Talk:Barbara Bauer/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

NOTE: Folks, if you're going to leave comments, please "sign" your posts using 4 tildes (~~~~), or use the handy "sig" button from the row over the top of thee editing window (should be the 3rd button from the right) to automatically insert a sig. And by the way, sigs generally do NOT include an external URL: the sigs are intended for INTERNAL use, so I have removed those URLS. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 01:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

Deletion

I am challenging the speedy delete since this is an actual publisher that does a sizeable amount of work. I think this article needs to be cleaned up but not deleted. Yanksox 18:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not an actual publisher, rather an agent, a scam one at that. She requires payment up front for services that are never rendered. Meaning, she never sells an author's work to a publisher. Which is why she has/was placed on the 20 worst agents lists--the link is provided in the original article. JM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeanMarie (talk • contribs) 19:07, May 28, 2006.

Okay, it's been cleaned up, a bit. JM —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JeanMarie (talk • contribs) 20:49, May 28, 2006.

JC Hosting link

The incident with JC Cordray hosting is in litigation and should not be included until verification is final. MY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marky48 (talk • contribs) 02:33, June 4, 2006.

I don't see why this is relevant. The subject of the litigation isn't Bauer, but rather how JC Hosting responded to her complaint. I think when Cordray states on his page that he was contacted by her, we can trust that as a reliable source; it doesn't particularly help his case so I see no reason he would lie about it. It also seems to be one of the few statements either side has made that the other hasn't disputed (even though Cordray did apparently dispute it prior to this posting, he admitted it at this point). Furthermore, while parties to litigation are generally advised not to comment publically on it, that restriction doesn't really apply to Wikipedia. I'd suggest keeping it. JulesH 10:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Alleging things against people is not "encyclopedic." Bauer's actions to a number of people are well-documented, but it isn't really known what connection this may have had with the JC hosting conflict and Absolutewrite. All we know is Bauer's letter is rumored to be the cause when it may just be a false cause fallacy. Thus, it's defamatory to JC Hosting as it stands. Don't go down this road is my take on it. Respectfully, MY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marky48 (talk • contribs) 18:02, June 4, 2006.

It's known that Barbara Bauer both sent a FAX and telephoned JC Hosting to complain of her email being posted on AW. This is what began the entire fiasco. It is also known that her email address is in public view on her web address. That is old ground. JC Hosting has publically admitted to having received said FAX and phone call. It's not alleged. They in turn requested that AW remove Bauer's email addy from their site. Again, public knowledge. JC Hosting is as integral a part of this story as is Barbara Bauer. Please reinstate the JC Hosting link.--JeanMarie 19:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


It isn't known if that actually caused the shutdown by JC Hosting regardless of the truth of the requests. Appearances can be deceiving. We don't know what the response was to said request. We just know of an ongoing battle that ended badly thus far. The members of AW have gotten way out ahead of their facts in a legal matter and are just bystanders with no standing to make accusations. Respectfully, MY —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marky48 (talk • contribs) 19:29, June 4, 2006.

Since JC Hosting stated, clearly, on his own web page that the above did indeed occur, either he is lying in public, or telling the truth, in public. He stated that he had been contacted by Ms. Bauer regarding the posting of her email addy on AW, which ignited, (again, we re-visit old ground), the fiasco which resulted in JC Hosting shutting down AW. It was as a direct result of Barbara Bauer's FAX and follow-up phone call to JC Hosting. Once again, the link should be reinstated as the verbage regarding said incident was originally written in the owner of JC Hosting's own words.--JeanMarie 20:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Restored comment:
The deleted text, as it existed before being deleted, twice, gave a sequence of events: 1. Bauer complained to JC-Hosting. 2. JC-Hosting took the site down, for reasons one of its proprietors explains in this link. (The fact that some of his explanation doesn't fit well with the Cordrays' later statements is irrelevant to the fact of Bauer's contact, which has never been disputed by the Cordrays or AW.) The text says "after complaints made by Bauer," not "because of complaints made by Bauer." The text does NOT state that Bauer was the direct cause of the takedown, which is the only part of the story you are really disputing. At the same time, the sequence of events and the AW takedown are very much a part of the Barbara Bauer story (sounds like a movie-of-the-week, doesn't it?). Without that information, the entry is incomplete, and doesn't quite make sense. With it, the entry is factual, and makes no accusations about Cordray or Bauer other than the raw facts. The reader can follow the links or not, and decide how to interpret the claims made there. But Wikipedia itself makes no claims that are under dispute by any of the principals in this matter. Karen 22:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't erase the discussion history. Marky48 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marky48 (talk • contribs) 00:24, June 5, 2006.


