Talk:Teresa Nielsen Hayden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Science Fiction  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Arizona (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Arizona.
 

Disemvowelling[edit]

"Nielsen Hayden is the inventor of disemvowelling."

I doubt this and it definitely needs a citation. There is no mention of her "inventing" it on the disemvowelling site and I doubt that this was something that started with one person. I will see what I can find out but that is my explanation for removing it. Crito2161 01:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm surprised to see that the disemvoweling claim was in the article to be removed, having been deleted some time ago. The strongest claim that seems to be supportable with accepted sourcing is the one on the Disemvoweling article. (Briefly: the term predates the moderation technique, and the first use claim, in the sense of "as a moderation technique," seems impossible to prove, even though it's probably true.) Please see that article and its talk page for details, and do not reinsert the stronger claim that was just removed from here...again. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 01:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Huh. My mistake. I guess I just assumed it had previously been removed. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I highly, highly suspicious of the claim she invented disemvoweling and am curious as to when she supposedly did this. The practice (if not the term) certainly pre-dates the Internet and undoubtedly was being used on the 'net as early as the ARPANET days. I certainly used it on early (mid-1980's) Bulletin board systems such as Stuart][, The Temple of Doom, and Pyrzqxgl. Unless better sources are found, I suggest it be removed. The Cory Doctorow source seems a bit circular since Hayden works for his Boing Boing blog (I don't mean to impune Doctorow, but suspect he got his info from Hayden rather than a third-pary) Simenzo 13:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Re-reading the current article I see it now states that Hayden is the first Internet-editor to practice disemvoweling (rather than the inventor of the practice). I'm still a bit dubious of the claim in absence of better sources--also I suspect it hangs on a narrow definition of what a Internet-editor is. Simenzo 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It says first recorded; and of course, this depends on the definition of Internet editor. The creation of the term by Arthur (who deserves his own article) on her blog helped solidify the association of the practice with her. --Orange Mike 14:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
So the emphasis on 'recorded' is a concession that in all likelihood she isn't the first? Yes, yes, of course it depends on the definition of Internet-editor... the point is how narrow of a definition? Would someone who moderates a discussion forum count as an Internet Editor? At a certain point the factoid is so precariously balanced on particulars that it becomes a trivial/misleading 'first'. Finally, the fact that her blog solidifies the claim isn't really a third-party, source... if the point is that disemvoweling is associated with Hayden, fine... let's state that and leave out the "first" aspect. This reminds me a bit of Compton's patent on 'multimedia'--something that was both obvious & in general use. I think the proponents of Hayden (and, incidentally, I'm not an opponent of hers) are really doing her a disservice by stretching the readers' credulity by including this in her bio. Simenzo 14:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Or perhaps the point is that Hayden disemvowels entire posts, instead of individual words (reading between the lines, that does seem to be what the article implies)... if that is the case, I'll back off my objections (but suggest that article is extended to include the extent of disemvowling. Simenzo 14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Nielsen Hayden (not Hayden) disemvowels entire articles.Shsilver 15:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
In that case I suggest the article be edited (in fact I'll go do it now) to specify that... I think that's key to her "first recorded." 64.131.177.119 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Narcolepsy[edit]

  • In January, 2006, Nielsen Hayden fell victim to the FDA's removal from the market of a prescription drug she regularly used for narcolepsy, without notice to her and other users. This situation, first brought to light on her weblog,[1] was soon widely reported and commented on elsewhere.[2][3][4]

There are two elements here. One is the loss of the subject's medication. We don't normally get into this level of detail about biographical subjects. Is the matter worth mentioning in a short article? Is her narcolepsy important? Should we say more about that? The second half simply says that the subject blogged on a topic and some fellow bloggers commented on her piece. That is insignificant, unencyclopedic, and depends on blogs as secondary sources.

  • Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.[5]

I propose we rewrite the material:

  • Nielsen Hayden has narcolepsy and had been taking Cylert for the condition. However the Food and Drug Administration withdrew the drug from the marketplace in January 2006 with insufficient warning, leaving her with no effective replacement.[6]

A little research shows that the issues with this drug, and advocacy for patients who used to take it, predated January 2006.[7]. It would be inaccurate to assert that the subject was the first to bring this "to light". -Will Beback 11:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, Will. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


SwatJester has raised again (August 2007) the question of whether this topic belongs in the encyclopedia article. As the question has been discussed previously (see above), it seems that the most conservative approach would be to edit the language, rather than delete material that has already been discussed and vetted at least once before. It appears that Nielsen Hayden has served as an advocate or "poster child" for this disease -- she is, for example, the first person listed in [List of People With Narcolepsy]. The entry appears to be factually correct, does no harm, and might perhaps do some good. MarkBernstein 02:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

TNH has written about her narcolepsy both on her blog and in published essays. It's obviously verifiable that she has narcolepsy; whether this is significant enough to be included in a Wikipedia article, I don't know. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Disemvowelling source[edit]

In this article in Information Week [8], Cory Doctorow credits Nielsen Hayden with inventing disemvowelling. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get a better reference on the creation of disemvowelling? As it stands now this "fact" is verified by a reference from a man who is essentially Nielsen Hayden's employer.70.133.223.150 (talk) 16:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The statement appeared in a reliable source, so this is not a concern. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Making Light is not an attack site[edit]

I'm not sure what an "attack site" is, but Making Light isn't it. It's a group-edited blog, moderated and founded by Teresa Nielsen Hayden, who remains one of the strongest voices on that page. The site is widely read in Nielsen Hayden's field -- science fiction -- and is often referred to in trade publications such as the multi-Hugo-winning Ansible. It is appropriate for a noteworthy blog that Nielsen Hayden founded and posts to regularly to be included in her Wikipedia biography. Doctorow 23:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on your user talk page. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If one exaimes Mr. Bebeck's contributions, it is apparent that for reasons of his own -- because I updated my own bibliography to include my 2007 books -- he felt is necessary to vandalize the entries of my husband's colleges at Tor Books, a New York science fiction publisher. I suggest that Mr. Bebeck demonstrate his Wikipedian Good Will by deleting all these pages from his watch list.
I'm sure that upon mature consideration Mr Bebeck -- who haspreviously threatened to gut the entries of the whole field of editors of science fiction -- will walk away from this subject. Pleasantville 01:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about anything besides the contents of Nielsenhayden.com
However, since you mention it, we have a problem on Wikipedia with science fiction editors who ignore our guidelines on autobiography. This article has that problem too. If editors would stop creating and editing their autobiographies then it wouldn't be so necessary for others to patrol them. I have no particular interest in this field and I've only gotten involved because of the need for policy enforcement. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? The only edits that are apparently by TNH on this page are [9] and [10]. The former is a well-sourced edit which isn't in the slightest contentious and the latter, while unsourced, only makes the same claim along with passing the credit for the popularity of her blog onto her visitors rather than herself which hardly seems contentious to me. She didn't create this page, and WP:AUTO doesn't require her to refrain from editing. JulesH 08:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I see no evidence that Making Light is an attack site. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

