Talk:Barbara Bauer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments
Note	The subject of this article has requested that they not be included in Wikipedia. While Wikipedia does not honor these requests, this article should be monitored for controversial or unsourced material.

An appropriate infobox needs to be added to this article, or the current infobox needs to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Barbara Bauer article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article was nominated for deletion on 28/5/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Archives
May 2006–July 2006 July 2006

[edit] Reliable sources

This blog:

• Strauss, Victoria. The Barbara Bauer Show. Writer Beware Blog. See below.

is not a reliable source for our purposes. -Will Beback 00:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Likewise these forums and blogs:

• Barbara Bauer Literary Agency. Water Cooler. Absolute Write (2005–2006). Retrieved on 2006-06-30.
• Hayden, Teresa Nielsen (April 20, 2006). Barbara Bauer takes action! (*yawn*). Making Light. Patrick & Teresa Nielsen Hayden. Retrieved on 2006-06-30.
• Barbara Bauer Literary Agency. Forum. WritersWeekly.com (March 13, 2006). Retrieved on 2006-06-30.
• Offut, Paula (April 16, 2006). Silly Agent. Thought Patterns. Retrieved on 2006-03-30.

Let's stick with sources allowed by WP:RS please. -Will Beback 00:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree regarding The Writer Beware blog. Victoria Strauss is the spokesperson for Writer Beware, an arm of SFWA, and I could make an argument it's not self-published at all. However WP:RS states:

Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material.

And Victoria Strauss is in her field of expertise regarding anything to do with literary agencies. --Shinto 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Under those circumstances, and based on references like this: [1], I agree that Strauss is an expert speaking within her field. -Will Beback 04:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