As I'm not sure who "You" is, I will offer that I did not delete my portion of the discussion. In fact, it is archived and I've located it. I will copy/paste it back, here. It will include the original time stamp, as well, since I am a Wikipedia user. May I remind whomever did remove it, that to do so again, will invite mediation from Wikipedia. Therefore, I recommend, strongly,leaving my words, alone. Thank you.--JeanMarie 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Restored Comment

I would also like to add, that the individual making comments, above, as MY, is posing as a non-user of Wikipedia in debating this matter. When in fact, he happens to be the same individual who removed the JC Hosting link. He is registered as an Wikipedia user under the name of Marky48. I question his debating ethics, as such. Is it fair or ethical to remove a link under one name, then return and debate under false pretenses? Granted, I'm new here, but, please enlighten me as to your policy. Thank you.--JeanMarie 20:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


As stated, I added back my previous comments. Now, please leave them be. --JeanMarie 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I find Marky48's last comment curious, since Marky48 just deleted my previous contribution to this discussion. To whom is he complaining? JeanMarie deleted nothing. JulesH deleted nothing. I deleted nothing. (Yes, I checked.) With this edit, I restore the rest of what is missing. Karen 01:17, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems I was in error. I thought I had posts that were missing. My apologies on the deletion. However, I stand by my assertion that this is a group witch hunt against the Cordray's. Ms. Weisen used this addition in the form of a threat on his own blog. We know that the ISP was contacted by Bauer, but we don't know why they cut the service to Absolutewrite. To identify the ISP would be to publically indict them. This is the goal in my view. The ISP is not identified for Writer's Weekly, nor is it for Making Light. All that needs to be known is an ISP shut down the website, and any contact by Bauer is coincidental at the present time. To identify them suggests collusion. Marky48 03:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm, no, that does not appear to be the case either. I just spent about an hour perusing the forum (not blog) in question. Jean Marie did not threaten anyone with anything, did not mention Wikipedia, and seems to have been one of the more polite people in this whole infammatory mess.

The difference between AW's ISP and WW's is a significant one. The former shut down the site after (not necessarily because of) BB's complaint. The latter has not. This is legitimately part of the Barbara Bauer narrative, and the two facts I mentioned earlier are, as I said, not in dispute. Indeed, the link gives JC's side of the story, which is very much anti-AW, and not at all a witch hunt against the Cordrays. Quite the opposite. Karen 04:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That's false. She did so on the Cordray blog or the two Making Light threads. Marky48 15:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a lot has happened here over the last day or so. I've set this comment off in horizontal bars because it's going to be long, and I'm going to be quoting some of what people have said above, so indenting it to set it off wouldn't really work. Hope this is understandable as to who said what, it could get a little confusing.

First off, Marky48 said:

I disagree. Alleging things against people is not "encyclopedic." Bauer's actions to a number of people are well-documented, but it isn't really known what connection this may have had with the JC hosting conflict and Absolutewrite. All we know is Bauer's letter is rumored to be the cause when it may just be a false cause fallacy. Thus, it's defamatory to JC Hosting as it stands. Don't go down this road is my take on it.

Have you read the page that the deleted comment links to? It was written by James Cordray, the manager of JC Hosting. It specifically states: "Ms. Bauer called complaining about the post topic and threatened legal actions [...] she explained how the post was only there to harass her and her business [...] the day after it was first requested I sent an email to AW’s owner giving them another 2 hours added to the 24 that was given the day before to remove the post and [Barbara Bauer's] email address". This is in JC Hosting's own words. There is no doubt about this. It is not disputed. Bauer did make this threat, it is admitted by both sides. Cordray admits that it was a factor in his decision to pull the site, although he also contends there were other reasons (whether these are true or not is not a subject for this article). I don't see how Cordray's words can be defamatory to JC Hosting, a business which he owns.

The members of AW have gotten way out ahead of their facts in a legal matter and are just bystanders with no standing to make accusations.

Which is why none of them should be cited. Cordray, however, is a primary source and can be referenced here. He says that Bauer complained about AW (which is all the article asserted) and that it was a factor in his decision to remove the site (which was only implied by the article, not specifically stated).

However, I stand by my assertion that this is a group witch hunt against the Cordray's

No. This is not about either Cordray. If we felt them notable enough to create an article about them, it would be at James Cordray or Stephanie Cordray, but neither are IMO. This article is about Barbara Bauer. The reason Cordray's site was linked was to support the allegation that Bauer made legal threats about Absolute Write. Cordray's article is documentary evidence of the fact that this is true, just like Angela Hoy's response on Writers' Weekly supports the fact that Bauer threatened her with legal action over a similar incident. You'll note that nothing negative is said about James Cordray or his business in the text which you have repeatedly removed. Just that in the linked article he describes the events that lead to him removing AW from his servers. No judgment is made on his reasons for doing this (I couldn't post my judgment on them here as it isn't verifiable).

We know that the ISP was contacted by Bauer, but we don't know why they cut the service to Absolutewrite. To identify the ISP would be to publically indict them. This is the goal in my view.

No. The goal, quite clearly, is to back up a claim that Bauer contacted them. We need to name them because no other source can do this. We do not make any judgment, in fact we use their own words to support our position. I do not see how using somebody elses words and an accurate summary of those words could be "publically indicting them". And the suggestion you make as to my goal when I originally wrote those words comes very close to not assuming good faith, so I would be grateful if you could refrain from repeating it, at least in this venue.

I'm restoring the link. I'm convinced that it is correct to include it, and the consensus here (at least between Jean Marie, Karen and me, i.e. most of the people who have edited this page) is that it should stand.