People should be able to contribute to their own articles however they like. It's about them, anyway. If Wikipedians such as Will Beback write lies about them, they should be able to fix it.--ElminsterAumar 06:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
This is now being discussed at AN/I ·:·Will Beback ·:· 01:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the Arbitration Committee, A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances. I have looked at the site, and am completely satisfied that it engages in that practice. Therefore, we should not link to it. I do not intend to give details in the sense of "Go to the main page, and click on the link at the second from the top at the left-hand side" etc. Once there's question of privacy violations, we should err on the side of protecting our contributors. Of course, if the webmasters remove the privacy-violating information, which it is perfectly in their power to do, there will be no reason not to link to it. Musical Linguist 11:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Where, then, is the hue and outcry to remove all references to Google from Wikipedia, as it, too, "engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants." Because the complainant is "outed" on the first page of a search on their handle + wikipedia on Google. Perhaps they need to take better care of their own pseudonymity, if they can be found out so simply. --Izzylobo 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it's a breach of Wikipedia's policies on contributor privacy. Calling such a site an "attack site", without even a pointer to a definition or supporting policy, looks a lot like abuse. (I gave the relevant blog a skim--there's a claim that the anonymity of Wikipedia is being abused, and so is damaging Wikipedia.) There isn't an easy answer, but I suggest that Mr. Beback, whatever his real life identity, needs to back off. Like it or not, I think he's becoming part of the problem. 88.109.57.55 12:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The ArbCom ruling specifically uses the phrase "in the practice of..". I see no evidence here or on AN/I that Making Light is in the practice of compromising on-WP privacy. As has been mentioned ad nauseam, the discussion in one open thread of the first-page google results for one editor's name does not support the classification of the site as an attack site, as it is not regular behaviour. Hornplease 13:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See my essay on the whole "BADSITES" controversy. *Dan T.* 21:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hornplease's post above: I see no evidence that Making Light is in the practice of violating the privacy of Wikipedia editors. I see a comment about an ED thread, and a link to that ED thread; if there are any links from Wikipedia to those posts on Making Light, then those links should be removed. But since the vast, overwhelming majority of Making Light has nothing to do with Wikipedia, much less investigating Wikipedia editors' backgrounds, and since Making Light is being used to provide source material for Wikipedia articles, there's no justification for removing all links to the site. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If the subject's site doesn't make a practice of attacking Wikipedia editors, or of revealing their personal information, then I'm sure the subject will remove the info as we've requested. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 07:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Will, she already has. See [11] and following comments. Explanation of her reasons for doing this is here. JulesH 08:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see TNH's act of moderation and withdraw my objections to linking to her website. I acknowledge over-reacting initially and appreciate everyone's patience in this matter. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Does this mean you'll replace all the links you deleted?Shsilver 13:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the rest of us have already done that, although I can't be certain I didn't miss any. And I didn't do most of the ones on talk pages, except for where they were removed from my comments. JulesH 16:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

According to the Arbitration Committee - and they have clarified this once already - the AC have not given licence for blanket removal of links to any site just because someone feels like deeming an 'attack site'. Any such rule that could possibly be applied to nielsenhayden.com is self-evidently too stupid for words and demonstrably dangerous to have around on Wikipedia.

By the way, Will Beback and Teresa Nielsen Hayden have already resolved this actual incident between themselves. It has no relevance to this talk page and should probably go somewhere else - David Gerard 16:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The origins of the dispute stem partly from Will Beback's unwillingness to accept TNH's expertise on the career of Roger Elwood and on the subject of scam literary agents.
Despite WB's notability as a Wikipedia admin, because he insists on concealing his real name and real-world connections, those of us who are out here under our real names and real CVs are reluctant to accept his authority since we have no way of validating it or sourcing the roots of his authority. This reluctance caused him and other admins of his stripe to regard us as suspicious characters.
Teresa and I, both of whom were trained by Joanna Russ, Samuel R. Delany, and David Hartwell to have confidence in our authority, did not take well to being treated as suspicious characters.
In private correspondence, I have tried to explain to WB the social rules of our subculture and what puts it at odds with the WIkipedia subculture, I hope with some success. (Because we know each other and marry each other's daughters in SF, we have different standards of conflict of interest, for example. There are no truly disinterested parties in the science fiction field.) This may allow future confrontations of this nature to be avoided. --Pleasantville 21:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to continue discusing this matter in appropriate forums. But this page exists just to discuss our article on the subject. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 23:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Only a single source, and that source is the subjects blog!?[edit]

If no third-party sources are forthcoming, this article should be stubbed. See WP:SELFPUB. --Ronz 03:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