She is on writing fantasy, but here's the deal: She's a moderator at absolutewrite which is the aggrieved party in this feud. How can an obviously involved partisan be allowed to source an encyclopedia article in which she's been involved? She's a friend of Neilsen Hayden, and all of these folks are involved in the issue. That's not NPOV any way you cut it. Makes no difference if they're right ot not. If this stands, anyone can do it to anyone. We'll just attack from Wikipedia. The last stop for vendettas online.Marky48 04:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on her interviews as an activist against literary scams, she appears to qualify as an expert. Experts in any field are not necessarily neutral or unassociated. If you think it necessary then it would be appropriate to add an attribution, "According to V. Strauss of Writer Beware, Bauer was...". -Will Beback 04:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I like the Strauss entry much better than the P&E cite as a source for this paragraph. It covers the allegations of fee charging, cease and desist letters, and the AW takedown, but is much less distateful and mocking than the other source. Strauss does criticize the ISP, but makes no specific allegations and does not name the company or its principals. This source makes the blog and forum references unnecessary while allowing us to retain the part of the controversy that makes Bauer notable, as distinct from the other agents and agencies listed as "20 Worst." (However, I believe one or two of the others are having legal problems now, which might conceivably make them notable in the future.) And Mark, by your logic, nobody with direct knowledge of a situation should ever be quoted about it. That doesn't make sense to me. As far as I can tell, Strauss has been fairly restrained on the subject of Bauer, answering questions in interviews but not going out of her way to pursue any kind of vendetta. And for the record (and I've mentioned some of this before), I've never met or spoken to TNH, Victoria Strauss, the P&E guy whose name I keep forgetting, Bauer, Jules, or anyone else mentioned here, with one exception. Nor have I ever posted to Absolute Write. My interest in this article is simply to convey an accurate and fair picture of Barbara Bauer and why she is notable. That includes both the positives and the well-sourced gist of the negatives. The current wording does this, without directly accusing her of any wrongdoing. That seems pretty NPOV to me. Good job, people. Karen | Talk | contribs 06:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Mavarin, I'm not sure why you volunteered this disclaimer "for the record". I just came across a blog full of foul comments about myself in which you and, I suppose other editors here, were participating, including one of the persons you list above. You do seem to have some connection at least as a correspondent. If the purpose of the assertion is to show that you are neutral and uninvolved, then your statement is neither needed nor sufficient. We don't require editors to be neutral, just their edits. -Will Beback 06:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I suppose that was unclear out of context. I was responding to something from another subheading above, which implied that I am a member of Absolute Write. I certainly do read Making Light, albeit not consistently, and my contact with TNH to date has been blog comments, plus two emails in three years, the first of which was to say "Oops! I posted a dupe comment! Sorry!" I will also disclose that I have a submission in the slush pile at Tor, but would not expect anything Wikipedia-related to make an iota of difference in my chances of a sale. My point was that commenting there is a far cry from being here for the purpose of supporting TNH and AW, and disparaging BB. It is also true that I have been frustrated with you at times, Will, not personally, but because I disagree with you about certain sources being citable. However, I do respect you and your work here, and I would hope that I personally never said anything foul about you. I try not to say foul things about anyone. Nor do I agree with everything other people say on Making Light - or anywhere else. Sometimes people are harsh, but I seldom call them on it because I hate discord and confrontation. Nevertheless, if I failed to defend you in public, I apologize. Karen | Talk | contribs 07:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Your apology is unnecessary but accepted. I gather that you all know each other from some sci-fi publishing special interest group, etc. Everyone should check their affiliations at the door, and "write for the enemy" in order to achieve NPOV. Beyond that, we should always remember that the subject is a living person, the type of encyclopeda topic that deserves the most care. I think the article is much better now than it had been before. -Will Beback 08:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to clear up what seems to be a misconception about the "sci fi" aspect of this whole issue. As far as I'm aware, the SFWA seems to be the only major association of authors that has undertaken an effort such as Writer Beware. In fact, the Mystery Writers of America points to Writer Beware [2]. If Writer Beware was under the umbrella of the MWA or the Romance Writers of America, would it make any difference to this article? I doubt it. (Obligatory disclosure - I am a writer, but I do not belong to any of the above-mentioned organizations.) St jb 22:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Will, you "gather" correctly, it's a club out for revenge, but what about the allegation sentence? Rumor mill? And why to we have to link to ISP? This isn't about an ISP.Marky48 11:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we had one because the somebody presumably felt the concept may need explanation to someone unfamiliar with it. I'm not sure I agree, but the link doesn't detract from the article, so I've never bothered with it until now. Now I realise that it's going to the wrong place, anyway, as Internet Service Provider talks about providing Internet access. Internet hosting service is a more appropriate page. JulesH 16:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"misconception about the "sci fi" aspect of this whole issue." Well the whole effort is indeed by this association and those sympathetic to them. I'm a writer too, but not a member. So what? Will saw the blogmob associated with them at Making Light attack him. They crushed me and I wasn't allowed to defend myself. When I did I became guilty of "incivility." How convienient. VS is a moderator at Absolutewrite and part of the whole shutdown fight. Can't you see the inbreeding in this by members, forum posters, and this vendetta? Not being a member of SFWA is a real bifurcation of the issue. The records are clear on this. You may just be a fan or reader of the forums and blogs and jumped on the bandwagon, but bandwagon it is just the same? I mean Karen was running back and forth to Making Light and complaining about me for months. From there they mounted a defense and this is the result, not to mention the source of the article in the first place. This is epic denial of documented facts and history of the conflict. My problem is reporting a "rumor" cause in an encyclopedia. It could be linked to but not claimed as fact in the article for starters. Marky48 00:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

