Talk:Barbara Bauer/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:Barbara Bauer
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
Archives
  1. May 2006–July 2006
  2. July 2006


Contents

Potentially useful source

Ansible 227 (search for 'Bauer' on the page to find the relevant section). Ansible is a monthly newsletter that is self-published by Dave Langford, but is also republished in the print magazine Interzone on a bimonthly basis. I don't think the Interzone version of that issue has been published yet, though. JulesH 20:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see what use another obviously partisan entry can be. We get it that the sci-fi world wants her head on a platter. The better road would be to ignore her. Her threats are always baseless and all this does is legitimize them.Marky48 21:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

First, Langford is not "partisan". He has no connection I am aware of to Absolute Write, or any other connection to Bauer. Second, the baselessness of the threats is part of what makes them notable. It really is not at all unusual for someone with a valid legal claim to make threats of taking legal action. But for somebody with no such claim to demand $1,000,000,000 from a web site operator for merely mentioning her name is rather astounding. Third, the point is that if & when this is published in Interzone, it will not be self-published, and is therefore a reliable source.

Webzines don't count as published sources in general with the exception of Salon and Slate so that point fails on its face. Your use of the fallacy of divison is growing quite rampant. I realize you need it, but still. He's a member of SFWA, so are James D. Macdonald the sage of absolutewrite, and Victoria and Ann Crispin. How is he different? Look this is an all in the family subject big in forum world and nowhere else. Some writers think the world revolves around them and that goes with the territory, but this is the small time personified. When the NY Times or Post write about it, or Vanity Fair as with my friend Lewis Perdue being sued by Random House, then you'd have a source. This is a blog issue, and thus not valid according to the rules here. You're digging deep, but I still see the same metaphorical "interbreeding" family making the claims and conducting the campaign. Journalists avoid that sort of source and claim. That's what they teach us in J-school. I got A's. In free societies we often have to defend less than stellar characters on principle, until an actual crime is committed.Marky48 01:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

For Wikipedia purposes, webzines are considered published sources. -Will Beback 02:12, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Marky48 wrote: "He's a member of SFWA". This statement appears to refer to me, David Langford. It is incorrect and has been so for, I believe, over 20 years. My Interzone column, each instalment of which is condensed from two issues of Ansible, omits coverage of the Bauer/AbsoluteWrite affair for space reasons. --DeafMan 14:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Interzone is a Hugo Award-winning print publication. Their current issue lists Ansible as part of the print edition. If the content from the Ansible link above does make it into the print editon it would seem to give it legitimacy. --St jb 02:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. But make it into print as what? A story? An investigation byt credible reporters? And I read the Hugo award winning citation. I fail to see how this addresses the partisan bias between SWFA members and this microscopic agent who barely has a legitimate sale. Th eidea she is a real threat to anyone is absurd. Does the encyclopedia want absurd entries about deluded people who hav eno standing in the profession? Now if you had other agents who objected that would be a legitimate source.Marky48 02:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

So is it your contention that all science fiction writers, editors, and fans are automatically "out to get" Barbara Bauer, by virtue of any association with SFWA, Making Light, Absolute Write and anywhere else this has been mentioned? That seems to be what you are saying here. At least one legitimate agent, the pseudonymous Miss Snark, has indeed weighed in on this. However, she is apparently not a source under the Wikipedia guidelines. Karen 02:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes that is indeed my contention. I've been involved with this community for a long time. I know their motivations, levels of success, operation en masse against the handful of scammers in the business, and of course Publishamerica, where I entered into the fray years ago. [I also think an article on Miranda Prather is likewise not encyclopedic] Small fry shouldn't be, because it makes the whole thing look like vanity, not knowledge. They march to the same drum, and this isn't a big kill in any event. I still maintain it is not encyclopedic. It's simple revenge.Marky48 02:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification purposes only: so anything that would be encyclopedic, by your definition, then, would be more or less, along the lines of Barney-dom. We are happy, family-type information only, nothing which actually helps steer the public-at large away from scams such as Publish America is known to be? Would that not then make Wikipedia a white-wash of lopsided views, only as opposed to a broadstroke of information that would serve a much wider community? And therefore serve a larger percentage of the population? Or does Wikipedia only want to appeal to a tiny sliver who cares only for a particular slant?Or, in your words, Mark, "march to the same drum?" The mantra of this being for revenge only has not changed, even though that statement remains false.--JeanMarie 03:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark, if you want to change Wikipedia policy on what is & is not an acceptable article topic, fine. If you want to change the guidelines on what is & is not an acceptable source, go ahead. There are defined processes for changing these things. I suggest you start here and ask for comments on your ideas.

In the mean time, Barbara Bauer, PublishAmerica and Miranda Prather all fall within the scope of acceptable article subjects and Interzone (magazine) is an acceptable source, and your arguments about it won't change a thing. JulesH 10:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark: "The idea she is a real threat to anyone is absurd." No, it isn't. She's listed on the 20 worst agents list; these are "the 20 agents that Writer Beware receives the most complaints about". You don't think the people making these complaints have lost out because of her prior to making them (usually, according to the information on the list, concerning fees having been charged for representation followed by no sale of the book)? Bauer's business practices are a threat to amateur writers who may not know better than to agree to be represented by her. That is what her inclusion on the SFWA list tells us. JulesH 10:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Folks: First of all, please remember to indent the discussion in a cogent fashion using the colon as the leading character. In the second place, let's recall that Wikipedia is not judge, jury, or hangman. We only report the events and opinions. Our job, as Wikipedia editors, is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. Thirdly: We need to avoid violating the policies embodied in Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, which specifically bars posting unsourced derogatory information. Fourth, please remember that this is a long-term project. We don't have to get this right today. If the subject's perfidy is notable, it will still be notable next year, or even next decade. Next, there is an inverse relationship between accuracy and precision. The more details we provide, the less likely that everything we say is true. It's an axiom of information; the less we say the more accurate we are. In Wikipedia terms it boils down to WP:V, WP:NOR & WP:NPOV. I appreciate the many impassioned views on this topic. NPOV requires that we include all notable viewpoints in a neutral fashion. In this case the notable viewpoints appear to be that the subject is a bad agent, or is not. So long as we regard this subject as notable, the signicifant details about her must be included. In conclusion, I must say that the article looks better. Thanks to all who work in good faith for the furtherance of this project. -Will Beback 11:00, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well there you have it. She's a bad agent, I never said she wasn't or provided that counter view, just not encyclopedic in stature, but anyone but the most ignorant of writers would know she isn't an approved agent in the industry. Charging mailing fees is quite common even though I wouldn't pay them. All of the worst 20 are not legitimate agents but the members of these forums are certainly susceptible to this sort of scam. She isn't anything really, but she has an encyclopedia article about her. She's made it. Maybe who's who in America will be next?Marky48 14:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, everyone. It's starting to look as though a few points are getting lost in this very long talk page, so let's exhume and resolve them:
  • I asked a question above (bottom of the Reputable Sources section) about directly examining recent listed publications by Bauer's clients to see whether any are legitimate sales to paying publishers, and whether that would constitute original research. Will, can you help us out on that one? Thanks.
  • David Langford answered the question about whether the Bauer material from Ansible will appear in Interzone, and I nearly missed it between other people's comments. Given that it won't be in that print edition, but Will says a webzine is an acceptable source, does that make the Ansible edition of his column the item to be cited? Is it appropriate and useful and all that? (I haven't looked yet.) I know Mark will say no, but Mark apparently does not want to include any source short of a major metropolitan newspaper. Does this one meet the burden of Wikipedia standards?
  • Mark brings up the point that there don't seem to be any notable viewpoints (other than from the subject herself) that state that Bauer is not a bad agent. I agree, although my conclusion this is very different from his. The AfD review and most people here agree that Bauer is notable. If she is to have an article at all, and it looks as though she is, then the burden is to acheive WP:NPOV and meet the standards for Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons by sourcing everything properly and including as much positive or neutral material as is relevant and sourceable, scarce on the ground though it may be. Trying to exclude sources that meet Wikipedia standards does not assist in this process, but it's certainly appropriate to seek clarification about those standards.
  • A friend of mine asks what similar articles already exist on Wikipedia, since it might help us determine what's appropriate for this one. Does anyone know the answer to that? I know JulesH started others that were deleted and ultimately deemed non-notable, but is there anything pre-existing along these lines? Also, one of the other agencies on the Writer Beware list is creeping up in notability. Founded by someone who previously worked for scam agents that were later convicted of fraud, Desert Rose Literary Agency is currently under investigation by a sheriff's office in Texas Details can be found at Writer Beware[1]. At what point, if ever, does Desert Rose become notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? I have no strong opinion one way or another, but I've been wondering about that in light of the present article. On the other hand, Bauer's notability doesn't stem solve from her business practices, IMO. Karen 21:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Karen wrote: "Given that it won't be in that print edition, but Will says a webzine is an acceptable source, does that make the Ansible edition of his column the item to be cited?"
I'm not sure. The webzine version of Ansible is self-published, I believe, but it is a significant publication. It has won awards in the past. This significance may or may not be enough to override the self-published nature of it; I don't know.
As for similar articles, the most similar I can think of is actually the Miranda Prather article that Mark objected to above. It also concerns a publishing -- err -- personality of minor repute, primarily known for the negative controversy she has generated over the years. JulesH 09:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's right. It's a big deal in the world of hopeful writers who are just catching on to the Publishamerica scam. Two years ago besides myself there were very few critics outside of this sci-fi community, and even they were against filing offical complaints. I was the first to do so and sunsequently ridiculed and banned for speaking too loudly about taking action. The whole thing is small potatoes in the industry as are these bit players involved in it.Marky48 01:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

RE:Deafman. Well I was going by what these people said. You aren't a fandom expert? That was said here as well. If you aren't a member of SFWA and writing about this tiff you are certainly an intereted party. A former member? This seems to be more bifurcation to me. If the story didn't make it into print in isn't valuable enough to be a source according to the rules here. I can't help that.Marky48 15:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

"Peculiarities" in USENET search

From a comment User:Avraham added to the article:

There seems to be a significant issue with the reference below, in that the posts on Friday April 11 1997 seem to be responding to the quote of Saturday April 12, 1997.