According to that policy, Making Light is a reliable source on Teresa Nielsen Hayden. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability says:
Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:
  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties;
  • it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.
It appears that this article is based primarily on the subject's own blog. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Was going to add additional sources, but the article is currently locked.Shsilver 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I asked the admin who protected the page to unprotect, so I think you'll be able to edit it soon. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
That assertion has no basis in fact. Trivial example: TNH and Patrick edited Izzard, as the Hugo lists verify. They are well-known figures in the field, with plenty of other sources about them totally unrelated to their blog. I don't understand why you assume bad faith on the part of every other science fiction fan or pro who has edited these articles. --Orange Mike 15:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The only cited source is TNH's blog, but there are other sources that can be used for the article--including Cory Doctorow's article, mentioned above on the talk page, which gives her credit for inventing disemvowelling. Of course, as OrangeMike just pointed out, some of the content in the article is based on independent sources--e.g., the list of Hugo award nominations is not coming from the blog, nor is the list of books edited by TNH (these are the sorts of things that don't really need a citation, either). --Akhilleus (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
In the interests of civility and amity, it might not be a bad idea to find sources for some of these things other than Visible Light so that other editors do not have similar concerns about verifiability. ISTR that TNH and others have written about some of these matters in other venues in the past. --Orange Mike 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I've added some sources from the TAFF pages, Viable Paradise, and the Hugo Awards page. Will look in some print sources later when I get a chance.Shsilver 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

How about just listing possible sources here? --Ronz 20:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure...Possible sources include Locus, The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, various science fiction convention program books, [Science Fiction] Chronicle, various fanzines, etc. Shsilver 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of sources, Sourcewatch isn't a reliable source for a biography.[12] See WP:BLP. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sourcewatch appears, here, to be cited as an example of a place that published or commented upon the subject's writing on a specific topic. Whether or not Sourcewatch is reliable as a source for biographical data, it is doubtless reliable in regard to its own contents. Similarly, though you might not rely on The National Enquirer as an authority for a subject's birth date, the fact that a subject wrote stories for The National Enquirer can reliably be sourced to that publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talkcontribs) 12:26, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy"[edit]

Every editor makes people unhappy. Every moderator does, too. I'm far from convinced that the "controversy" discussed here rises to the level of meriting inclusion in the encyclopedia entry. I also note that the contribution stems from an IP editor who is adding other contributions on the same "controversy" to other pages. I'd suggest reverting the controversy section unless it can be established that there's a real controversy, and not simply the sort of unhappiness that everyone in a similar position eventually faces. MarkBernstein (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