All the above: JulesH 15:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


A consensus of three biased partisans Jules H? Pardon me for intruding with truth and logic. Aside from "stomping" threats by Ms. Weisen here is the quote I mentioned [1]

"Fortunately, Wikipedia has seen fit to not delete the article regarding Barbara Bauer. JamesC, you're included. Therefore, your dubious business practices shall remain on record in an online encylcopedia. When one speaks w/ as many forked tongues as you and keeps company w/ the likes of Barbara Bauer, I think that's fair, don't you?" Jean Marie ::: (view all by) ::: June 03, 2006, 02:10 PM:

No, I don't. This is libelous. Marky48 16:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


JulesH, I would kindly request that you end this discussion as my name is now being libeled, or close to it, by Marky48. And intentionally. This is no longer a debate regarding the link supporting the Bauer article, it is now, obviously, a personal attack. I appreciate your understanding/insight of the importance of this link standing in order to substanstiate, fully, the Bauer article as it is in Mr. Cordray's own words. As a Wiki user, I don't expect personal vendettas, nor deletion of my comments by other parties. Thank you. --JeanMarie 16:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't but you are. The point is this is an agenda by a cabal of self-interested partisans. The deletion was my mistake and I said so. I thought I had been deleted and apologized for it. This is about objectivity and fairness. Marky48 17:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Ah. The prior claim was that JM threatened JamesC "in his own blog." Making Light is obviously not remotely that venue. However, I concede that a zillion words have been written recently in mutiple venues, which makes it a little hard to keep track.

That said, Jean Marie's Making Light comment was not a threat, but an assumption, stated in a slightly infammatory manner. The substance of it is that this article has a link to Cordray's own words, by which others can see his poor business practices. However, this has no real bearing on the article itself. (And of course the "stomping" remarks were about the deletions made on this discussion page, were quickly "taken back" in light of an error, and had nothing to do with the Cordays whatsoever.) The fact remains that the article, with the repeatedly-deleted text, does not criticize Cordray, but states facts that are not disputed by any of the principals in this matter. Further, it links to Cordray's own explanation of the chain of events. There does not seem to be any rational way to characterize this as unfair to Cordray, and is, as previously stated, a vital and legitimate part of the Barbara Bauer narrative and resulting article.

I have no association whatsoever with Absolute Write, Barbara Bauer, JC-Hosting, etc., or even the other people who have contributed to this discussion, save for having seen the latter in comment threads. To the best of my memory I have never even been to the "Water Cooler," although I intend to look into it one of these days. I not been burned or banned by anyone, and have no axe to grind. I merely want the article to be complete, accurate and dispassionate. Personal attacks (even from me) and changes that are unsupported by the facts and reasonableness of the article itself (regardless of words thrown around elsewhere) should have no place here. (Yes, this is a frustrated idealist speaking.) These deletions seem to have nothing to do with the article itself, and everything to do with what has been said elsewhere. An examination of the article text by itself, plus the linked material, shows no witch hunt, no criticism of the Cordrays by Wikipedia, no unsupported facts, and no discernable bias. It should therefore be restored. Karen 18:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It speaks to motivation for this contribution. I don't know the Cordrays but I know a public lynching when I see one. Since I got lynched with them I'm seeking fairness. If his website is linked to this Bauer threat it has negative consequences for the business, which is the idea. This is a swiftboating over a matter currently in litigation, whereas the other threats fell flat. Readers will indeed draw cause and effect from the link whether it's factual or not. That's the inflammatory context absolutewrite members have created and that's what this is here. Morover the ISP is clearly identified in the two Making Light links. Marky48 19:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Shinto your threats ring hollow. This isn't a consensus of objective users. They are all self-interested partisans. That's a far cry from objective. This is about revenge for absolutewrite on JCHosting and nothing more as I've proven. BY all means call in mediation. I may beat you to it. A quick look at your history shows how "objective" you are. Marky48 15:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

-

I was trying to be gracious by not replying to the previous comment here, but now there is another one, repeating the same old false accusation. Mark, I mentioned this before, and it's easily proved. I have NEVER had any connection whatsoever with Absolute Write, PublishAmerica or anything or anyone else mentioned here, except as a sometime reader and occasional commenter on Making Light (NOT AW) and a handful of very recent emails related to this Talk page. My only allegience in this matter is to Wikipedia, which is why I've gone out of my way to provide positive material on Bauer (the Ph.D and singing info), and to make sure the link you dislike does not state a causal relationship, even though Cordray mentions Bauer as a factor in the decision. Nor did I write the original article. Endlessly repeating your skewed interpretation does not make it any more true. Please move on. Incidentally, your previous comment says that the posts behind the two Making Light links mention the ISP by name. They do not. They predate the most recent situation. How can you be sure of your conclusions when you are not in command of your facts?