This kind of problem is common with USENET archives, particularly back as far as the 90s (which is when I was last active on USENET so it may well still be common). The messages are probably datestamped at the time they arrived at some particular server. Because of the way distribution works, messages can take widely varying lengths of time to get between different points. Depending on circumstances, it could take anything from a couple of seconds to a couple of days for a message to arrive. You frequently see replies to messages before the original message itself arrives. This is nothing unusual. JulesH 08:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced sales claim and attack

I'm about to revert an edit[2] (well, I was going to, but someone beat me to it) from an IP (similar to that of the previous reverted edit) which essentially makes the following unsourced claims:

  1. Barbara Bauer sold four books by writer Lyn Davenport to Masquerade Books during the 1990s: Dover Island, Tessa's Holidays, The Guardian and The Guardian II.
  2. Teresa Nielsen Hayden was editor in chief at Masquerade at the time.
  3. Masquerade failed to send royalty statements or pay anything beyond the advance.
  4. For the purpose of evading payment to Bauer's client, "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.'"

It is obvious, albeit unproven, that the source of this edit is Barbara Bauer. (Or maybe not; see below.) If she has any additions to make to this entry, it seems to me that we should make some attempt to see whether any of the material provided is usable under Wikipedia guidelines.

The fourth claim fails the logic test, since the scammer remarks were about eight to ten years after the books in question, and occasioned by other incidents than the one cited. So far I have been unable to find a reference to Masquerade Books on the nielsenhayden.com web site, let alone on the Making Light blog. Moreoever, suggesting that Bauer should be afraid is a far cry from advocating physical violence.

The first three claims (but see below) sound unlikely, especially in light of 4, but IMO some attempt should be made to discover whether anything in them is verifiable. So far, all I've discovered is that all titles by the erotic publisher Masquerade Books are out of print, and (according to this cached page, which may or may not be accurate)[3] that the publisher apparently did not notify its authors when it went out of business.

The fact that this major edit was disengenuously labeled "(minor)" does not bode well for the edit's accuracy.

Oh, wait. I see that someone else has done the revert while I dithered here. I'll read what she says before adding these comments.

Karen 00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dang it! I accidentally wiped out Dori's remarks. Restoring them now. Karen 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • On the other hand, that IP has a lot of vandalism warnings on it. It's possible that someone else has taken up Bauer's cause. Karen 00:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I just cleaned up my remarks a little and added the preliminary Masquerade info. Karen 00:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Cleaned up a few more of my typos. Dori (below) is right about point number 2, from what I saw. Karen 08:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability

  • Re: #2 above, per her bio (found at [4]), Teresa Nielsen Hayden was at one point Editor in Chief of Masquerade Books -- but that by itself doesn't prove a connection between her and Bauer. It definitely doesn't prove a relationship between Bauer and Davenport, and any matters between TNH and Davenport would, of course, have nothing to do with an article on Bauer. Dori 02:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Assuming those positions are listed in reverse-chronological order (which it appears as though they are) it is a long time since TNH worked there: it's three items below "founding staff member, New York Review of Science Fiction"; NYRSF was founded in 1988.[5] Davenport's books were published in the mid-late 90's [6] so it seems highly unlikely that TNH worked there while that was happening.JulesH 08:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The Valiant Visions newsletter, "Your Official Guide to Acclaim Comics," issue # 3.3.a (32) [7] has the following: "PS: Belated welcome to new editor Teresa Nielsen-Hayden." Unfortunately, the newsletter is not dated, but internal evidence in the same issue ("ACCLAIM COMICS APRIL 1995 SOLICITATION ... Our March BIRTHQUAKE will generate consumer excitement leading into the summer.... We need to keep the creators and changes represented by BIRTHQUAKE in front of retailers and fans through March. In April retailers and fans will get a feel for our new rotating creative teams...") suggest that it was written in February or March of 1995. That would place Nielsen Hayden's arrival at Valiant/Acclaim no later than January or February 1995, and her departure from Masquerade Books no later than the December 1994 to January 1995 timeframe. --70.16.206.199 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Regarding the publication of the books: a search on amazon (linked in the paragraph above) does confirm that Lyn Davenport wrote and published the four books listed, although Dover Island and The Guardian are listed as being with "Worldwide Media Service, Inc" rather than Masquerade Books as the other two are. JulesH 08:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
The publication dates for the Davenport books are (per Amazon, link above): The Guardian, November 1995; Tessa's Holidays, February 1996; Dover Island, April 1996; The Guardian II, March 1997. --70.16.206.199 17:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Another Amazon search[8] suggests that Masquerade hasn't published anything new since 2000. At a guess they went out of business at this point. Davenport's books were published between 96 and 97. They may have already been in financial difficulty by this point. JulesH 08:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Particularly if the oblique suggestion made here that they went out of business due to a campaign over their republication of the Gor novels in 1996 is correct. JulesH 08:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Even so, it's a stretch, and always in a defense of Neilsen Hayden, to claim no knowledge of the issue and connection has no bearing on the conflict of interest in this whole article from its inception. That's what I've claimed all along. I'm right, yet we get these continued brifricated argument by division defenses for one side of the equation. That indicates a definite POV.Marky48 17:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

  • At least three people so far, as seen here, have been researching the allegations, Mark. If you would like to help find any actual evidence, for or against these claims, I welcome your contribution. But attacks on TNH with no citations at all are even less fair than references with citations that have been deemed inadequate. Meanwhile, I just reverted another IP-based attack edit, again without citations. Karen 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Mark, who used an argument by division ("assuming that a property of some thing must apply to its parts; or that a property of a collection of items is shared by each item")? And what conflict of interest? We're just trying to present the truth. The truth seems to be that any allegations that TNH was involved in Davenport not receiving her royalties are unfounded, as the available evidence suggests TNH was no longer working for that publisher by the time these events occurred. JulesH 09:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
TNH by virtue of being involved with this publisher in the '90s would still know about the issue. Do you think her memory was wiped clean of the company and its dealings with Bauer and clients? Please. I've never seen such bifrication in defense of Neilsen Hayden. Look this is POV bias pure and simple. Both of you are blog comment commandos out to get Bauer in this attack piece. Your leader is Neilsen Hayden. You came from her group. That is far from objective. That's the conflict of interest and i hope that is perfectly clear. It has been my assertion all along before you directed respnses as an attack on me. This article makes a joke out of Wikipedia and you two attack an edit that you don't like indefense of your sci-fi hero editor. This is a cult. Moreover, that casual bio isn't a firm timeline source either. Where is your hard evidence of when she left the company for TOR. Post that for starters. Interview TNH and quote her. Now that's a journalistic concept!Marky48 16:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
There's been no IP attack from me if that's what you're insinuating. As for TNH are you claiming she isn't attacking Bauer? That's hilarious. It's a smear campaign against a marginal player no one has ever heard of pure and simple. That's why Jules wrote this piece. Maybe TNH will give you both an autographed headshot and a free Viable Paradise pass for your efforts? Find out when she left Masquerade Books then before posting of her innocence. Truth indeed.Marky48 16:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has remotely suggested you made either of these edits, Mark. In fact, we've suggested that Bauer probably made them, but even this is not a certainly. Why do you insist on making this all about you and TNH? Nor is anyone claiming TNH didn't attack Bauer in her blog, merely that a) she did not advocate physical violence, and b) she didn't claim that Bauer wrote that poetry. Interviewing her would be disallowed as original research. As for the rest, the latest reference I found to TNH being involved with the company was 1992; I haven't posted the citation yet because I failed to find it again (and I've been busy with the rest of my life). If the sales were mid- to late 1990s, TNH may or may not have been gone by then, so I agree that there's a possibility she was involved with one or more of the books in question. If so, then yes, TNH might reasonably be expected to know of Bauer's involvement, assuming she really represented this author. If not, she might or might not know of Bauer's involvement through informal contacts with her former employer. Whether that means TNH was personally responsible for cheating the author is a very different matter. That's a publisher thing, not an editor thing. If the publisher went out of business, as seems to be the case, any editors still with the company would have presumably lost their jobs as well. But again, Mark, I invite you to help prove that TNH had any verifiable culpability in this matter. Find a source to cite, as Jules and others have done. The evidence is there or it isn't, and it will show what it shows, regardless of bias. Meanwhile, I will continue to revert anonymous edits that attack living persons without citing a source. Karen 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
"she did not advocate physical violence." Well who said this? The evidence isn't there from anything Jules cited. Of course you're attacking Bauer, who is a living person. This is not a blog where you can claim anything. No one is saying TNH has cheated the author either. Any cheating would have been on Bauer's end if there was any. It's just that TNH seems connected at the hip to Bauer for reasons I fail to comprehend. This history is just more of that. It's a connection and basis for a grudge going both ways. Who says she represented this writer in the first place? TNH and Bauer go back a long way as does Writer Beware. Culpability in what? As the publisher? This is not a trial, but the connection between the two is a proven matter. There are no crimes to solved in this.Marky48 00:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The first anonymous edit claimed that TNH advocated physical violence. I looked at the sentence the IP editor used to substantiate that claim and suggested that it says no such thing. If you look at my history on this article, you'll see that most of my edits are either to add pro-Bauer material (where such can be substantiated), to add citations to substantiate facts, or to remove unsourced attacks on Bauer, TNH or anyone else. As for whether Bauer represented the author, I agree that it's by no means proven. All we have is an anonymous claim. If we can't find any evidence about whether Bauer sold these titles to TNH on behalf of this author, then we don't know what connection may have existed, if any, before the SFWA list. If there's information to be found to settle the question, then it's a good idea to look for it. Karen 00:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Linking to a derogatory colloquy with TNH is over the top. I've removed it. The whole thing is an attack on Bauer. That's why the grief will continue. I didn't find any sort of physical threat in that edit so I don't know what you're referring to.Marky48 02:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that the rest of us find "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" to include a threat of physical violence, because, well, it says, "threaten ... with physical violence." That addition by an anonymous editor is what we're discussing, right? If it isn't, please take it elsewhere. Dori 02:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Let's all remember that blogs are not usable as relaible sources. -Will Beback 03:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
That's just one of the many reasons I deleted it, as I mentioned in my original comment about why I did so. That bit was completely useless as an addition to WP, so it needed to go away. I don't believe anyone here thinks that it should be put back in; if they do, they're not being clear about it or giving any reason why (that is why this section is called Verifiability, after all). Dori 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well Will that's all this whole thing is. Not only that but blog anonymous comments as sources. That's as biased as it gets on Earth. "That addition by an anonymous editor is what we're discussing, right?" Yes I found it. Anyone can say anything online and do.Marky48 04:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Marky48, which side of this are you arguing? Previously, I thought you were saying that that anonymous IP edit didn't include physical threats and therefore it should stay in. It's also a little confusing about what you're referring to as an "anonymous comment" as a source -- that wasn't what happened. An anonymous editor added a section to this article, and that's what I cut. Everyone else here, so far as I can tell, is discussing (1) does it make any sense for that section to be included (so far, no), and (2) is there anything verifiable in that contribution? (so far, some of it is, but nothing really worth keeping). If you're now also saying that the anonymous IP edit should not be included, then we're all in complete agreement here. (oh please, oh please...) Dori 05:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's what I'm saying. I didn't see the threat so I said that. It did allege a physical threat among other things, but it seems there's more to this story than meets the eye nonetheless.There is a conflict of interest on this story by the editors and the subjects and that will be its downfall. I suspect Will will remove all blog content and links as they aren't valid sources.Marky48 11:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark said:

TNH by virtue of being involved with this publisher in the '90s would still know about the issue. Do you think her memory was wiped clean of the company and its dealings with Bauer and clients?