  • This appears to have been a "real controversy":
    • [Xeni] Update, 07-02-08: A number of the BB team were on the phone together today (for the first time since this started) discussing the situation. Several news organizations had pinged us to discuss this, including the Los Angeles Times, so we invited them to join the call and ask a few questions. It turned out to be a good conversation, and we hope the partial transcripts posted on the LA Times contribute to the thoughtful and evolving conversation.
  • I haven't checked the L.A. Times articles, but they'd obviously be a relaible source. However this is probably better covered at Boing Boing than here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The issue is well-covered at Boing_Boing#Violet_Blue. If more needs to be added about this subject's involvement it'd be better to add it there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
TNH has been central to this controversy, and many people are very upset. It seems this goes beyond the normal ire that a moderator accrues. Also, I think if anything this controversy brought to light many complaints about the moderation techniques that TNH has pioneered. So its pretty specifically relevant to this page. To wit, I've added a citation to the New York Times.76.91.90.112 I would certainly appreciate help editing to make sure that what is said is fair. (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Despite the fact that the matter concerns blogging, using blogs as citations, especially in biographies, is discouraged on Wikipedia. Please read WP:SOURCE and WP:BLP. Though there is no problem with the NYT citation, most of the section you have added relies on material from sources that do not meet WP:SOURCE standards. --Pleasantville (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well that seems like a tricky standard, but if you want to edit it down, please go ahead. I had two objectives with the section. #1 mention TNH's central involvement in the issue. #2 Show how this has lead to criticism of some of her "creative moderation techniques". I think that can probably be done with more conservative sources too. This has been covered in the LA Times, The New York Times, and the IHT. I thought sources that were more primary would be preferred. Most of the blog posters have identified themselves by name on their sites. One in particular names the following qualifications : "Bill Wyman is the former arts editor of NPR and Salon.com." That seems pretty good. 76.91.90.112 (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Please read the policies that have already been mentioned. Blogs may not be used as sources for biographies of living people, except in articles about the bloggers themselves. It doesn't matter how well-known the bloggers are. It's the same principle that says we can't use TNH's blogging as a source for other articles, so it's applied across the board. Please limit the material to what can be sourced in newspapers and other reliable sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems quite a lengthy addition for something which is a minor part of the subject's history and which is ongoing and therefore not of established notability. Shsilver (talk) 21:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Reasonable enough. I'm putting a shorter note that is based off the New York Times article. Let me know what you think. I'm still using Teresa's post from BB, as she posted it. ETA: Done. It is one sentence. It is no longer in a separate section. It uses two news articles from The Globe and Mail, and the New York Times, as well as Teresa's own article on the controversy. Better? 76.91.90.112 (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the new version is that it gives the impression that Teresa Nielsen Hayden was the editor who removed the Violet Blue posts from view (which is not the case) and that the disemvowelment techniques were involved in the removal which, despite the NYT's cute turns of phrase, is also not the case. As I understand the story, Xeni Jardin removed the posts a year ago (before TNH worked for BoingBoing) using the "unpublish" feature of Movable Type which is quite unrelated to disemvowelment. I think TNH has worked for Federated Media/BoingBoing only since the end of August, 2007. Xeni's removals, described at the end of June 2008 as having been "a year ago," would have taken place two months before TNH worked there. --Pleasantville (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that the current statement says one way or another. It says the controversy has generated criticism of her moderation techniques. I would agree that Xeni takes responsibility for the unpublication, but I don't think it is clear whether Teresa was the moderator at the time, whether she helped remove the posts, or whether she approved it.(She certainly approves of it).
What is clear is:
1. TNH is the person that published the public statement from BB on the controversy.
2. TNH used the inclusive pronoun: 'we' to describe the behavior, in the statement. Whoever initially deleted the posts, TNH has put herself in the center of this.
3. The VB posts were still available at least as late as 2008/08/10, only 18 days before the announcement that TNH had started at BB. As far as I can tell the wayback machine has not yet released archives of the boing boing archives for later dates.
Here's the link to the wayback archive: http://web.archive.org/web/20070810120051/boingboing.net/2005_12_01_archive.html
Here's a link to an article I checked to be present: http://www.violetbluevioletblue.net/2005/12/27/yasgl-yet-another-sexy-geeks-list-for-2005/
4. The scrubbing of Violet Blue's posts was pretty thorough. That may have required some technical expertise.(I haven't really looked at wordpress in detail, to say how tricky it is.).
Maybe we could say Xeni unpublished them? I definitely don't think we should say that TNH was not moderator at the time, given the what the wayback machine says and the lack of any statements to the contrary, it would be premature. One thing I was aiming for was brevity, given previous comments people made about my edits. That said, I'm definitely interested if you have an idea on how to rephrase it so it is fairer. Any suggestions?76.91.90.112 (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


I propose we remove this controversy from the article for the time being, and revisit the question in six months -- that is, in January 2009. At that point, I think we'll be in a better position to assess where this matter fits in the subject's career. Wikipedia is not a newspaper (WP:NOT#NEWS); we don't need to be blindingly up-to-the-minute. If this is notable, it will still be WP:NOTABILITY in January. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkBernstein (talkcontribs) 14:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

