Clare and John Ney Rieber. The art will be done by Cassandra Jean, and will be published by Yen Press. Magisterium Series: The Iron Trial (September 9 2014), The Copper Gauntlet (Semptember 2015), The Cosmos Blade (Semptember 2016), The Golden Boy (Semptember 2017) and The Enemy of Death (Semptember 2018). WikiWiggle (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC) WikiWiggle (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Hi there. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we don't add items until they are released. Stickee (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

EDIT request

The links for CC's 2nd and 3rd Dark Artifices books both go to unrelated wiki pages. Also, the first book in the series isn't due to release until March 2016, but the wiki page has it listed for 2015

http://www.cassandraclare.com/my-writing/novels/the-dark-artifices/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originalisme (talk • contribs) 15:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request - Plagiarism Lawsuit

Can a controversy section be created about the plagiarism thing? Clare has now been sued by author Sherrilyn Kenyon, alleging that Clare and up to 50 Does plagiarized Kenyon's Dark Hunter series, violated her trademarks and used deceptive marketing practices to fraudulently conflate the two series.

http://www.courtneymilan.com/cc-complaint/1-main.pdf

http://www.thebookseller.com/news/cassandra-clare-sued-copyright-infringement-322417

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/02/08/copyright-clash-over-demon-fighting-stories.htm

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/02/10/cassandra-clare-shadowhunters-lawsuit

---

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2016

Clare was written wrong in the fan fiction heading and Clare is currently writing another Shadowhunters story, the Last Hours Series

2601:543:4403:3CCB:246A:10BB:77DA:5750 (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

 Not done - as explained in the third paragraph of "Personal life" she has issued books under both names. As for the "currently writing" statement, you have not citted a reliable source without which no information should be added or changed - Arjayay (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cassandra Clare. 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/20090828205154/http://cassandraclare.livejournal.com/33056.html to http://cassandraclare.livejournal.com/33056.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721185221/http://cassandraclare.livejournal.com/43587.html to http://cassandraclare.livejournal.com/43587.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091226151044/http://cassandraclare.livejournal.com/ to http://cassandraclare.livejournal.com/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Updates

I work for Rubenstein and on behalf of Cassandra Clare, I propose the following updates. NinaSpezz (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

• Change name in 1st sentence from Judith Rumelt to Judith Lewis as that is her real name as used in recent media coverage.

• Update last sentence in Controversies section that says: The copyright violations were not dismissed, and the case is still in the courts.

To say: Kenyon has since dropped the copyright claims. The unfair competition claims were dismissed. The trademark dispute is ongoing.

I would like to see this sentence substantially rephrased. It happens to match, word-for-word, the original sentence in Forbes. Perhaps I'm overly skittish, but copying a sentence about a copyright lawsuit is a bit much. Altamel (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

And seeing as the entire section in question has been removed after the BLPN discussion, there's nothing left to do here. Altamel (talk) 02:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Altamel: Thank you for your attention on this. Please note the name change request, detailed above, is still outstanding. NinaSpezz (talk) 13:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah. Apologies, I missed the first bullet point. Regarding the name change, would the following first sentence be acceptable: "Judith Smith (née Rumelt, born July 27, 1973), better known by her pen name Cassandra Clare..." This is closest to the formulation given in the Manual of Style. Altamel (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Altamel: Yes, that would be acceptable. Thanks. NinaSpezz (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