We have no evidence that TNH worked for the company as late as 96, when the first of the books in question was published. She has, in fact, confirmed that she didn't on this very talk page (it wouldn't be acceptable as a source, of course, but should be enough to dispel this entire discussion)

Please. I've never seen such bifrication in defense of Neilsen Hayden.

Can you explain 'bifrication' to me? I let it pass the first time you used the word, but I'm afraid I don't know it, and can't find it in my dictionary. If you want to accuse me of something, at least use a word that's in most dictionaries.

Look this is POV bias pure and simple. Both of you are blog comment commandos out to get Bauer in this attack piece. Your leader is Neilsen Hayden.

Oh, please. I follow nobody. Stop making stupid personal accusations.

You came from her group. That is far from objective. That's the conflict of interest and i hope that is perfectly clear.

So, because I read a well known editor's weblog, this somehow disqualifies me from editing an article on somebody who has had tangential dealings with that editor in the past. By what logical process did you come to this conclusion?

It has been my assertion all along before you directed respnses as an attack on me.

Huh? Where have I attacked you? Please, show me an edit in the history of some article which includes me attacking you. Even a post off-site, if you like.

This article makes a joke out of Wikipedia and you two attack an edit that you don't like indefense of your sci-fi hero editor.

We removed an edit that made unsourced, unreferenced, and potentially libellous allegations against a well-respected publishing professional. Then we follow up all available information and try to determine what in it is true. How is this "attacking" the edit?

This is a cult.

No, this is standard practice for Wikipedia editing.

Moreover, that casual bio isn't a firm timeline source either. Where is your hard evidence of when she left the company for TOR. Post that for starters. Interview TNH and quote her. Now that's a journalistic concept!

But not an encyclopedic one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means it only references what other people have said about the subject, rather than investigating the subject directly as you suggest.

No one is saying TNH has cheated the author either.

Actually, that's precisely the implication of this sentence:

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.

If TNH hadn't cheated the author, why would she behave in the way this sentence alleges? It's subtle, but the implication is clearly there.

It's just that TNH seems connected at the hip to Bauer for reasons I fail to comprehend.

Have you read any of the background here? TNH posted negative comments about Bauer, after Bauer had made threats against other bloggers for posting the Writer Beware list on their sites. Bauer responded by complaining to TNH's employer; the basic contention of most of the linked sites from this article is that this is typical behaviour from Bauer. This tactic didn't work. TNH continued posting about Bauer. Bauer is pissed off at TNH for doing this. Does there need to be anything more?

Who says she represented this writer in the first place?

Well, only Bauer says that. We're taking her word for it, at the moment. If we find a reliable source for it, it'll go into the article.

There is a conflict of interest on this story by the editors and the subjects and that will be its downfall.

Again, there is no conflict of interest here. I think we've pretty much ruled out any involvement between TNH and Bauer beyond what I've already described. The fact that User:Mavarin & I both read TNH's blog really doesn't enter into this. I read lots of blogs. Reading a blog doesn't make you biased. Particularly not when the blog is only tangentially involved with the subject at hand, anyway. I mean, I read Pharyngula from time to time. Does that mean I can't edit Dilbert? JulesH 23:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a conflict of interest. You wrote it because of this personal tiff with TNH Absolutewrite, Cordray and an alleged phone call from Bauer. You did it for payback in defense of your sci-fi friends. It's an intra-cult attack and the whole thing is unencyclopedic as I've said repeatedly. It continues to be with this mega tedium defense team. Please spare the world your personal vendettas Jules. It's all so transparent to all but you.Marky48 02:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
If that's why I did this, why is it I also created articles on a number of other agents from the same list, including The Literary Agency Group, Abacus Group Literary Agency, Arthur Fleming Associates and others (for full list, see here)? Your accusations make no logical sense in reality. The contributors at deletion review disagreed that this article was unencyclopedic; then, again, after the article was nominated for deletion a second time the consensus was that it was fine. Very few of the contributors to that debate were anything to do with me, Making Light or Absolute Write. I'm sorry that you can't understand this without seeing conspiracies everywhere, but I'm afraid there just isn't one. JulesH 07:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No conspiracy, just an attack. I understand it fine no matter what moderator you get to agree with it. I've not seen your authorship on anything except this one.Marky48 11:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't find any authors at Bauer's with Publishamerica. What's the basis of this claim? And even if they were on its face they can try to get published for real. The implication seems to be Bauer sold the books to PA or this is the best she can do. I would call this a distortion.Marky48 00:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The link is right here. [9] Yes, I sincerely hope that Field Ruwe and the others get real book sales some day. I even hope that Bauer accomplishes this. Meanwhile, the text doesn't say that Bauer did or did not place those books with PA and AH and Infinity. It merely confirms that only one of the writers on Bauer's current links list has a book listed with a named, non-vanity publisher. That's actually a slight improvement on the criteria claimed on the SFWA list. We don't know whether Bauer placed that book or not, but it's potentially a point in her favor. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I did some poking around on this author's web site and found that his PublishAmerica book was released in August of 2004 [10]. His agent page states that Bauer has been his representative since July of 2005. There are two other books listed on the author's home page, but no release date or publisher has been provided. I found the author and work also represented here. It's a division of a Welsh publisher, but doesn't mention whether they are publishing that particular book.
(Sorry, the above was me on 21 July 2006. I negleted to add a signature. St jb 03:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC))
Oops! I shouldn't have assumed "Field" would be a female name! Interesting stuff, though. I followed the links. It looks as though the Welsh publisher was acting as a quasi-agent, just providing hosting for the book info. The published work shows one from PA and one from AH, and then we have two more with no publishers listed (yet). So it looks as though Field self-published with two different publishers, and then signed with Bauer, who hasn't placed either of the newer books in the year since he signed with her. Karen | Talk | contribs 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the reference as a Bauer client? I don't see it. The list implies she did as written. The technique is typical propaganda: Proximity and association; "He gassed his own people." Furthermore, it instills a basement level clientel standard that actually can be seen as an ad hominem on vanity press authors. Funny, since that's mostly what absolutewrite consists of and caters to.Marky48 02:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you even look for Bauer's links list?[11] It's easily accessible from her front page. Incidentally, you're picking apart an edit by one admin (who basically made the links consistent in format) of an edit I did after running it by a different admin. Karen | Talk | contribs 02:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I looked and didn't see it. Should it be that well entombed? Do you understand context and association? It doesn't seem so.Marky48 04:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Part of this long thread seems to have been accidentally deleted this morning (in the middle of a word, yet). Since at least some of it was relevant to the task at hand, I'm restoring it, while retaining the one bit of added material: publication dates for the Davenport books (near the top of this section). Still, it would be nice if we could at least archive some of the older parts of this page where the issues have already been settled. I don't actually know how to do that. Karen | Talk | contribs 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought mentioning Publishamerica and authorhouse was removed in your edit? I preferred that version but now it doesn't seem to be anywhere in the record. I never found the PA author on Bauer's website so I don't know what you two are seeing. I'm anti-publishamerica. In fact I was the first tp fight them openly as the earliest victims were cowing under threats at the time, but I fail to see why just saying vanity presses isn't sufficient.Marky48 00:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It's basically just a sourcing issue, I think, Mark, how many citations are enough, and how many are too much. I had links for BB's links page, one PA author on that links page, and one AH author on that page, as examples. I thought Avi cut the links reference because it can be found from her main page, but it turns out that's the first link from the name Maggie Stevens. Avi left one example (Stevens) instead of two (Ruew and Stevens) for the vanity press thing. This is fine with me, either way. But if you follow some of the links for Ruwe and I-forget-who-else, which can be found in the thread above, Ruwe has one PA book, one AH book, and two more with no publisher yet. It looks like the published ones predate his involvement with Bauer. My only qualm about the current edit, other than whether the spelling "whome" is incorrect, is whether the expression of doubts should be said to apply to recent sales only. Currently it seems to imply that people think sdhe never sold anything. We don't know for sure about her involvement with Orsini or that one kid's book or the Davenport ones, but it's probably best to give her the benefit of the doubt on having placed those with publishers. Does that make sense? Karen | Talk | contribs 00:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so, but I still didn't find the PA author link on the Bauer site. Whome? Whom.Marky48 01:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Second anonymous edit

The new edit included this text:

Bauer is alleged to have called Philip Schwartz of St. Martin's Press and left a message with Lorraine Saulli that the Nielsen Hayden web site had taken Bauer's client Aleja Bennet's poem about the World Trade Center from Bauer's web site,had attributed its authorship to Bauer instead of to Bennett, and had done so without the consent of Bauer or Bennett, and had then proceeded to disparage Bennett's poem mercilessly.

I believe this is a reference to this comment written by Patrick Nielsen Hayden. Note that no attribution of authorship was made. And I feel the commentary on it was quite merciful. I certainly believe that this would come under the fair use exemptions of US copyright law, so what exactly was Bauer complaining about? JulesH 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, that sounds like that's the incident in question. I wouldn't call it a merciful comment, what with the figurative eye-gouging and all, and one could misinterpret the identification of it being on Bauer's site as an author attribution. Yes, it's fair use, but it must have stung. And for someone who reportedly claimed that the mere printing of an email address violated DMCA, that's more than enough to elicit a phone call of complaint. Karen 15:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually that's quite a bit of a poem and could be infringement. Even one line of a song can be so it depends on the length. I'm confident neither of you will agree though based on the history.Marky48 16:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


I looked at that last set of unsourced allegations on the Barbara Bauer page. It was very interesting. There's far more detailed information in it than I'd previously known about the famous phone call to Phil Schwartz wherein Barbara Bauer tried to get me fired.