It may be appropriate to add that the ISP has since made the data available to the website, and that the website is back up. That is accurate and relevant to the Bauer narrative, and may reflect positively on Cordray. However, I think I'll wait for further input before adding that, rather than act unilaterally at this time. Karen 17:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's really needed because the article states the ISP pulled the website, which they did. It doesn't make any mention of the whole database hostage crisis, which doesn't have anything to do with BB anyway. The whole database issue is a red herring as far as this article is concerned. --Shinto 19:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. Thanks. Karen 20:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, please keep your personal comments about other editors to yourself. It isn't appropriate to call into question Shinto's objectivity in the way you did, particularly seeing as the past edits I have seen of his have all been useful and neutral. I'd say he has done some great work, particularly on Miranda Prather, which despite the overwhelming negativity of what needs to be said about her is a balanced article, well researched, and with good references. (Using masculine pronouns to reflect either gender, apologies if I have it wrong) JulesH 21:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


To be clear, I'm not the sole author of the Bauer article. Matter of fact, there is none. There were numerous contributors. For further clarification, I did not enter the link for the JC Hosting site, either. Therefore, I would appreciate it if the personal attacks would end, including copy/pasting of my postings from other sites, such as Marky48 took liberty w/(above)from Making Light (only to incite, not to substantiate any line item of debate). As far as what Cordray said, the fact remains; Cordray said it. Regardless of personal feelings/opinions, Cordray's commentary cannot be undone. Just as each individual has written their words in this discussion of their own volition, so did Cordray. I fail to see the basis of continuing this debate. It does not change Cordray's words.--JeanMarie 00:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Heep your insights to yourselves. His interests are publishamerica and not much else. As are the the rest despite Karen's neutrality special pleading. The idea was to smear Cordray and you did in the same fashion as the swiftfboat vets smeared John Kerry. I'm against that. His words are what they are. Don't give Bauer more credit that she deserves. I think it's a false cause fallacy. You don't want to be quoted? Then shut up in public.Marky48 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


I've deleted my own comments. They've proven useless. Wiki is obviously not monitored.The insults by Marky48 have both gone over the line and grown tiresome.I've better things to do w/ my time, then to be verbally abused, relentlessy, on a dressed up blog site. The last time stamp reflects my original comments, if you feel inclined to reinstate them.--JeanMarie 19:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)JeanMarie 12:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

His statement is his. Bauer was but a small part of it, but in this context it is the root cause of the effect. That's what's wrong about it even if your blind allegiance shields you from seeing it, JM. Swiftboating is a real deal and wrong. In this atmosphere lies and misinformation win. I'm against public hangings ahead of the evidence. I suppose that's what my scientific and legal training have taught me. Banned by mobs is a badge of honor.Marky48 14:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Bauer Book Sales

Okay, this is interesting. Both of the books mentioned in the "whitewash" version of the entry are real books. The Weekly Reader one from 1987 only brought me one hit and is clearly out of print, and the Orsini one from (apparently) 1991 was republished in 1993 is is still theoretically available. Father Orsini seems to have had a previous book, so he would not be a first time author (obviously). And now we know where the Dom DeLuise reference comes from.

Still, if we can be reasonably certain that she really did help the authors sell these books, then she does at least two legitimate credits as an agent. They just aren't remotely recent. It seems to be I read in one thread somewhere that the issue with Barbara Bauer is not so much whether she ever placed a book in a paying market (probably). It's whether she has done so in recent years (apparently not, according to reports), instead of merely taking the fees without accomplishing anything for her clients. While we can't condone removal of the SFWA list information, etc., might it not be appropriate to include the infomation that she does seem to have placed at least a few non-vanity books earlir in her career? Thanks! Karen 00:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think they should definitely be included if we can find a somewhat reliable source for the info. I would note that the user name of the person who did the edit was "Cannoliq," and the email address on Bauer's official website is cannoliq at msn.com. --Shinto 04:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy on verifiability is that a page operated by a named individual can be used for information concerning that individual, as long as the information doesn't seem exaggerated or is called into question by other information. I personally don't question that Bauer sold these books. Therefore, I'd suggest including at least the Father Orsini one (the cover of which is shown on her web site's clients section, along with a few other books I can't identify at that resolution) and using her own site as a reference. If we can identify the others that her site shows, we should include those... as long as they are published by a reputable mainstream press. JulesH 15:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. A little more digging, and I'm no longer confident. The text from the whitewash version describes Orsini as "a first-time author whose book she placed with St. Martin's Press", but Orsini wasn't a first-time author when he published the quoted book. He'd published at least two books with Logos International (now Bridge-Logos), a publisher of christian books, before Bauer had even graduated. Details here: [2] [3] JulesH 16:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

James Cordray link

The James Cordray link does not work for me. It says that you have to log in. -- Kjkolb 08:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The link changed on the server. It's been fixed, though that should probably be monitored if the target entry is going to start moving around.--Shinto 08:25, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The link now goes to a different page. I'm going to add a note that the link no longer works. I'm not sure if this means we should delete this, or find another source regarding Bauer's complaint re. Absolute Write, or what. I'm not sure what other reliable sources there are for this one. JulesH 14:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cordray disabled it as a defense from the attack he endured by absolutewrite. I don't blame him, and I advocated the link not be included, but alas was shot down repeatedly by the same person. A trend? A localized incident for sure and repeatable. That's what scientists want in an experiment. This one failed as I said. The link should be removed.Marky48 02:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done my best. The link is gone, replaced by a Google search string that gives results over a range of opinion. Cordray and the ISP are no longer named in the article, and the text acknowledges that other reasons were cited in addition to Bauer. This preserves the reason why people were especially angry with Bauer, without getting into the ISP controversy beyond the most superficial possible mention. I hope that suffices. Regards to all. Karen 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That's what I wanted in the first place, if not for the zealousness of the group we would have had it a long time ago. Somehow being right isn't enough payment for the abuse others have caused. There will be no place for this sort of thing in my life again. Good night Irene.Marky48 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