 Partly done. Since this request was made, the Controversies section was removed by another user per WP:BLPPRIMARY violations, as described above, so I cannot fulfill that request. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jd02022092: Thank you for implementing the requested edit. I've gone ahead and corrected the name. I should have clarified in my response to Altamel last week that Lewis is her current last name, not Smith. I believe Smith was used as an example to demonstrate the naming format. NinaSpezz (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Why were these changes made? Dude obviously has a huge conflict of interest 47.186.222.141 (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Cassandra Clare. 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/20131002211701/http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/books/bestseller/0422bestchildren.html to https://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/books/bestseller/0422bestchildren.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120830091743/http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/29/cassandra-clare-richard-rumelt/ to http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/29/cassandra-clare-richard-rumelt/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120815055926/http://www.powells.com/kidsqa/clare.html to http://www.powells.com/kidsqa/clare.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005080729/http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/cassandra-claire/mortal-instruments-trilogy-sample-of-the-citys/_/R-400000000000000168871 to http://ebookstore.sony.com/ebook/cassandra-claire/mortal-instruments-trilogy-sample-of-the-citys/_/R-400000000000000168871
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120830091743/http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/29/cassandra-clare-richard-rumelt/ to http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/08/29/cassandra-clare-richard-rumelt/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140401061520/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/cassandra-clare-the-dark-artifices_n_1344566.html to http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/14/cassandra-clare-the-dark-artifices_n_1344566.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100820002647/http://www.txla2.org/groups/yart/Assets/Files/tayshas/tay0910a.pdf to http://www.txla2.org/groups/yart/Assets/Files/tayshas/tay0910a.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725000555/http://www.kcls.org/evergreen/nominees/index.cfm to http://www.kcls.org/evergreen/nominees/index.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100707103809/http://www.cal-webs.org/bluespruce/all_nominations.pdf to http://www.cal-webs.org/bluespruce/all_nominations.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100126090141/http://www.grandcanyonreaderaward.org/6.html to http://www.grandcanyonreaderaward.org/6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100809102014/http://awards.iasl.iowapages.org/id2.html to http://awards.iasl.iowapages.org/id2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090825053407/http://www.nashua.lib.nh.us/YALS/FlumeNominees09.htm to http://www.nashua.lib.nh.us/YALS/FlumeNominees09.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091212213259/http://www.nevadalibraries.org/Divisions/NYRA/index.html to http://www.nevadalibraries.org/Divisions/NYRA/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721185824/http://www.bcbookaward.info/teens/2009teennominees.html to http://www.bcbookaward.info/teens/2009teennominees.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101206012330/http://www.scasl.net/bookawards/yaba.htm to http://www.scasl.net/bookawards/yaba.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100204222923/http://myvotes.coventry.gov.uk/ to http://myvotes.coventry.gov.uk/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cassandra Clare. 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/20130405160151/http://www.cbcbooks.org/sub-news.php?id=847 to http://www.cbcbooks.org/sub-news.php?id=847
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120530014806/http://www.cassandraclare.com/?qa_faqs=publication to http://www.cassandraclare.com/?qa_faqs=publication

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:44, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cassandra Clare. 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/20110411004931/http://www.cassandraclare.com/cms/faqs to http://www.cassandraclare.com/cms/faqs

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: The Magisterium Series

Just a quick note on the the Magisterium Series: the titles' list is outdated; Book 4 of the series is called "The Silver Mask" and came out Oct 2017. (see https://www.amazon.com/Silver-Mask-Magisterium-Book/dp/0545522366/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1519651206&sr=8-1&keywords=the+silver+mask) And according to the author's tumblr's page, Book 5 is titled "The Golden Tower" and coming out Sept 2018 (http://cassandraclare.tumblr.com/post/170912034174/books-schedule-books). Would be nice, if someone with edit rights could update that, thanks!

Cheers User:AviendaBG —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

edit request: The mortal instruments series

this is something very small but on the very last sentence, it says she has been renewed for a second season of the Bang tan velvet (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Netflix series but they actually released a third. so could you please update this. Thank you. Bang_tan_velvetBang tan velvet (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2018

Hi, the books listed under the Magisterium series have the wrong titles for book 4 and 5. Book 4 is The Silver Mask and book 5 is The Golden Tower https://www.goodreads.com/series/104048-magisterium https://www.cassandraclare.com/the-magisterium-series/ Jamieb25 (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Corrected titles of the 4th and 5th books. Its also odd that the titles were wrong on the author's page but were correct on The Magisterium Series article. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 14:51, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2020

The word "respectively" is misused, suggesting that her mother is the professor and her father the author, when it's the other way around. This could be fixed by changing "Elizabeth and Richard Rumelt" to "Richard Rumelt and Elizabeth Rumelt".