I'm also surprised to see Masquerade Books dragged into it. I was for a time the editor-in-chief at Masquerade, but some vast number of people could say the same. Richard Kasak, Masquerade's publisher, fires everybody sooner or a little less sooner. You might think of it as a temp gig. I certainly did.

Anyway, if Barbara Bauer sold books to Masquerade, and hocked the company for Lyn Davenport's royalty statements, she was dealing with Richard Kasak, not me. I'm mildly surprised that she managed to do that at all. Richard Kasak had a thing about agents -- just plain didn't want to deal with them.

Given the amount of detail in those unsourced allegations, and their furious tone, they can only have been written by Barbara Bauer herself. She ought not do this. It can only bring her further unwelcome publicity.

And a word on using weblogs as sources: Speaking as a former reference series editor and researcher, it's a basic error to declare that no weblogs are reliable sources. They're no more nor less reliable than any other sources; which is to say that some are, some aren't, and the responsibility for making discriminating judgements never goes away.

Working in reference publishing is like watching sausage get made. Paper has never yet been known to object to the words printed on it, no matter how error-ridden and short-sighted they are. No published source is better than its writer, editor, and proofreader.

Anyone who thinks it's enough for a source to present itself as objective and reliable has never taken a sufficiently close look at Gale Research's periodic literary compilations, or the Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature -- both of which are reference-room standards -- or at some of the Twayne single-author studies. I've more than once spotted howling errors in all of those publications. I can think of a number of weblogs I'd far more willingly trust.

Finally, when you're discussing events that happened in weblogs, there are no other authoritative sources. Since a great deal of the public discourse is migrating into weblogs, they must perforce be used as sources. Might as well get used to it now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.42.246.9 (talk • contribs) 11:08, July 18, 2006 (UTC)

The preceding unsigned comment was added by Teresa Nielsen Hayden, who thought she did sign it. Sorry about that. --TNH

And when I can use a blog post as a clip to work at a newspaper or magazine you'll have a valid point. Until then...Marky48 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Blog citing guidelines

There's a proposed guideline for citing blogs at Wikipedia:Guidelines for Citing Self-published Blogs. Thought it might be of interest to the participants here.--SarekOfVulcan 17:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarek.

Marky, your bit about using a blog post as a clip is remarkably irrelevant. The point was that weblogs are as variously reliable and unreliable, depending on their authors, factchecking, and proofreading, as any other sort of publication; and that dismissing all weblogs as a class is as basic an error as giving equal credence to all printed sources.

The point certainly wasn't whether writing for a weblog counts as professional experience when applying for a job with a newspaper. A news clip which satisfactorily demonstrated prior journalistic experience could, at the same time, be a hash of erroneous "facts" and misapplied interpretation. It'd be a fine supplementary document to accompany a resume, but one wouldn't want to cite it as a reference source. Conversely, an authoritatively written and scrupulously factchecked and proofread weblog post could be an excellent reference source, but it wouldn't pass muster at an interview where prior experience on a daily paper was a requirement for the job.

Speaking as someone who was employed for years as an editor, researcher, and proofreader on a moderately massive reference series (conveniently published in 37 encyclopedia-size volumes), publication format is not, by itself, an adequate guide to the reliability of sources. To use only certain pre-set categories of printed works as your sources, and to use them in a mechanical and derivative fashion, without regard for their individual accuracy, authority, or intelligence, is to permanently limit yourself to doing second- or third-rate reference work. The only way to do first-rate work is to learn to judge the value and reliability of each separate source you work with.

The purpose of a reference work is to be informative, accurate, and clear about its declared subject. If that's going to happen, the primary question for the compiler has to be, "Does this source know what it's talking about?" In an enterprise as huge and diverse as Wikipedia, imposing an excessively simple and overgeneralized rule about an entire class of sources does not help answer that question. Its chief use is to provide a sense of backup to people who can't tell the difference between a good source and a bad one. --T. Nielsen Hayden


Thanks for the heads-up on the proposals. Looks interesting.
This made me think of something. According to the verifiability policy (which overrides the reliable sources guideline wherever they differ):
[...] self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material.
An interesting question is whether or not we could describe Dave Langford as a well-known professional journalist. Certainly, Ansible Link, as published in Interzone, is professional journalism. He is well known within his field of expertise (i.e. science fiction fandom). Might that be enough to include a reference to his self-published article as an exception? JulesH 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
TNH:

"The point was that weblogs are as variously reliable and unreliable, depending on their authors, factchecking, and proofreading, as any other sort of publication; and that dismissing all weblogs as a class is as basic an error as giving equal credence to all printed sources."

The baseline for a blog is it has no editors, factcheckers and not usually more than one writer, although there are many who are done as group efforts. The relavant part, and the one where newspapers won't recognize a blog as a published clip anymore than a vanity press book is a credit, is precisely this fact: no objective filter over the work. Blogs do very little original reporting. Mostly they are opinion, and thus biased on any issue. So yes all printed sources are not equal, but most blogs are not legitmate sources for the purpose of finding truth. They print rumors, opinion, and rehash public work by others. Without references that are valid and in the case of science peer reviewed, blogs are crap piles. Thanks for responding to my questions though even though we can't use original reporting here. In journalism we do, thus we did commit journalism here. By the way "sci-fi fandom" is not valid field.Marky48 02:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Can you explain 'bifrication' to me?"

Argument by division. Such as disemvowelment and sock puppet banning. TNH left MB a priori and thus would have no knowledge post departure of the Bauer incident. Yet she does, intimately. Your argument, like all the others fails on its face. That's what the US Supreme Court would say to since I've found bifrication used there multiple times from the justices. Of course you aren't from here so it may be a cultural thing. Bad arguments know no borders though.Marky48

Ah, I think you mean bifurcation. Also, unless I misunderstand what you're getting at, you're misusing the term "argument by division" which means assuming that properties of the whole apply to individual components. Do you have evidence that TNH knows anything about this incident with Davenport's books, or are you just assuming she does? Because I don't see any evidence anywhere on this page, and if there is such evidence, it's important we have it. JulesH 08:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
'By the way "sci-fi fandom" is not valid field.' I must send Mr. Langford an e-mail at once and let him know. He's wasting his time writing about something that isn't valid. JulesH 08:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone thinks it's a valid field. [12]St jb 18:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
No it means "to divide," which is what you're trying to do with TNH and the vendetta against Bauer. She said whe knows about the incident. That doesn't mean she DID anything since she has said Bauer dealt with the head of the company not her. Please do not correct everything I say. Look things up yourself in the dictionary of Google it. Read Supreme Court cases. You are NOT an authority to my knowledge. What you are is argumentative and you, like the others on Making Light, have made an enemy of me. I'm not you're enemy and I won't be bullied by you or anyone else here. Lay off. I'm sure Langford and fanfiction are a big deal somewhere. Just not anywhere that counts.Marky48 11:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Marky48 informed the world: "I'm sure Langford and fanfiction are a big deal somewhere. Just not anywhere that counts." I'm not particularly bothered about the status of Ansible as a Wikipedia source, but note that the first time this person mentioned me here he erroneously cited me as a current SFWA member. Now he appears to have me erroneously pegged as a fan fiction writer. Accuracy is useful even on Talk pages. David Langford --DeafMan 14:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
"A forking, or division into two branches", right? Then you mean bifurcation. Bifrication ain't a word, as far as I can tell. It's used in only 60 pages in google's cache, which is highly unlikely for anything that's a real word in a real language. It isn't in the OED, the American Heritage Dictionary, Princeton Wordnet, wiktionary, or any other dictionary I have access to here. And bifurcation is only two letters away from it, and is a word which means exactly what you're telling me this word means. And I'm not dividing anything. I'm just trying to investigate whether it's likely TNH had anything to do with the incident reported, and I'm noting that there is no evidence that suggests she is and that logically, the small amount of evidence we have suggests she probably isn't. What's being divided? And not only have I read a reasonable number of SCOTUS decisions, I've also just electronically searched a whole bunch of them (188 opinions, as listed in this google search) for the word, and not found it in any of them. So, I'm afraid you're not an authority either, but I have several pretty-close-to-authoratitive reference techniques at my fingertips, and all of them agree with me, not you. JulesH 16:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
For reference, "bifurcation" appears in 85 of them. JulesH 16:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
To Bifricate: To divide. [13]Forking isn't dividing since there is flow. As a stream ecologist I know when a creek dead ends or splits. A division is a culdesac; a barrier; and firewall. What part of this can't you grasp? The conflict doesn't rest on if TNH knew about all of Bauer's clients. She's on record as being attacked by Bauer and worked for this company. Your divdsion is needing a smoking gun despite all of these connections to Bauer. They don't like each other and have history. You can't separate that from some crime to support your hatchet job on Bauer here. You're not an American. Sometimes we have to defend unsavory characters to uphold our constitution. Apparently you have no need of that tedium. Nobody agrees with you including the moderators here on sources. Deal with that and leave me alone. I asked TNH about this issue and she answered here but I notice she gave no dates just reaffirmed the attack by Bauer. There is no evidence about this assertion. It's ambiguous at best. I'm tired of your bullying insulting trollery in defense of your article. Which thankfully won't resmeble anything you wrote. I supect you'll continue until I leave.Marky48 00:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Cul de sacs, barriers, and firewalls are not divisions; they are obstructions. A division may lead to two dead ends. A division may lead to one dead end on one path and something amazing on the other. I'd appreciate a link to a definition of bifricate or a citation that I can look up in my local library. (I can't find a definition online or in any of my reference books.) It hit 108 here today, but I'd go down to the library to look that up, just so we can clear up this mess. (Please note that I haven't touched this article; I'm just asking a question.) St jb 01:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I worked at 108 today so? Bifricate means to divide into two groups. In biology we call splitting. I've heard Justice David Souter use it in the transcripts of cases for an appeal to authority. I'm not going to split hairs with contrarians. Use the examples in the Google search I just provided.Marky48 01:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

One journalist to another: Please provide a citation so I can verify the definition. That's all I'm asking. And since when does asking for a fact make me a contrarian? St jb 01:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I checked the search. Those are mostly discussion boards and blogs, which you don't seem to think are relevant sources. How about a reference work, like a scientific dictionary or encyclopedia?St jb 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately for me, he's correct. I went on a misprounciation and useage of "bifurcate." Damn those New England accents. Still, the first step is a divide and that's the way I used it. And by the way, "Journalists" who dare not reveal themselves online could be anybody. If you won't reveal don't claim anything because it's a false appeal to authority you can't earn by just saying it. You can argue "the fork" isn't a divide I suppose and Jules sure will regardless of this one letter mishap on my part. He's dividing the players when there is a clear flow through both of their veins. Bauer and Nielsen Hayden are joined at the hip in personal conflict and there is no way to bifurcate that fact. A dead end is a divison. It just ends and separates e.g. divides the next street even if it has the same name. YOu have to backtrack and drive around to connect again on the other side of the "divide." I know this all too well from driving up them all day long for Los Angeles County Vector Control, so if you don't mind, I disagree with your definition too. The problem with English is nobody agrees on what the words mean. There's no cure for this. Are you by chance a budding sci-fi novelist? Marky48