Actually, the JC Hosting link works just fine. I'm not sure why anyone has had a problem with it--click here>>[4] If you go to the left side of the page and click on "news" a new page will open with "latest news" at the bottom. It says 4 items--click on that and another page will come up with the 4 articles that have been written. They're appropriately titled and dated. Hope this helps.--JeanMarie 04:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the original "this is why we pulled the plug" page isn't one of the four items. That would have been dated May something. Clicking that link (from Google, for example) brings up a "do not have permission" error message. It is my understanding, though, that archived versions of that page can still be found, if anyone cares enough to do so. Karen 04:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Never let it be said the instigator of this whole affair gives up easily, including erasing her own quotes.Marky48 20:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Karen, I didn't realize that article had been deleted by James until I re-checked. Stow it, Mark. I'm not the originator of this article;please check your facts, first. I left the "sand-box" due to lack of maturity.--JeanMarie 18:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Stow it?" Well, you entered the fray early on, and edited my post with your quote out of personal embarassment I suppose, but then reality can be harsh.Marky48 03:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark, please stop making personal comments about other contributors. It doesn't help anyone. JulesH 08:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, JulesH. I appreciate your comments as I have never touched another contributors post either by mistake or otherwise. Exception to that was originally when the Bauer article was in question for deletion and several of us were cleaning up the article, as requested. During that time, the only changes I made were of a grammatical nature. No quotes were deleted/altered by me. My notation is signed and dated for verification. Other than that, it was myself and Karen who had to reinstate our remarks, as indicated.--JeanMarie 15:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Jules do not order me to do anything. Marky48 04:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You have a very strange definition of "order" if you think "please stop making personal comments about other contributors" is one. That is clearly a request. JulesH 07:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just refrain from addressing me in any way. I don't take requests, but I'm glad the article ended up where it did but no thanks to you or Ms. Marie.Marky48 11:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Article ownership

Just refrain from addressing me in any way. Nope, that's not how collaborative editing works. If you have a problem with that, stick to blogging. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with individual posters engaging in a group effort to smear people when the "editors" aren't privy to the confidential information they need to make the leaps they want. If this means "any notion" in the group is "equal" to any other regardless of merit and context, then yes, I have no want of this experiment, but don't pretend to instruct me to love it or leave it Calton. I could say the same for you: If you don't like my opinions here on what should be in or out, you can leave as well. I'm not afraid of lynch mobs including one's led by you.Marky48 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Who, precisely, is "smearing" whom? And what "confidential information" are you talking about? The only things that have ever been said about Cordray (assuming that is who you are refering to) on this article are direct summaries of things he posted on his own blog. I fail to see where confidential information enters into it. The link was removed because Cordray removed the article from his blog that explained what he did, but it clearly stated that the phone call he received from Bauer threatening legal action was one of the reasons why he dropped Absolute Write from his service. That is all this article has ever said about him. It was never intended to smear him. It was intended to substantiate the comment made in this article that Bauer is known for threatening legal action against web sites that post negative information about her.
Calton's comments have no more or less relevance than anybody elses here, but you should understand that wikipedia works on the basis of consensus. Of the people who have edited this article, there is a general consensus that the link was relevant, was not a "smear" against Cordray, and should have been in the article. If you want to call consensus a "lynch mob" go ahead, but understand that it is a fundamental principle of how wikipedia works.
And, no, I won't stop addressing you, at least for as long as you are talking about me or about changes I have made to the article. JulesH 10:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is gone, which is what I wanted. Now I want you gone. There: you are.Marky48 11:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going anywhere. JulesH 12:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

...you can leave as well and Now I want you gone. Free clue for the clueless: read this page. If any of it gives you trouble, you might as well hit the road now before your inevitable official banishment, because that IS policy -- firm and ironclad -- and all of your industrial-strength haughtiness and playing the victim card won't change that one iota. You're not the first to think someone died and left them in charge here and you won't be the last -- but you're also not going to be the first to succeed. Don"t like other editors participating? Tough luck and sucks to be you, then. --Calton | Talk 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Folks, how long are we going to continue to respond to uncivil remarks and personal attacks? We've tried politeness and reason, negotiation and mediation, and even occasionally strayed into incivility ourselves. Result: the two articles have mostly stabilized (aside from the User:Cannoliq whitewash attempts), but the sniping continues. I really only see two reasonable options at this point: ignore any further personal remarks, on the grounds that anyone who reads the page can easily determine their accuracy and adherence to Wikipedia policies (or lack thereof); or proceed to one of the other steps in the dispute resolution process. This endless back-and-forth accomplishes nothing useful. Regards. Karen 19:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

No one in power died and left you two in charge either. Who the hell do you think you are? Moreover, there are much more informative pages than these two shill written diatribes. The good will amd faith ended when these two were written by partisans as an attack. My facts will stand fast. The Cordray link was ill-advised and then some. If you can't stand dissent take a hike yourselves because I don't run from bullies. I fight them until they drop. You'll be prosecuted.Marky48 00:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

