Talk:Baen Books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Strange page formatting[edit]

This page has the "Baen's Bar" section, in a long sidebar. The main content of the article starting with Jim Baen's Universe follows from the sidebar, I think. In addition, calling Arnold Bailey a "guru" is an interesting choice in an unbiased article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This 'odd formatting' seems to have been due to creation of a template {{Baen's Bar}} in an end run on the article deletion policy, and transclusion of that template in this article alone. Information on the Baen's Bar article was merged into the related Baen Books articles. I've flagged the template on Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Baen.27s_Bar. --Barberio (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
And this has now been corrected, and brought into line with the standing content policies and guidelines. --Barberio (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Webscriptions → Baen Ebooks[edit]

Baen have revamped their e-books operation, renaming it from Webscriptions to Baen Ebooks and moving to the domain name I've moved our "Webscriptions" article to Baen Ebooks and updated all the articles that wikilinked to Webscriptions accordingly. In updating this article, I found some messy stuff (eg., 3 separate descriptions of Webscriptions), so I did a fairly rough clean-up. Please check my work, correct whatever mistakes I made and further improve the article. Cheers, CWC 15:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Political leanings (stated in lead)[edit]

I have removed the statement recently added in the lead regarding the political leanings of Baen Books. It is not appropriate for the lead given that it is not discussed in the article and is supported only by blogs. For us to say something like this, the statement's sourcing needs to be more reliable. It also needs to be covered in the article in a manner that is compatible with WP:NPOV. The statement which I removed does not appear to have any attempt be made at presenting this from a WP:NPOV.
The portion which I removed was:

", written for a right-wing readership.[1][2]"
  1. ^ Walter, Damien (29 August 2014). "Space Opera strikes up again for a new era". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 August 2014. 
  2. ^ Wagner, Thomas M. (2005). "Watch on the Rhine (review)". Retrieved 4 September 2014. Baen Books has, even going back to the Reagan era, long been SF's home for jingoistic, hyper-violent right-wing power fantasies. 

Note that I am not arguing either way with regards to the political leanings of this publishing house. From my point of view, the issue is that our stating that an entity has political leanings automatically places a higher burden upon us to be sure that such is presented in a manner consistent with WP:NPOV and has good sources. If there is such a leaning then it is also incumbent upon us to clarify if this is in fact the case across all of their product line, or if it is a portion of their offerings, and/or take into consideration if the genre under discussion (e.g. military science fiction) has an inherent bias. — Makyen (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I've re-added it to the body text as "Baen's military science fiction, a focus of its catalogue, is generally written for a right-wing readership, according to Damien Walter of The Guardian". The Guardian is an internationally recognized leading newspaper, not a blog, so I don't see how this isn't reliable, and this phrasing helps readers contextualize the assessment. I think that it would be non-neutral not to mention, after a very long text about how innovative they are with regard to e-publishing and what not, that they are also known in sci-fi fandom for the pronounced political orientation of many of the works they publish.  Sandstein  19:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The Guardian may be a good paper, but the item you cited is specifically labelled as being in blog space.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Correction to Sandstein's misstatements: Certain clueless/deceptive leftists claim that Baen is a right-wing outfit, but they are wrong. For instance, one of Baen's ongoing series features a bunch of Russians who had to leave Moscow because they were too communist for the corrupt government there, and now defend the poor people of Atlanta (Georgia, US) from evil American government forces ... and their team is named CCCP! A better known instance is that one of Baen's most prolific (and popular) authors, Eric Flint, is a Trotskyite. This means that the people slamming Baen for their right-wing politics are wrong, so not reliable as sources, so not allowed in this (or any other) article.
More specifically, after being repeatedly challenged to justify a shocking slur in the blog post mentioned above, Damien Walter has admitted that the defamatory claim is merely his 'opinion'. For that reason alone, it is important to not link to that blog post in this (or any other) article.
I can supply more details if necessary. (It would take me at least an hour to find the links; it would take 10+ hours to read those links, and most of those hours would be pure tedium. You have been warned.) Cheers, CWC 13:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I've long thought it was very much Left-wing. If it's both, then it's centrist. "Military" science fiction is not Right-wing. Some people have some very strange ideas, such as that blogger. - Denimadept (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
@Chris Chittleborough:A link to where Damien Walter states that his comment is only his opinion would be helpful. It would be helpful both in this specific instance and in the general issue of how much credibility should be given to blog posts even when hosted by publishers which have a main publication which is considered a reliable source.
I have generally considered pages specifically identified as blogs to have much lower reliability, due to at least what appears to be much lower editorial oversight, even when hosted by a publisher which would otherwise be considered a reliable source for their main publication. In general, blogs appear to be separate publications from the main publication in basically all cases. The fact that they happen to be published by the same company which does publish a source which is considered reliable should not grant them inherent status as a reliable source. To a large extent, such blogs appear to be effectively used as advertizing to drive readership to the main publication.
@Sandstein: Thank you for re-writing that comment. While it was removed by another user, the text you wrote was much more appropriate than just a flat statement. Reporting that something is the opinion of a specific person is much, much better than having WP flat out state it as an uncontroversial fact. — Makyen (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
To understand the recent dispute, you need to read this first. To understand it, you need to know that that essay
  • was originally posted at Baen's Bar, a web forum, which that only members can read;
  • is addressed to long-term Fans; and
  • is a response to certain ructions in Fandom and related communities.
I'll supply more links as time permits. CWC 22:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
More necessary background: Damien Walter has attacked Larry Correia, a best-selling Baen author, several times this year. Correia has strongly counter-attacked: "So I got slandered in the Guardian last Friday.", Damian Walter "made shit up about me", etc.
Walter's description of Toni Weisskopf's essay in that 29/8 column angered Correia, who posted another fisking to (his blog and Facebook. Sample: "So where is the part about pandering to a conservative agenda? Damien can’t quote it, because it only exists in his head." For some strange reason, Walter decided to (IMO) troll Correia in that Facebook discussion, as reproduced here by Correia in a slightly less tedious form (with links to the original). Eventually, Walter says "All newspaper columns are opinion Larry", meaning that his "shocking slur" (my words) was just his opinion.
OK, that's my first-draft summary of the kerfuffle, leaving out lots and lots of stuff I think irrelevant. I've given enough links which have further links for anyone who cares to read the whole kerfuffle, but the key thing is to read Toni's essay and then see if Walter's description of it has any resemblance to the reality. CWC 14:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)