Ack. I think my edit got "eaten." Let's try this again. In the part of suburbia where I live, we also have many streets that twist around and fork off in different directions. Some lead to cul de sacs; others lead to dead ends. Still others lead to parks. Some lead to major freeways. I've been to LA many times, and the streets in your area seem to be laid out differently than where I live. The joy is in exploring the roads and keeping an open mind as to where they might lead. (But not when I'm late for an appointment! [grin]) As for my username, I'm afraid I'm blessed or cursed with a very common name. A Google search brings up a number of writers, artists, editiors, photographers, and PR people, all whom have the effrontery to use my name [/sarcasm]. And as I said in my wiki bio, I'm not here to promote my work. I'm here to learn about Wikipedia. Looks like your edit and mine were going on at the same time. No, I'm not a budding sci-fi novelist. My current project is well-removed from that genre. St jb 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are ways to distinguish oneself by articles so I'll just have to say "whatever" and not believe your credits. My current projects are also well-removed from that genre as well, but I can prove I'm working on something and have others in the mix. I'm just not bashful that way despite the viciousness of the business.Marky48 02:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here. But as I said, I'm not here to promote my work. Perhaps one day I'll be considered notable enough to have my work mentioned here. Until then I'll just keep writing and collecting paychecks. I'll post my WIPs on my talk page. How's that? It still won't make you happy, I suspect, because I do a lot of contract work - freelance projects and if I name my clients I'll be breaking wiki rules. St jb 03:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Someone thinks it's a valid field" Depends on how one defines "field." Studying the phenomenon of sci-fi fandom is evidence some academics can and will study anything. I'm sure there are soap opera studies as well. If such a professor mentions a "cult conflict" does that give it merit? St. Jb you haven't edited thearticle but you've joined the attack. That's a personal decision. And clear.Marky48 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I regret that you see my efforts to obtain citations and contribute as a personal attack. The fact that you see it that way is a personal decision of yours. This conversation sir, is finished.St jb 03:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Concentrate on your multple sources of paid work. You'll need them with today's prices and the abysmal pay for the written word.Marky48 04:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In re bifricate/bifrication:

Researching this point has been interesting. Who knew that "bifurcate" had such a persistent misspelling? As Jules has already pointed out, "bifricate" is far too uncommon in Google's cache to be a real word; not to mention it's missing from the OED, the American Heritage Dictionary, Princeton Wordnet, wiktionary, et cetera.

I went looking on my own for instances of the word. In every instance where the intended meaning could be gleaned from context, the author meant "bifurcated". The sixth-highest Google-ranked site uses "bifurcation" and "bifrication" interchangeably -- and when it uses "bifrication", it's quoting the highest-ranked site that uses the word.

Some further instances where the intended meaning is clearly "bifurcation":

In the course of my research, I ran across M. using "bifrication" in my own weblog. He says, "This is the sort of out of context bifrication I put up with oh these long months." This instance is further confirmation of a consistent pattern: there's no logical fallacy called a bifrication, but there is one called a bifurcation, a.k.a. a false dichotomy. M.'s been using the wrong word all along.

Let us consider the bifurcation (or bifrication) itself. In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

In formal argument, a bifurcation or false dichotomy occurs when someone falsely presents a situation as having only two alternatives: "If the leading suspect has an alibi for the time at which the victim fell from the window, the fall must have been an accident." As such, it's a useful concept. However, M. apparently thinks that whenever someone says "Given this fact and this fact, your assertion can't possibly be true," they are trying to force the Dreaded Bifrication upon him, and are thus Wrong and Unfair. One fears he is doomed to be disappointed by the general response to his bifrication defense.

--72.225.217.252 19:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Teresa Nielsen Hayden

I made the mistake that many others have in the spelling of the word. The meaning is as I said and used correctly i.e. dividing the argument, which is a false dichotomy indeed. Separating Bauer and TNH is difficult to do since they have such a history. There is no separation in this piece. They're at war with one another. That's the story. As for the edit and Davenport we don't know when TNH worked there as she didn't say. We know she worked there by admission. This article was written because firends were attacked by Bauer, supposedly, and the "friends" attacked back using this venue. I didn't know Wikipedia was a score settling venue but even congressional staffs have been caught doing it. Apparently it is. Marky48 23:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Separating Bauer and TNH is difficult to do since they have such a history. No evidence has been presented that TNH had ever heard of Barbara Bauer prior to 13 March 2006 [14] although it's possible that she did not hear of Bauer until on or shortly before 16 April 2006. [15] contains the timeline. --70.16.206.199 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh. I'd say "good try", but it wasn't.

Marky48, you are conducting a personal vendetta here. You're ticked off at me for banning you from Making Light, and at Absolute Write because they kicked you out -- at least twice, wasn't it? None of which expulsions had anything to do with Barbara Bauer, by the bye; you were banned for your obnoxious behavior. You're now championing Barbara Bauer's cause, not because you have any particular understanding of agenting or publishing, or acquaintance with Ms. Bauer's career, but because it gives you an opportunity to smear me and Absolute Write.

I deny the notion that events external to Wikipedia ought not be cited in arguments, if identifying them is the only way to make sense of what's happening here. Lord knows, what's happening here needs all the sense it can get. Deleting these remarks will greatly increase the chances of my seeking legal counsel.

It's taken me a while to sort out the Lynn Davenport muddle -- that was all a very long time ago, and I've had other things on my mind -- but having done so, I can clear up the question right now: Barbara Bauer is lying. She's also committing libel.

1. Jules is right: by the "mid to late 90s" I was long gone from Masquerade.

2. I neither acquired nor edited the Lyn Davenport titles. I wasn't around for them.

3. Even when I was at Masquerade, I had nothing to do with the issuance of royalty statements or payments.

4. As Barbara Bauer (and any other publishing professional) knows perfectly well, any monies owed to Lyn Davenport are owed by Masquerade Books or its parent company Topaz, not by the company's employees or former employees.

5. If I had a legitimate debt to Lyn Davenport, which of course I don't, busting Barbara Bauer's chops in my weblog would do nothing to discharge it.

(list continued further down)

(And a rant for people in the industry: If I'd sold four (!) of my client's books to Richard Kasak at Masquerade, I wouldn't brag about it. That pathetic $750 advance was normal for Masquerade. Kasak's standard contract took all rights, and guaranteed nothing. It was your genuine old-fashioned "do with me what you will" bad publishing contract, under which he could change the author's name or leave it off altogether, hire some freelancer to change all the characters and insert new scenes, or do whatever else randomly occurred to him that day -- and the author could say nothing. Furthermore, I am utterly unsurprised to hear that royalties went unpaid. But at the same time, I have to ask: what kind of an agent can't even get one measly royalty statement out of a publisher who's has four of her client's titles in print over a period of years? What's an agent for, if not that? Finally, if Bauer wasn't seeing royalty statements, why did she keep selling Masquerade her client's books?) (End of rant.)

Back to the main subject. Barbara Bauer is lying. This shouldn't come as a surprise. Misrepresentation is her stock in trade. She's a known professional scammer who's made a very few legit sales, none of them recent.

This case illustrates why reputable agents don't charge their clients fees. Anyone can claim to be an agent. The work an agent does is largely invisible. (What's visible about a successful agent are the effects of his or her work, not the work itself.) An ineffectual or non-performing agent who doesn't charge fees receives no income, and quits agenting for another line of work. But an agent who's collecting fees from clients can live off that money while doing little or no work on their behalf, and the clients have no way to tell what's going on. They can continue this way for years, until the client loses faith and goes elsewhere, or simply quits trying to get published.

Having a record of legit sales is one of the chief criteria for being a legit agent, but it's not the whole story. A scattering of minor sales yields very little income for the agent. For instance, Bauer's total commissions from the four Davenport sales wouldn't cover a single month's rent. Her sales subsequent to 1997 are almost undetectable, and may not exist. That means she's making little or no money from selling manuscripts to publishers. Bauer does, however, take on large numbers of newbie clients, from whom she immediately demands six or seven hundred dollars a year (or more) in "processing fees", "marketing fees", and other charges. This is her actual source of income. As far as anyone can tell -- agenting work isn't completely invisible -- she does little or nothing in return.

Former clients have reported receiving year-end batches of unconvincingly dummied-up "rejection letters". That's a bad sign. Rejection letters are often the only evidence that books have been submitted at all. It's not hard to collect real rejections, on letterhead, from real publishing houses. All you have to do is send out manuscripts.

To summarize: Most or all of Barbara Bauer's income is derived from undertaking to agent newbie writers, exacting large annual fees from them, and doing nothing effectual on their behalf. Her few sales, most of them made the better part of a decade ago, do nothing to change that picture.

She's a con artist. Why should it come as a surprise that she's been lying here?

Bauer's business model marks her as a dead-standard garden-variety scam agent. There are lots of 'em. The only essential difference between Barbara Bauer, Cris Robins, David Mocknick, and Leann Murphy (Desert Rose) is the amounts they ask. Cris Robins is the high-priced spread, charging thousands of dollars in "management fees", whereas Leann Murphy will do you for a couple of hundred. The pertinent quote here is, "He got $50,000 for doing nothing? They should have come to me -- I'd have done nothing for half that!"

One thing that does distinguish Barbara Bauer is her well-documented history of verbal abuse and wild accusations when she's in a snit. Victoria Strauss has heard from a number of writers who got "abusive, profane responses" when they questioned Bauer's fees or her claims. Bauer told one of the authors at AW that the Preditors & Editors watchdog site (which lists her as "not recommended") is owned by a foreign monopoly "with a hidden agenda to make money off writers by destroying the credibility of the American publishing industry." She contacted the site administrator of an online writers' forum, claiming that the name of her company had been "used to commit a crime" on the website (someone had mentioned her name "without her authorization", which of course anyone is free to do), and demanding payment of her invoice for one billion dollars. She phoned up the Cordrays, who ran the webhosting service that Absolute Write used, and told them that the fact that someone had quoted her email address (which she'd had up on her site for years) in one of the threads at AW was illegal under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (untrue), and that doing so had caused Bauer to get spam (impossible to determine), which meant that AW was a spammer (nope), and that this would get the web host put on every blacklist in the world (definitely untrue). The results of that call are too well known to need describing.