No one in power died and left you two in charge either Dot's nice. Also, completely and utterly irrelevant, since "us two" ARE NOT TRYING TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT TO DO OR TELLING THEM TO GO AWAY. "Us two" are not trying to pretend we're in charge, unlike you. Your martyr act, while faintly comical, is also utterly misplaced.
You -- Marky48 -- do not unilaterally dictate terms of engagement. You -- Marky48 -- do not get to make demands. You -- Marky48 -- do not get to issue orders to anyone here, if only for the simple reason that you do not own the site and have no reasonable expectation of ownership. You -- Marky48 -- have to follow the guidelines, rules, and policies of the ACTUAL site owners, and all the sputtering, misdirection, and virtual machismo doesn't change that simple reality.
Who the hell do you think you are? An editor, same as you. But trying to edit fairly and follow Wikipedia standards, unlike you. Someone not issuing orders and not proclaiming dominion over an article so I can grind an axe, unlike you. And I'm someone who's read this page and understands its words, unlike you.
You'll be prosecuted. Oh? By whom? The Marky48 District Attorney's Office? Certainly not by Wikipedia, since the only reasonable violator of Wikipedia rules would be you. If you mean by someone or something external to Wikipedia, read this Wikipedia policy, yet another you seem to be unfamiliar with. And read it before you respond to this, since obvious violators of that rule get the hammer dropped on them pretty much immediately and without mercy. Don't say I ddn't warn you. --Calton | Talk 00:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You know what Calton? I don't give a flying flip what you think. I've violated nothing. I've advocated an editing position. Don't read me the riot act after coming in late to the party. My position is this article is invalid and defamatory and has been from thr start. Try to address my editorial stance instead of the "crime" of failing to cower to the bullying of this cabal of partisan friends trying to write a vanity attack polemic. Take your gangland tactics elsewhere. I'm not buying or playing.Marky48 02:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This article appears to rely on blogs, webforums, Usenet, and Google searches for significant material. Those sources are not considered reliable, per WP:RS. Let's stick to what is verifiable using reliable sources. -Will Beback 19:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure there's any Usenet here at all, but the Google point may be a good one. That first Google citation is part of a previous compromise, though, so replacing it may be tricky to do without touching off another edit war. Any suggestions? The references to blogs and forums illustrate the issue of Barbara Bauer trying to stifle any mention of her in such places, so I think they should be included. Karen 20:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
By "Usenet" I was referring to this link, [5], which is a search of Usenet/Google Groups. Have you read WP:RS? There are exceptions, but they are rather narrow. This material:
  • However, an examination of her claims of success for later clients[6] appears to show only books that are either vanity-published or remain unsold. A number of writers have also reported on the fees Bauer charges. [7]
Is inappropriate because in both cases we're using the links as direct sources. Likewise, this material:
  • Dr. Bauer is reputed to regularly make legal threats in order to suppress discussion of her business's activities, especially on web sites. Numerous reports of this kind of behaviour can be found scattered on several web sites throughout the internet, including: Writers Weekly Making Light, a site run by Teresa Nielsen Hayden Thought Patterns, a blog whose owner received a cease-and-desist letter from Bauer Making Light again when Bauer tried to take action against Nielsen Hayden because of the previous discussion
Also depends on blogs for facts. The only reliable source that I see on the "bad agent" matter is Writer Beware.
Lastly, this article is constructed as an attack. The biographical info is added as a postscript. We should put that material first, then report what the reliable sources say about the bad agent assertion. -Will Beback 22:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I entirely agree. About the links in the article labelled as 1, 2 and 3 at the moment I concur: they are referencing secondary sources that are inappropriate; the others you mention I would contend are all primary sources; the list in the middle of the article contains sources about Bauer's reputation for making legal threats, the subject of the preceding paragraph, by people who have received such threats. The Google Groups link closer to the end is a primary source for the statement that a negative reputation has existed for some time; it is, again, direct evidence of this, not a secondary source. I don't see how its accuracy can be denied.
As to the construction of the article, it is Bauer's inclusion in the SFWA list that makes her notable. This must clearly, therefore, be at the start of the article. The reputation for legal threats, however, could be moved below the biographical info. JulesH 23:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Will I'm shocked JH doesn't agree. I concur that Writer Beware is the only credible source. Moreover these two "consensus" editors are part of this blog forum they are pushing their private agenda for here. They've made the article one of vanity.Marky48 00:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Reference #1, although it cites a blog, goes to a factual analysis of sales data (such as it is) on Bauer's website in light of what other agencies provide, and specifically notes the lack of verifiable evidence of sales to paying publishers. The compilers of the original list have done the same sort of research and analysis (and probably much more that that), and have said so in some of the venues of the sort being objected to here. Is it better to leave out all of these, leaving only the list's general description, or is it acceptable to reference one such analysis, even if it is mentioned in a blog or online forum, so long as the person cited is considered a reputable source (e.g. Victoria Strauss, one of the Writer Beware members)? My intent in making the citations was to take the description from the general (people get on the list because of these two business practices) to the specific (research conducted by others seems to show that Barbara Bauer meets these criteria). Is there a reasonable way to do this, in light of the above, or is it still inadequately sourced or even unnecessary? I was actually looking for verifiable positive material, such as a published acknowledgment by an author in a book that Bauer claims to have placed, thanking Bauer. Alas, nobody seems to have found any evidence linking Bauer to even the Orsini book, which she most often cites as an example of her efforts on behalf of clients. As for other references, the "Bye Bye Barbara" one was recently added, and seems especially out of place. I will look over WP:RS tonight and try to abide by it better in future. Karen 02:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I also disagree, Will. Every blog or message board listed in this article is a direct, verifiable source, not a secondary or anonymous primary source--in which the spirit of the rules set forth are addressing. For example, we have: A number of writers have also reported on the fees Bauer charges. [8] ... The reference here may link to a message board, but it's actually demonstrating "a number of writers have also reported on the fees Bauer charges." Unless you're suggesting all the posters are the same person, I can't see how this falls afoul of wiki's rules. --Shinto 05:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Using forums or the Usenet/Google Groups as sources is forbidden.
  • Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. (emphasis in the original)
Blogs are cannot be used for anything beyond a discussion of the blogger:
  • Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources. That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. (emphasis in the original)
This is all covered in Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -Will Beback 06:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
PS: I believe Writer Beware is a reliable source because it appears to be a project of several people, who are also working as part of larger organization. All one-person (blogs) or unedited websites (forums), are considered unreliable, as shown above. Further, we attribute their opinion and establish its notability. -Will Beback 07:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Then I need a little clarification, Will. If Writer Beware's provenence is established by virtue of being the work of more than one person under the auspices of a respected professional organization, then what is the status of quotations about Writer Beware's list, Barbara Bauer, etc. by the two principal contributors to Writer Beware? One of the links in the article is to a blog written by the two, SFWA member Victoria Strauss and former SFWA Vice President Ann C. Crispin, although the entry itself is by Strauss only. There is also an interview with Strauss on a third party's blog, in which she specifically states the reasons Bauer is on the list (fees, no recent sales)[9]. Does the fact that the interview is on a blog invalidate Strauss's remarks, or would this be considered okay? If it is, it could replace other citations. Thanks! Karen 07:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Imagine the instance of a reporter. The reporter's writing for a newspaper would be considered reliable, while his work on a blog would not. It's not the person, it's the editing process. Blogs may be used as a primary source about the writer. If the writer is a notable source, then we might directly attribute their statements, using their own blog as a source. I don't know that any of these writers are sufficiently notable, though from what I gather Teresa Nielsen Hayden is well-known in the field. If we decide that someone is a notable source then we can quote them or attribute an assertion to them ("Well-known editor TNH has said that she thinks Bauer is...") Is Crispin sufficiently notable that his opinion, on it's own merits, is worthwhile? I don't know if being former VP of the SFWA accords any notability, and I'd suggest that folks more involved in the filed would have to determine that. But if we use his blog it'd have to be as a source only for his own opinions, and those should be represented clearly as his own opinions. I don't think that we can use an interview on a 3rd-party blog, as that directly violates the guideline. -Will Beback 09:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
You may want to take a glance at Ann Crispin's web site[10], then, which lists her extensive writing credits and notes that she's made the New York Times hardcover bestseller list. I haven't actually read her work, but she certainly sounds notable on her own merits. Victoria Strauss has seven published novels, and has written for Writer's Digest (usually with A.C. Crispin) on Writer Beware-oriented topics[11]. Again, notable. I'm not sure what the implications are for this article, but there's a starting point for consideration. Regards.... Karen 16:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (edited two of my typos. Sorry!) Karen 19:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
If these folks are notable enough then we can use their blogs or websites as sources for their own attributed opinions. -Will Beback 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My contention is Barbara Bauer is not encyclopedic as any of those listed on the Literary Agents entry. She's a nobody, and if not for her forum frolics involving temporarily shutting down a forum where Ms. Strauss is a moderator, would have no notariety at all save for the scamming of a handful of novice writers. This is the business of Writer Beware though and they are the first to admit just how small an affair this is in the writing and publishing world thus, Bauer has not done anything that warrants even a mention in the press. All this will do is further inflate her ego.Marky48 02:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Will, I completely understand and happily agree with Wiki's standards regarding message board postings as sources; however, I don't believe you understand the point I was trying to make. Let me rephrase what I said, as I've changed my mind. The message board posting in that particular link shouldn't be considered a source at all. It's an example proving that the statement is true. The only possible place on the internet to find an example proving that statement would be on a message board. This example does not fall into the scope of anything on that rules page. Maybe the sentence should be reworded to remove the source attribute and instead have it added as a direct link ", an example of which can be found here." --Shinto 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