"I will also disclose that I have a submission in the slush pile at Tor." Yeah, there's no connection to defending the cause to the death there. No sir. Albeit probably won't help when money is on the line for the company. This is how connected the editors here are. Possibly Jules has too? Sci-fi is his genre according to his page. Does anyone think this is not evidence of bias? Conflict of interest r' usMarky48 00:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I knew you would jump on that. First of all, Mark, if I were a friend of Teresa, my submission probably wouldn't be a week away from its 6 month anniversary on the slush pile with no response. That's how well connected I am. Patrick or some first reader (probably not Teresa) will either reject it or ask to see more, and nothing I do or say here will affect that outcome one way or the other. (Nor should it.) Second, I have no reason to want "revenge" on BB. She's never done anything to me. I have no connection whatsoever to AW, other than reading a few pages in connection with this article, and no connection to anyone who has received a C&D from her. Even Teresa hasn't actually been harmed by her - and from what I've seen, Teresa can take care of herself with no help from timid, inoffensive me. Third, I don't believe in revenge. I believe in truth, and compassion, and fairness, and redemption. That's why many of my edits to this article have been to add the "positive" and neutral material: the singing, the PhD, and the podcast were all originally added by me. The only thing I want to see happen to BB herself is for her to be prodded or inspired or educated or lucky enough to change her practices and start placing books for her clients with major publishers again, if indeed she isn't doing so now. A Wikipedia article is unlikely to accomplish that, but in its present form it's not going to do her substantial harm, either. I don't want anyone, anywhere, to suffer over a Wikipedia article, but I also don't want to truth to suffer over a suppression of relevant, well-sourced information. And finally, with the exception of TNH, BB (extremely vaguely) and one other person, I was never aware of the existence of anybody involved in this mess until I read the Making Light article about the AW takedown, and the comment thread that followed. Regards to all (as always). Karen | Talk | contribs 01:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Hence, "albeit probably won't help" as I said. Connections are connections. Invloved in the blog world in THIS issue translates to being involved on behalf of one side, thus a conflict of interest. Karen you are the prize winner when it comes to admitting to a charge and then magically waving it off as inconsequential. It's happened every time. This doesn't mean you have dinner with the Neilsen Haydens in Brooklyn. Or are on the board of directors of SFWA. I think that would require legitimate publication to start with? It means, 1. You came here from the blog in question. 2. You support the position of the blog and owner, who happens to be the editor of a publishing company where you've submitted work and has had negative run ins with the subject of the article. 3. You've gone back and forth in trying to discredit me, an apparent enemy of said group, by virtue of disagreeing with the "consensus" choiresque audience there on the "Bauer influence" on matters of the world. Aside that list you are typically neutral. End of story.Marky48 02:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I know this is hard, but it'd be a much more collegial atmosphere if folks could leave their other battles behind them. Wikipedia is not a battleground. A good way of defusing tensions is to avoid referring to each other entirely. What matters most here is the quality of the editing. -Will Beback 03:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be if vendettas weren't imposed in the form of minor rule infractions over editing foibles such as this absolutewrite assertion, which is the basis for this article in the first place. Why are innuendos and "allegedly's" encyclopedic?Marky48 03:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, quit it, all of you. There is no excuse for this ongoing personal bickering - if you're not going to discuss the text of this article, there is no reason for you to be continually posting on this page. Rebecca 04:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I really didn't mean to open a can of worms. I was simply attempting to clear up what I thought was a misconception that may be coloring some perceptions in regard to the article. I regret that my words were used as fodder for yet another personal attack as that was certainly not the intent. My attempt to tone down allegations of bias has obviously backfired. St jb 05:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. As for the article, I think it's looking very good now. It leads with her achievements, factually and neutrally reported. The negatives are attributed to reliable sources, and stated in such as way that Wikipedia is not actually accusing her of anything, but merely reporting substantiated allegations for which she is notable. It's also a plus that the two sources aren't themselves too vitriolic in tone, compared with most of what we've reviewed, and balanced by five positive citations. The remaining thing that probably needs to be done is the removal of two of the three external links. The first one is Bauer's main page and should stay. The second is a duplication of reference #7. The third is a blog, albeit the blog of a fairly notable writer. We don't need that at this point; it's overkill IMO. Thanks. Karen | Talk | contribs 06:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see how "allegatons" can be reported. It reads like an advertisement for absolutewrite with that reference in there.Marky48 11:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sections