She's done it to me, too, though it wasn't quite as spectacular as some others. You've already seen her fibs about me here. Also, after I published the "20 Worst Agents" list on my weblog, she also phoned a highly placed corporate executive in the company where I work, claimed I'd libeled her (which I hadn't) on a Tor website (which it wasn't), and threatened legal action (which she does a lot, though she never follows through on it).

And yes, I can back up all those assertions, both the ones about her business practices and the ones about her truthlessness and verbal abuse. Unlike Barbara Bauer or marky48, I don't make weighty public assertions for which I have no evidence.

Here's what actually happened:

I never set out to conduct a vendetta against Barbara Bauer. This all started when I, like many others, reproduced Writer Beware's "20 Worst Agents" list. That was in mid-April. I noted in the same piece that scam agents Cris Robins and Barbara Bauer were the only ones on the list who were dumb enough to publicly denounce it, thus giving it more publicity and linking their names with it. I also noted that Bauer had laid a fake cease-and-desist on an author, Paula Offutt, who'd reproduced the list on her own site, and that she was harassing Writer Beware.

There was nothing personal in it. To me, she was (1.) just another scam agent, and (2.) an example of a bad online strategy. I was unaware that she had any connection to Masquerade Books, which folded some time ago.

Barbara Bauer reacted to my post by phoning a highly placed official in the company I work for and lying about me in an attempt to get me fired. I replied to this provocation with a soft (if disrespectful) answer.

During this time, Bauer was also attacking, and making fake legal threats against, other sites which reproduced the list.

About a month after she tried to get me fired, Bauer had her dust-up with the Cordrays, and Absolute Write got shut down. I was one of the first sites on the web to report this news, and had a fairly complete first-approximation version of the story. Everybody linked to my version. A great deal of the online discussion of the shutdown wound up happening in my comment threads. Announcements and news of interest to AW members also got posted there.

This is an important point: a lot of very substantial writing was stored at Absolute Write -- discussions, pieces being workshopped, the massive collected archives of AW's own watchdog site, a book-length series of lectures about writing, and much more besides. For some time after the shutdown, it appeared possible, even likely, that the entire AW message base had been lost.

Let me put this simply: writers who think they've lost their writing are distraught. It feels like a bereavement, or the loss of a body part. Absolute Write was not a small venue, and most of the people who hung out there were writers. Very few of them had complete backups of their work. The rest were in a state of loss. Pretty much all of them were mad at Barbara Bauer. Writers who hadn't hung out at AW were mad about the shutdown on principle. It's hardly to be wondered at that some less-than-objective material made it into the Wikipedia entry.

(The message base was restored. AW is once again open for business. Things have cooled down. Unlike Marky48 and Barbara Bauer, AW's regulars have better things to do than pursue online vendettas.)

During the period when AW was temporarily lodged in my comment threads, the person who's posting here as Marky48, a former AW regular who'd already been banned there for his unpleasant behavior, showed up at my weblog intending to continue his one-sided feud with AW's moderators. He was rude to everyone else as well. I have longstanding policies about bad behavior in my message threads. M. was warned several times, then his messages were disemvowelled, then he was banned from Making Light. He promptly moved me up to #1 on his hate list, though Absolute Write and its moderators are still very much present in the #2 slot.

M., or Marky48, has been libeling me in Wikipedia ever since. He's made a hash of the entry on disemvowelling. I'm almost afraid to search and see what else he's done.

A person who can only have been Barbara Bauer also showed up here and posted libels about me. She has, I believe, been encouraged in this by Marky48, who, in pursuit of his own entirely personal and unrelated vendetta, has repeatedly represented me as being engaged in some kind of highly personal feud to the death with Barbara Bauer, and identified me as the author of the Googlebombing campaign.

As Marky48 knows -- he was there when it was being discussed -- I was not one of the instigators of the Googlebombing campaign. He only pretends that I was, to give himself grounds to attack me.

There was also nothing personal in my remarks about Barbara Bauer. I've never done business with her. I wouldn't recognize her if she walked up to me at a party. I do take it personally that she has slandered and libeled me, tried to get me fired, and made false and malicious statements in an attempt to damage my professional reputation.

And you, Will BeBack, who have a demonstrable history of targeting entries I've worked on, for no reason I've ever been able to figure out, have been letting it happen.

I see you've been very tender of Marky48's real name in my previous remarks, though you've let it stand elsewhere. You weren't nearly so careful with my name, when you let stand an assertion that I launched an attack on Barbara Bauer as a way of (somehow!) getting out of paying royalties owed to an author. Do you not know libel when you see it? More to the point, do you not know patent nonsense when you see it? Editors don't pay royalties! Publishers pay royalties!

And then there's this piece of crap, which I'll deal with in a moment: For the purpose of evading payment to Bauer's client, "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.'"

Let me repeat: deleting my remarks today will greatly increase the chances of my seeking legal counsel.

Continuing the list I started earlier:

6. I acknowledge that I called Barbara Bauer a scammer. To be precise, I called her a "horrible old harridan and scam agent". "Horrible old harridan" is a matter of opinion, and thus need not be substantiated. As you can see by my earlier remarks, I'll stand by my characterization of her as a scam agent.

7. I never encouraged my readers to disparage Barbara Bauer. I didn't have to. I deny that I ever disparaged or encouraged others to disparage Bauer's clients. They have my entire sympathy. And I never threatened anyone with physical violence, nor tolerated any such threats by others unless they appeared to me to be mere figures of speech. I consider that last an inexcusable lie, for which the perpetrator(s) should feel ashamed.

8. I did not initiate the Googlebombing of Barbara Bauer. Quite the opposite: my immediate reaction to Bauer's attacking and threatening people who reproduced the "20 Worst Agents" list was to observe that she was doing herself no favor by attacking it, since kicking up a fuss about it just publicized her presence on the list, linked her name to it in online searches, and raised the list's overall Google ranking. The googlebombing campaign was initiated by several other individuals who aren't exactly hard to spot. (Let Bauer do her own research.) However, the campaign would have gotten nowhere without the enthusiasm of the online writing community, which enthusiasm was entirely inspired by Barbara Bauer's own actions, and the consequences thereof.

9. She can't say I didn't warn her. Her subsequent misfortunes she brought on herself.

10. Many of the sites that participated in the Googlebombing also linked to my weblog. That's because I was one of the first sites to post the news about the Absolute Write shutdown, so a link to my site was an easy way to say "here's the story". I continued to get links thereafter because a great deal of the online discussion of the AW shutdown took place in my message threads.

11. I did encourage my readers to link to the "20 Worst Agents" list. Again, I'll stand by that action. It's an objective list compiled by a couple of immensely respectable authorities on the subject.

And that's all for now. Don't even think of claiming that it's irrelevant, in light of what's gone before.

--72.225.217.252 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Teresa Nielsen Hayden

Look Teresa I don't have anything against you personally except you have selective amnesia about who is rude first and why. Do you expect to make friends that way? No matter, as an editor with a gaggle of wannabe writers at her doorstep, you'll never lack for support. Attacks from bereaved group members occured at you blog a priori to my less than cordial responses. They were repeated. I warned them to back off. They didn't. It's their fault. They drew first blood. You're reporting is second hand rumor, quite popular with blogs and the real reason why their aren't sources. They aren't in newspapers either.

"Writers who hadn't hung out at AW were mad about the shutdown on principle. It's hardly to be wondered at that some less-than-objective material made it into the Wikipedia entry."

No kidding. That's why I intervened and started this flamefest.

"and identified me as the author of the Googlebombing campaign."

I never said any such thing. I've never mentioned googlebombing at all. Likewise, I've never said you were personally involved with witholding royalties and have said so. I've said in light of the fact that Bauer tried to get you fired there's no need of such evidence. She attacked you. There's "a feud" on its face. As I learned the hard way with an off the cuff remark about prosecution here, these people take legal threats seriously and I think you just made a real one.

You're in the business of fighting and exposing scam agents. They aren't going to like it. You should be no part of an article about her or anyone else when such a conflict is going on. It's not objective and can never be. I know Bauer is low hanging fruit, but this is beyond the pale. If you don't mind I lost my dad this weekend. My writing project today was writing his obituary. Back off.Marky48 00:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, Mark, but I believe TNH is responding to an accusation of Googlebombing instigation in one of the IP edits presumed to be written by Bauer, not any accusation of same by you. Incidentally, this page is certainly easier to navigate now! And I really like the reminders at the top. I think if we all calm down a bit, we can resolve any remaining disagreements about the article itself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mavarin (talk • contribs) 03:19, July 24, 2006 (UTC)

"As Marky48 knows -- he was there when it was being discussed -- I was not one of the instigators of the Googlebombing campaign. He only pretends that I was, to give himself grounds to attack me."

I'm pretending she was TNH claims. Where is the evidence of that? The only grounds I have for this so-called attack is an ongoing public ridicule by her and her mob of sci-fi hoodlums for no good reason except responding rudely to an attack by the absolutewrite community on the Making Light refuge thread. This isn't an attack on TNH. It's on group bias and vengeance. It makes no difference who it is.Marky48 14:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's calm down

We get nowhere by being pissed off with each other all the time.

The section about Bauer's legal threats is currently not in the article. I still think it should be, but I'm not in a hurry to put it back. We need better sources.

I've been looking over what we have: Dave Langford's entry in Ansible about the Absolute Write affair should be considered acceptable according to WP:Verifiability, which says:

Exceptions may be when [...] a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications.

Dave Langford is a well-known professional journalist (within his field); his work has previously been published by multiple credible third-party publications. So, that is a valid source. We should use it.

My proposed phrasing is:

Bauer has a reputation for threatening spurious legal action against those who publish the Writer Beware list; her threats are alleged to have caused Absolute Write, a writer's web site that includes details of alleged scams perpetrated against writers, to lose its Internet Service Provider. She also attempted to get Teresa Nielsen Hayden fired, after an article on Nielsen Hayden's weblog Making Light discussed her previous behaviour.(reference goes here)

All this information is adequately sourced in Langford's newsletter.