When an assertion can't be proved using reliable sources then the answer isn't to use unreliable sources. Intead the answer is to not make the assertion. Using unreliable primary sources to prove an assertion that hasn't been made by anyone in a reliable source is considered original research, prohibited by Wikipedia:no original research. Likewise it'd be wrong for me to assert that 50% of forum users are named "Joe" and offer a link to a forum as proof. What we could do is mention the forums without drawing any conclusions, for example, "Bauer's case has been discussed in these forums: x,y,z." -Will Beback 03:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I would concur. What is wanted here by the "consensus" is ad populum opinion presented as fact. I would go one step farther and add, become judge and jury. Bauer does not warrant a biography to begin with unless the group here thinks she belongs on the literary agents page. The problem is the article was written by messageboard members in defense of their community so there is no possibility of NPOV as I've painfully found out at my own peril.Marky48 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Mark, what we want here is to use personal web sites of people who have themselves received legal threats from Bauer to substantiate the suggestion that she regularly makes legal threats.
Will, do you think the phrasing "a number of web site administrators report receiving legal threats from Bauer following posting information about her on their sites" and then listing the links as they currently are (the bulleted links in the middle of the article, that is) would be acceptable? Then we aren't drawing conclusions, but merely summarising what is said in all the linked articles without commenting on whether or not the reports are true. JulesH 18:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, what I'm suggesting basically amounts to the removal of "Dr. Bauer is reputed to regularly make legal threats in order to suppress discussion of her business's activities, especially on web sites," which is essentially a conclusion that we have drawn from these reports (albeit a fairly safe one, because it doesn't actually say that she does this, but only that people generally believe she does) and replaces it with a direct and indesputable summary of what is behind the links, leaving the reader to draw their own conclusions. JulesH 18:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, Jules.--SarekOfVulcan 19:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