This article had too many sections for its 339 words so I dropped them and made one section for the literary agency, without changing any text. If there's a better way to arange the text, let's find it. Otherwise, what's left to do? -Will Beback 10:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it looks reasonably good to me. The last paragraph doesn't flow particularly smoothly -- the repetition of "is also alleged" near the starts of two sentences in it is annoying. Other than that, I don't think there's much more needs doing. If we can find reliable sources for who her clients are that would be worth including, but I don't suspect any will turn up in the near future. JulesH 13:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks better without the controversy section. I'll be glad to take a closer look as I have time later today. BTW, was that you who archived this page, Will? Whoever did it, thanks. Oops. An edit confilct. I have found one of her clients who claims a sale to a small, but well-known, press. I'm waiting for confirmation on Bauer's page or at another reliable site. Still, I'm not sure that it will help unless Bauer is somehow given credit as the agent who made the deal. I'll accept that from the author's site if and when the book makes it into the publisher's catalog. St jb 13:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

The new sectioning groups things together where they belong, and consequently flows better. Well done! I'm not sure there's a good solution for that one repeated phrase, but perhaps somebody can come up with something. Karen | Talk | contribs 15:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is redundant aside from my problem with the second instance. I would edit it out since the first reference is sufficient.Marky48 03:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this?

There have been a number of complaints on internet message boards about the fees that Bauer charges. Bauer is also alleged to have made legal threats in order to suppress online discussion of her business practices, and to have caused the website Absolute Write to lose its Internet hosting service in May, 2006.[7] Reports of this behaviour are usually found on sites maintained by people who claim to have received such threats.

I know this doesn't solve the disagreement over that one line of text, but at least it gets rid of the second "also alleged." Karen | Talk | contribs 07:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. JulesH 10:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling this the "cause' of a business dispute when a myriad of other factors were in play continues to be nothing more than an advertisement for absolutewrite. There are to be no plugs for personal businesses here. "Poorly sourced, potentially libellous material must be removed immediately. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals."Marky48 15:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

That's much better. The line "Reports of this behavior..." balances out the allegation of threats by noting that at this point they are self-reported.St jb 16:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The sentence is well-sourced, and there isn't even a link to Absolute Write on the page. (Indeed, the article doesn't mention whether they ever went back online.) I did try to figure out a nice clean way to acknowledge the idea that Bauer may not have been the sole cause of the incident, but it's tricky to do without going beyond the scope of the source provided. It is also difficult to soften the allegation against Bauer without implicating someone else. Any suggestions how this can be done and properly sourced? Karen | Talk | contribs 21:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. The only source I've ever seen that suggests there were multiple causes is the James Cordray blog entry, which is now unfortunately offline. There's analysis of what he said on Making Light, but that's third-party non-reliable commentary on a barely-reliable source to start with. That said, I'm not sure how wikipedia policy would apply to making a less-strong assertion than the one that the source does: would we actually need another source for that, or could we just use common sense and say that if the one source we do have says she caused this, then saying her actions contributed to it must also be true? JulesH 22:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, now that's not a bad idea. So the paragraph would be

There have been a number of complaints on internet message boards about the fees that Bauer charges. Bauer is also alleged to have made legal threats in order to suppress online discussion of her business practices, and to have thus contributed to the website Absolute Write losing its Internet hosting service in May, 2006.[7] Reports of this behaviour are usually found on sites maintained by people who claim to have received such threats.

Better? Karen | Talk | contribs 22:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

There isn't any source. Hell, even Glatzer never said Bauer caused this, but then she would know the whole picture since she dealt with the service and those unknown facts have legal ramifications. This is as I've claimed all along, a blog rumor carried through to the maximum effect as the blogosphere is want to do on any subject. Legal "threats" that have no basis in fact aren't serious in the first place. They're rantings.Marky48 00:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)