I would also suggest changing "author" to "writer" regarding Elizabeth's profession in order to match the source more accurately. Not all writers are authors, and the article only says writer. Jadamgreen (talk) 06:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

​When this was originally added, it was referring to Richard being "a professor and author", somehow "respectively" found its way in there later. I couldn't find a source mentioning her mother. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2022

Suggest the paragraph "In 2016, The Guardian reported that Clare was being sued by Sherrilyn Kenyon for 'wilfully copying' her novels.[13]" be amended to add "Kenyon's suit was amended to drop the copyright claims and the remaining dispute over branding and cover designs was settled for an undisclosed amount." with citation https://www.vulture.com/2019/06/romance-author-sherrilyn-kenyon-said-her-husband-poisoned-her.html as the current state of the page is misleading. Or delete the line entirely. Thanks. Oryu~enwiki (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2022

Change “The Mortal Instruments series” section to “written works” or something similar with “The Mortal Instruments” being a sub section inside that area. MAJOR updates needed to her “written works” mentions also. She has 2 separate book series out, the most popular includes the currently mentioned titles but there are many more. Without extensive detail on plot or publishing her written works are as follows.

(Shadowhunters is the name of the entire series, each numbered title is the name of a series of books within the Shadowhunters series, each book title is listed below the individual series name)

Shadowhunters Series 1. The Mortal Instruments part 1

  - City of Bones
  - City of Ashes
  - City of Glass

2. The Mortal Instruments part 2

  - City of Fallen Angels
  - City of Lost Souls
  - City of Heavenly Fire

3. The Eldest Curses

  - The Red Scrolls of Magic
  - The Lost Book of the White

4. The Infernal Devices

  - Clockwork Angel
  - Clockwork Prince
  - Clockwork Princess

5. The Dark Artifices

  - Lady Midnight
  - Lord of Shadows
  - Queen of Air and Darkness

6. The Last Hours

  - Chain of Gold
  - Chain of Iron
  - Chain of Thorns

7. Books not part of a series

  - The Bane Chronicles
  - The Shadowhunters Codex
  - Tales from the Shadowhunter Academy
  - Ghosts of the Shadow Market

8. Wicked Powers (announced but not yet published)

The Magisterium Series (co-author)

  - The Iron Trial
  - The Copper Gauntlet
  - The Silver Mask
  - The Bronze Key
  - The Golden Tower

The Sword Catcher Series (announced but not yet published)

Website for reference. https://cassandraclare.com/coming-soon/ 2603:6010:440:56:D0B4:7C6D:75C2:E688 (talk) 18:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: We already have a section called "Bibliography". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Renewed Plagiarism Accusations

Given the renewed interest (as evidenced in the link below) in CC's controversies regarding plagiarism due to her releasing the synopsis for her upcoming book, it seems as relevant as ever to include this information:

https://www.distractify.com/p/cassandra-clare-plagiarism

There have been many articles linked above that show that this is a topic that is substantially discussed and relevant to the author and her work. In July 2022, a short section was added regarding this topic and then subsequently removed just over a day later with the reasoning of it being "duplicative of the paragraph in the 'personal life" section'"

However, the personal life section does not mention anything other than the lawsuit despite these being separate but related instances. If an author was sued for copyright infringement when there are already existing accusations, these are obviously relevant and are worth mentioning.

I am confused how it has gotten to a point where this is being purposely removed from her Wikipedia page despite being something that is intertwined with her writing and reputation. It is not Wikipedia's job to whitewash information. I would argue it is actually Wikipedia's job to intentionally and purposely avoid whitewashing. This information needs to be included. If it is deliberately being removed over and over again, it becomes incredibly apparent that this article is no longer acting as a non-biased source of information but instead as a shield to protect her reputation, which as another user said, is not Wikipedia's intent or job. PoisonIvyTV (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

I greatly reworked the material, bringing in authoritative sources. The section should be suitable now for all readers. Binksternet (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)