She makes legal threats that aren't valid. How is that encyclopedic? Does that mean any nutcase gets a page in their honor?Marky48 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is relevent to the alleged controversy-generating behavior, that helps to make her notable by virtue of the effect she has had on others. Also, it's part of an issue that many people have wrestled with of late regarding legal liability for online material (e.g. the Ellison-AOL case). Karen 20:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC) (signed for clarity, since the paragraph below is not indented (change of subject)

On the citations needed: is it appropriate to state that of the recent authors listed on Bauer's site, x number list Author House and other vanity publishers (for which no agent representation is needed, since the author pays for publication), one lists a pending publication by a legitimate small press, and the rest list no publishers at all? Or is a survey of her website and comparison with known vanity houses considered original research? I don't have the specifics here at the moment (it's at home), but this is essentially what a friend discovered to help us with citing things properly. In lieu of this, Strauss of Writer Beware has summarized this finding elsewhere, but it may be hard to find the right cite for this (the main one was in an interview she gave). Karen 20:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:SFWA Writer Beware Worst Literary Agents

FYI, Category:SFWA Writer Beware Worst Literary Agents has been nominated for deletion. Barbara Bauer is the only article in the category. Editors of tihs article may be interested in the CfD, here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:SFWA Writer Beware Worst Literary Agents. -Will Beback 00:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Will, I'm very interested and agree completely. The article is NOT encyclopedic and should be deleted accordingly.Marky48 02:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Then go there and make your opinion and reasoning known. I'm just passing along the notice. -Will Beback 06:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't even find it in that haystack.Marky48 02:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Article Restructuring

I have no idea who any of you are, and I am not trying to intersperse myself in your collective argument. However, the article as it stood was a confusing hodgepodge of text and links, and needed some major clean-up. I have begun doing so. Nothing was deleted, but redundant, or non WP:RS citations were commented out (visible in "edit" ) pending documentation. -- Avi 19:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. The only thing I would disagree with about your changes: Bauer seems to be more prominent as a literary agent than as a cabaret act (if only because of the events described in your 'controversy' section), so I would describe her as a 'literary agent and cabaret singer' rather than the other way around, and likewise switch the two paragraphs in 'occupation'. Anyone else feel this change should be made? JulesH 19:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow. That's definitely a major step in the right direction, in accordance with some of the issues we've been discussing here. I agree with Jules on the order of the professions. Other than that, I see a capitalization issue in the thesis: the word York should be capitalized, even if the style convention of not captializing titles overall is followed. I'm sure appropriate citations can be found in most, if not all cases where "citation needed" is shown. It's just going to take a bit more work! Thanks! Karen 19:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the policy on spelling? i.e. behaviour? This is not American and Wikipedia to my knowlege is an American enterprise. I don't think she's a cabaret singer now so this is a minor point; bordering on irrelevant even.Marky48 20:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English -- essentially the policy is that either US or International English is acceptable, as long as all usage within a page is consistent. JulesH 20:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"Controversy" edit by 65.54.155.59

User:65.54.155.59 (Talk | contribs) added this to the article:

In the Mid to late 90's Bauer sold 4 novels by Lyn Davenport to Masquerade Books, a publishing house in which the person who first advocated the googlebombing of Bauer and her colleagues, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, was employed as editor-in-chief according to Nielsen Hayden's resume on her blog. Masquerade paid Davenport only $750 advance for each of her four novels, and neglected to send royalty statements to Bauer or to her client in all the years the four novels were in print. In short, Bauer earned only $75 for each novel she sold to Nielsen Hayden's company, and they violated their contract with Bauer's client and did not mail her their semi-annual royalty statements as contractually agreed upon. The novels were called "Dover Island," "Tessa's Holidays" "The Guardian" and "The Guardian II" Then to add insult to injury in order to get out of paying Bauer's client or reporting the sales the books had made throughout the world, Neilsen-Hayden called Bauer a scammer on her blog and encouraged all her readers to disparage Bauer, Bauer's clients, and to threaten them with physical violence. "She should be very afraid."

I believe that edit to be a violation of about a dozen WP rules (WP:CITE, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOR, for starters), so I pulled it. Dori 23:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/Talk%7EBarbara_Bauer_Archive_1_604c.html"