What other sources do we have? JulesH 15:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Dave Langford is a well-known professional journalist (within his field" What is his field? He says it is NOT fandom. I don't think posting "alleged" actions is valid. people can allege anything but it takes facts to prove it. You have nothing but rumor ands innuendo to support this assertion. Constant use and promotion of Nielsen Hayden smacks of bias. This article is stil friends ad vertising friends. This is a vengeful sci-fi community cyber attack. That can't be NPOV on its face.Marky48 16:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, we also have the Preditors & Editors link, which appears not to be self-published: the cited author is Dave Kuzminski, while the site itself is an e-zine published and operated by Gary Markette[16]. So that should also count as a reliable source -- we have a publisher/writer relationship established there. It doesn't say a lot, but it's a second valid source on the Absolute Write affair. I'd like more sources on other threats... particularly the Writer's Weekly one, if possible.

Mark: go read WP:V, particularly where it says "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I don't care whether you believe these allegations or not: the fact is that they are widely reported and verifiable, and nobody has refuted them, so they can be included here. Whatever he may say, Langford's field is clearly related to literary/writing news, and this is a literary/writing news item. And I assert that he is well enough known to include. Does anyone disagree? JulesH 16:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I do. Anyone can print alleged threats and false causes. Dave K is doing noble work, but it's a vanity site: his. He's not an organization. It's just him alone. I'll show you a reliable source: Editor and Publisher. When they report it, you'll have something. I'm not going to keep arguimg this with you Jules. Your signature is all of this issue from Publishamerica and up to this debacle. You're a conflicted editor and the author of this article written out of revenge. That's bias. My prediction is you'll fail. The article should be a bare bones paragraph and nothing more if anything. I recommend deletion for bias. We are not judge and jury here.Marky48 16:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Above it is claimed that this allegation is "widely reported" yet the only provided citation is obviously from a highly non-neutral source. (What neutral source would say "Hey Babs, do you mean the same one at Barbara Bauer Literary Agency, Inc.? I thought you wanted to be contacted by writers? Oh, but not by any knowledgeable writers. Tsk, tsk, picky, picky, picky." ?) The site makes no attempt to substantiate their allegation, nor does the person making the allegation appear to be notable himself. Furthermore, I'm having a difficult time figuring out what encyclopedic purpose reprinting this unsubstantiated non-notable rumor has... Wikipedia is not a gossip mill. It is not in our interest to undertake an attempt at character assassination. Because the majorty view in this discussion is against including this claim, and because I (as a totally disinterested party) find it distasteful, I will now remove it once more. Normally I would leave it in a bit longer while discussion continued, but since this is a potentially hurtful claim our default should be to omit it.--Gmaxwell 21:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the existence of consensus over this point, I think it's pretty clear: only User:Marky48 has objected to this source before now. The source has been supported by myself, User:Mavarin, User:Calton and User:St jb. I certainly don't see a majority against including the claim. The source isn't neutral, sure. But I don't think that changes the fact that he's a reliable source under the definitions at WP:RS and WP:V. If you don't like Kuzminski as a source, take your pick from these: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] While most of these sources are blogs or similar self-published sites and therefore aren't reliable sources, the latter may count because, while self-published, the author is a well-known researcher into literary scams who is part of the SFWA. This is similar enough to the definition of acceptable self-published sources at WP:V that I feel most people would allow it to pass. I'm going to revert and add it as an additional source. JulesH 00:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I was just looking at that last link. You beat me to it. St jb 00:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
And toast, just like before, but it's nice to know the usual supects are on the job. Their bias is clear and shows glaringly. It's a cabal of rumor monguering partisans from the same blog community. Yet again. It's, as has been noted before, incestuous.Marky48 02:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
"Rumor monguering"? Mark, I clearly remember from things that you've said on this talk page that you saw the old James Cordray link we had here before he took his own site down. That was a primary source that effectively confirmed the allegations from somebody who was directly involved and had nothing to gain from doing so. And I've warned you time and time again not to make personal comments about other editors. Stop. Now. JulesH 07:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see WP:NOR, building our articles from primary sources is strongly discouraged. I find it a little odd to claim that someone is 'directly involved' and yet had 'nothing to gain'. What interest does Wikipedia have in reprinting every negative comment we can possibly find about this person? I just called totalweb hosting and they claim that they've never taking down a site due to a legal threat from Barbara Bauer. Barbara might well be a scam artist, the facts seems to support it... but I see no reason why we should involve ourselves in a smear campaign.--Gmaxwell 13:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well a smear campaign is exactly what this is by design. A response to this rumor is why Jules wrote it in the first place.Marky48 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, they would say that, given that if they had done so it would probably have been breach of contract, and as far as I'm aware legal action is still pending over that. *At the time*, however, they did say that. Yes, I'm aware that this is discouraged, and it was the source of much heated debate at the time. But the link is gone, now, so we can't use it as a source. But for those of us who did read it, it should leave little doubt in our minds as to what happened -- but Mark seems to think otherwise. Bauer *is* a scam artist. That has been reported by a top-class reputable source, Writer Beware, which is part of one of the best-known professional writer's associations in the world. It is alleged that she caused the loss of service provider. According to the ISP, there were multiple reasons for them pulling the plug; Bauer was one of them, effectively the final straw that convinced Cordray that doing it was the right thing to do. I'm not commenting on his decision (I've done so elsewhere, and it isn't relevant here), but he clearly indicated at the time that Bauer's complaint was a factor. What interest does Wikipedia have in this? Well, that's a matter of consensus, and can't be easily determined by a single person. But when this article was deleted and put through deletion review, the Absolute Write affair was frequently mentioned as a reason why this article was notable. The two sources we have now aren't the best in the world. Neither are any of the other sources above. But the two we have do, I think, fall under the definition of reliable sources. I also believe that the Ansible Link source described above does, although it is debatable. It might be worth including it as a third source, I don't know. My point is that together, these sources are enough for what we're stating: that the allegations exist. JulesH 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutewrite is not notable. It's a message board and a vanity operation for the owner. Those clamoring for the head of this non-notable imitation agent are the customers of the website. Encyclopedias aren't about minor tiffs between bit players in a web-only soap opera. It's easy to see who is a member and who isn't.Marky48 23:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it? As far as I'm aware, none of User:Mavarin, User:Calton, User:St jb or User:SarekOfVulcan (i.e. the users other than me who have been reverting your edits) are. So unless you're talking about just me, it can't be, can it? JulesH 00:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. Making Light et al. All the edits are in favor of AW and ML. You've admittedly come from there, as did Mavarin. We don't know who Calton is or St.jb. To deny it is ludicrous. AW is vanity. Rumors are not valid concerns for encyclopedia. You really are tedious to a fault. Every edit enforces that point. Stay off my page.Marky48 02:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Strauss blog link

This was removed with all the other blog/forum sourced material. I've reinstated it because I believe it is a reliable source, as it is published on behalf of Writer Beware, which is a committee of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, a well-known and respected professional organisation, who I believe provide editorial oversight. It is therefore not a personal blog, and should therefore be a WP:Reliable source. Note that we aren't using it as a source anyway... we're just linking to it. JulesH 15:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy

This is hardly a controversial topic, nor is it a heated debate as is indicated at the top. It only appears as such due to one individual's behavior. Regardless of the amount of work, effort or resource material entered into the Barbara Bauer information cycle, it will be argued and condescended, ad infinitum, by Mark. As will the contributors of said work. Some references will be deleted followed by an apology, as history has shown. This article was submitted for deletion once before, rewritten and added to by many contributors, myself included. It was then accepted by a majority. It is my belief that as long as Mark has air in his lungs and strength in his fingers, he will continue to demand that it be deleted for no other reason then, he can. His only interest is one of contention. I guarantee this cycle will be neverending as Wiki appears to be his only remaining platform in which libelous and unwarranted personal attacks are not only permissable, but acceptable. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, on many levels, that Barbara Bauer is a scam literary agent, nothing more, nothing less. Yet, this information should not be made public? And easily found for aspiring writers? Why? Wikipedia does not wish to assist in making this valuable information easily accessible? One would think so. It's a shame that one idividual has been permitted to disparage reputable authors such as: Teresa Neilsen Hayden, Victoria Strauss, Ann C. Crispin and now Dave Kuzminski, while defending an established con artist who takes monies for little in return, for his own agenda. It is my personal opinion, as a fellow Wiki user and contributing editor to this article, that that is not in the spirit of this encyclopedic community. Furthermore, it has always been my understanding, that when the majority of persons involved reach a decision, or vote, that it stands. Granted, it may be reopened, as new information or material, surfaces which may be relevant. However, does not majority opinion count, or is Wikipedia ruled by a democracy of one?--JeanMarie 18:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but only up to a point. Aside from this one-editor-against-the-majority dynamic, which can be seen as either bullying or obstructionism by one side or the other depending on one's pov, there are issues about the claims made in (reverted) edits that appear to be by Bauer, about the extent to which a biography of a living person should exclude negative but well-sourced material, and about what does and not constitute a reliable source. I personally feel that even obviously biased (and sometimes libelous) material from the presumed Bauer edits must be sifted to see whether anything in it can reasonably be used for balance, and indeed this has been done, with research into the dating of the claimed Masquerade incident, and the benefit-of-the-doubt assumption that Bauer mostly likely did place books for Father Orsini, Lyn Davenport and the professors who wrote that kid's book back in the 1980s. By the same token, however, more rigorously sourced info on the lack of recent book placements clearly belongs in here, as does information on the legal threats. It does seem to me that a few editors have been overzealous in excluding certain kinds of sources, and even certain kinds of material regardless of sourcing. If we can resolve these issues, then I think we can stabilize the article. Karen | Talk | contribs 19:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
"Dave K is doing noble work." This is hardly a disparagement. A quick review of the ad hominem attacks from Jean Marie and the others at Making Light would be helpful for objective reviewers to see the extent of the bias. It isn't on my part. Democracy requires more than one POV be considered. In this case the rule is NPOV. That wouldn't be the entire sci-fi blog community and forum members from an aggrieved party. That's one POV trying to quash dissent a recurring theme here. And damn nasty about it to boot.Marky48 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That's true: that sentence is not a disparagement. :) I personally got the two referenced Daves here mixed up at one point, so perhaps others have also made that mistake. Nevertheless, I think it's important that EVERYBODY (including myself) move past the interpersonal strife here, ignore the who-said-what, off-Wiki associations, etc., and deal with the remaining issues on a factual basis. I realize that nearly everyone here feels that they and their edits have been attacked, libeled, disparaged, reverted, obstructed, and other bad things, woo; but griping about this just escalates the conflicts rather than resolving questions about the article itself. If someone actually doesn't want things resolved, that's a problem, but let's at least assume for now that it can be done, and get on with it. Karen | Talk | contribs 21:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Outside of my one comment regarding Dave Kuzminski, the remainder of my commentary, stands as is. The bullying and false accusations, unfortunately, continue. This article should not, IMHO, be considered for deletion, again, based on one individual's sour grapes pov. Especially, when that pov will not change regardless of already proven established fact(s). Additional information will not alter an opinion set in stone. Everyone here and their edits have indeed been attacked even though numerous attempts have been made to move beyond (w/ intervention) interpersonal strife, Karen. All of us, w/ one exception, have wanted this article to be completed for some time, in the spirit of assisting fellow writers, only. That assistance has been met w/ obstruction at each and every turn. At this point and time, I would like to formally request that the article regarding Barbara Bauer remain as is. I would also ask that as more information becomes available, either positive or negative, that it be permitted to be added as an on-going project as other articles in the Wikipedia body of information. Further, in light of the contentious behavior of this particular individual(s), I would like to make an additional formal request; is it possible for a Wiki moderator to periodically check this article for editorial vandalism?Thank you.--JeanMarie 23:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There are no Wikipedia moderators, as such -- that's our job.--SarekOfVulcan 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Just keep moving the goal posts Jean Marie, and disregarding facts you don't like. How about your taunt to Cordray: "he'll always have an encyclopedia article hanging over his head to expose his shoddy business practices," or somesuch without finding your quote again? Yeah, that's objective.Marky48 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI

In response to an OTRS complaint, I have removed some material that did not adequately meet our policies with regard to original research. I also have concerns about the credibility of the sources used for the remaining paragraph. I'm leaving it in for the moment, but if a reputable (non-blog, non-internet forum) source isn't found within a week or so, I'm going to take that out as well. Rebecca 23:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, you will have my full support in that action. The whole is an Internet forum issue supported by self-interested blogs. Nothing other than that exists for this subject.Marky48 00:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Hey, folks, can we stop a sec and find out exactly what's happening before we all go using up our reverts for the day? I'm getting dizzy! ;) Karen | Talk | contribs 00:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fasten your seatbelt Karen. I'm rooting for Rebecca. She's objective, uninvolved personally, and on a roll. All +s in my view.Marky48 02:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't understand this edit at all:

Current revision (18:15, 24 July 2006) User:Rebecca (Removing another two sentences which don't seem to be supported by their sources.)

The first sentence removed:

"She is also alleged to have caused the popular website, Absolute Write, to lose its Internet Service Provider in May, 2006, an event which seems to have occurred shortly after a phone conversation between Bauer and the ISP."

The source: Preditors & Editors, an important resource for writers (and not at all a vanity site, as alleged):

"5/24/06 - One of yesterday's events was among the worst ever perpetrated by Barbara Bauer whose rantings and unfounded threats led Absolute Write's ISP to block them. Fortunately, AW now has a new ISP."

How does THAT fail to support the sentence?

If the argument is that P&E is not notable or reliable, I must strongly disagree, Take a good look at the site, and you'll find evidence of a lot of meticulous record-keeping, research, etc. It is, in short, a vital clearinghouse of information on publishing-related scams (and conversely, agents and publishers who do not have a significant number of complaints). It is recommended by SFWA[23] and Writer'sDigest.com[24], listed in The Agents Directory, Everything you Need to Know to Sell your Book or Script, by Rachel Vater, ISBN 1-57860-144-4, and linked to in the Literary agent article. The site is most definitely not about its proprietor and editor.

Incidentally, this citation also supports the second sentence removed, if for some reason the Absolute Write forum is not notable or reliable enough to refer to its own situation. The Writer's Market 2006 list of recommended sites for writers, cited above, also includes Absolute Write.Karen | Talk | contribs 02:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, please correct me if I’m working under a misconception, but I found a couple of things today that I think may help clear up this issue. I ran across the SmartVoter.org profile of Timothy K. Fitzgerald [25]. On his profile he states the following: "Under Contract with New York Litterary Agent, Barbara Bauer of Matawan, New Jersey, from 1994 to present, producing almost a dozen non-fiction manuscripts for publication - all still unpublished - except for a book of 100 poems...abailable (sic) on the WEB." The book is from Authorhouse, published in 2004.[26] [27]
In addition, Bauer’s site now mentions the sale of three novels written by Cleo Chadwick. [28]. Chadwick did indeed have three novels published by Kensington. Zebra and Pinnacle are imprints of Kensington. [29] The books were published between 1991 and 1995.[30] Bauer claims the author is the recipient of multiple awards from the Romance Writers of America, but there is no evidence at the RWA site to support this claim. (I should add that the above information on Bauer’s site was difficult to find as it is posted with 9/11 memorial poetry rather than on the page featuring clients’ work.) Still, even if Chadwick is an RWA award-winning author, and even if Bauer did place the books, this is not evidence of a recent sale, which is what the removed material stated.
Agents are generally big on trumpeting their latest deals. Agents who have web sites are generally eager to name clients and recent publications These deals can generally verified in places such as Publisher’s Weekly [31] or Publisher’s Lunch (part of Publisher's Marketplace).[32] (Editor and Publisher, which was mentioned elsewhere on this page, covers the newspaper publishing industry as opposed to the book publishing industry. Bauer is connected with book publishing.) Bauer’s site lists no mentions of recent sales. St jb 03:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca, I strongly disagree w/ your removal of any reference to P&E, too for the same reasons Karen listed. No reason to reiterate. Preditator's & Editor's is a non-vanity, non-biased, well-researched site. Your removal of said information is a diservice to the Barbara Bauer article in regard to valid substantiation.--JeanMarie 04:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rebecca that we need to be very careful in what we say about "living people". (The dead are less likely to complain). Our job isn't to prevent unwary writers from choosing bad agents. Our job is to be good encyclopedia editors, to verifiably summarize reliable sources using a neutral point of view. I also agree with Mavarin/Karen that there are verifiable assertions that may be made about this subject, even some that may be distasteful to the subject. "Editor and Publisher", for example, appears to be a reliable source. It is clear that the subject evokes strong reactions. As I've expressed before, the less we say in this article the easier it is to be neutral and verifiable. There's no doubt that this is a contentious issue. Let's all be doubly-sure that we are following the principles expressed in our newest policy, WP:BLP. Keep the faith, -Will Beback 08:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Editor and Publisher follows the newspaper business.See their "About Us" page for information. It's a solid, reliable source, but would be unlikely to follow news in the book publshing field unless a particular item is related to newspaper publishing. (Famous columnist has a book out; a newspaper buys a stake in a book publisher, that sort of thing.) As I stated above, Publisher's Weekly and Publisher's Marketplace/Publisher's Lunch should be reliable sources. PW has been in print for years and is considered essential reading in the book publication field. St jb 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Editor and Publisher" hs never heard of this person and never reported anything on this. Neithe rhas Publisher's Weekly or any other cader operation.They don't know who absolutewrite or Bauer are. This is strictly a blog/forum topic.Marky48 11:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback, I believe you were referring to Preditor's & Editor's when you said they appear to be a "reliable" source.--JeanMarie 13:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, sorry for the confusion. Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America are likewise a reliable source. -Will Beback 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. I appear to have stepped on someone else's edit to this page. No offense intended. Thanks for the fix, SarekOfVulcan. Here is my statement again - Most information from PW's site is only available via subscription, which limits our searches. I suspect my library would have back issues either in print, microfiche, or microfilm. That should be able to verify the Cleo Chadwick sales if nothing else. There may be some mention of Father Orsini's book promotion party as well. Editor and Publisher only allows for searching through the last four months of issues. Again, being a newspaper industry trade magazine, I would expect to find mention of any literary agent unless they did something related to the newspaper trade. In addition, I have searched the New York Times database online and have found no mention. Our library has a more comprehensive database, I believe. St jb 02:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I understand that. Find me any Cader publication who has mentioned Bauer and Absolutewrite? They've mentioned Publishamerica before. Show me why this is news to anyone but intra-forum shenanigans and their loyal participants. Surely you can go down to the library if it means this much to you? I found out about my own work being infringed from Publisher's Lunch which I get everyday. P&E is a list of agents by a private individual. It isn't an organization affiliated with the publishing industry or Reed Business. In that context, it's vanity. I could do the same thing tommorrow.Marky48 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about P&E. I was talking about verifying some facts. The Internet doesn't stretch back to the beginning of time. Bauer has been in business since 1984, and some records just aren't going to be online. I am interested in accuracy. The full Publisher's Market place can only be searched if one has a subscription. St jb 03:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider this: why doesn't Bauer even have a [33]Publishers Marketplace listing? She isn't real enough to have one. What does that tell you?Marky48 03:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I like to think I can answer two people at once. Yours was but one part of a two parter. Why don't you have a subscription? She's not a legitimate agent. Everyone in the business knows this, if they know of her at at all, which is damn few. That's an accurate assessment.Marky48 04:09, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I get it at the library when I need a copy. Save a tree. This article at one time contained information about sales and it was pulled for lack of proper citations. I'm simply attempting to determine whether or not any exist. BTW, inclusion in PM doesn't mean anything. A quick check shows more than one major agent who doesn't have a listing. St jb 06:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well most reputable people are listed there if they have legitimate services whether you consider it anything or not. What's your motivation in this? Out of all the sunjects why pop into this one?Marky48 11:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I could ask you the same thing. St jb 13:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Stop bickering! It doesn't matter whether Bauer has a good reputation or not -- we know she doesn't. PM only publishes listings for agents they believe have a good reputation. The reason Bauer is important enough for this article is because she has such a negative reputation she's come out on the opposite end of the spectrum. That's the reason I've been involved in this article, the reason I've been involved in the other (now deleted) articles for other Worst 20 agents, the reason I've been involved with PublishAmerica, and so on. Mark: don't kid yourself that this has anything to do with Absolute Write or TNH or anything like that. It's about documenting the worst behaviour of the publishing industry. Don't you think that's a worthwhile topic? JulesH 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say no. That's what Writer Beware is (justifiably) for. We, on the other hand, are an encyclopedia, and we only do neutrality. This doesn't really fit in with a mission of naming and shaming people. Rebecca 07:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes you could ask me and I'd tell you. I've been ionvolved with this same crowd for three years. I was the first to advocate fighting Publishamerica and was ridiculed and banned for it. I'm against these kinds of shysters, but encyclopedias are about items and people that have significance, not shallow infamy. Why were the other scam agent articles you wrote deleted? For the same reasons this one should be I'd wager. Why aren't the warnings put out by SFWA and others enough? No credible source knows Bauer exists.Marky48 23:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/a/r/Talk%7EBarbara_Bauer_Archive_2_a9df.html"