76.91.90.112, you are way out there into original research territory and speculation. Please read WP:NOR. --Pleasantville (talk) 14:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that rather than TNH putting herself in the middle of it by using the "we," she was acting as a spokesperson for the organization using the editorial "we." If what she wrote had run in the New York Times or any other newspaper, it would have been an unsigned statedment by the editorial board, much as 76.91.90.112 is hiding behind anonymity by using an IP address rather than a log-in.
Since 76.91.90.112 claims "The VB posts were still available at least as late as 2008/08/10," then it isn't even an issue since they can still be seen (yes, 76.91.90.112 made a mistake, but this is no less ridiculous than any of the other arguments 76.91.90.112 has made).
Boing Boing is a private publication and yes, they have the right to control what is published at their site, even if that includes retroactively removing content.
I'd agree with User:MarkBernstein's comments about waiting to see just how notable any of this is. Shsilver (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Mark Berstein, could you be specific about what standards of notability you think this does not meet? What criterion you would expect it to have to meet to be notable in 6 months? I may misunderstand you, so I apologize if this is incorrect, but it seems that the standard for notability that you are proposing is different from the standard that has been applied to much of the other material in this article. This one issue has probably gotten nearly as much, if not as much coverage in the media as the rest of the material in the article put together.
Pleasantville, If I phrased things poorly, I apologize. Let me try to clarify: I don't think we should put any of the wayback material into the TNH article. I just wanted to demonstrate that the usage of "year" was not exact, and that we have no reason to believe that TNH was not the moderator at the time. The TNH article doesn't make any assertions one way or another on this at the moment, so I think the current statement corresponds well to the available evidence.
Shsilver, I don't mean to be rude and I'm sorry if I said something that bothered you, but I don't think calling my statements "ridiculous" or criticizing my typos is that helpful. I think WP:Assume_Good_Faith & WP:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers might apply. Certainly I've done various modifications without an account for some time(although, apparently not so controversial), I don't think I'm obligated to create or use a user account. As to whether BB has the right to retroactively remove their content, I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to debate the issue. On the usage of 'we', the available sources seem to demonstrate TNH's involvement. TNH's actual statement as is doesn't choose to use an unsigned statement, so I'm not sure the counterfactual applies.
I've provided a lot of different sources at this point that seem to indicate the notability of the issue and these were only a small subset of the total available number. Does anyone have any ideas on a compromise statement that we can use? Is anyone interested in working out some sort of compromise? I think this is well covered enough that it is notable, but am very open to any proposals on how things can be phrased in a way. Pleasantville: Your previous statement seemed to indicate the NYT material was acceptable, any idea how we might want to include it? 76.91.90.112 (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, I just had one more thought. The WP:NPOV article seems to give some criterion for whether a point of view is notable for inclusion. It notes that there will be multiple points of view. It seems to suggest if there is a significant minority viewpoint, then it should be represented. The viewpoint in the comment in question is supported by many of the 1700 comments on the "That Violet Blue Thing" talk page on Boing Boing(who knows how many other even more critical comments were blocked), the blogs I've cited(amongst, many, many, others), and the major media outlet newpapers that I've cited. If I seem dense, I apologize, but I'm having trouble seeing how this isn't a notable point of view.76.91.90.112 (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The WP:NOTABILITY question is simple. On the one hand, we have an entire career as a writer/editor and prominent member of the science fiction community. On the other hand, we have a spat on a particular Web magazine over publication or unpublication of some posts by a sex columnist. This spat matters a lot to [Special:Contributions/76.91.90.112|76.91.90.112]] (talk, but there is good reason to wonder whether it is actually historic. (As Pleasantville has pointed out, it's not enitrely clear that the subject even plays much role in the matter.) MarkBernstein (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well a lot of people beyond myself consider it pretty serious. I really encourage you to check out the references available if you are unconvinced. What if we replace the current statement with something more innocuous. Something like "Teresa Nielsen Hayden was the moderator responsible for dealing with much of the online fallout from a June 2008 controversy over the "unpublishing" of posts on Boing Boing"???76.91.90.112 (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

1989 Hugo Nomination[edit]

In relation to our other dispute, I've been looking through the citations on this article to get a feeling about what qualifies for mention. I noticed something odd when I checked the citation on the 1989 Hugo, it doesn't actually mention Teresa Nielsen Hayden. "The New York Review of Science Fiction ed. by Kathryn Cramer, David G. Hartwell and Gordon Van Gelder".

Why is this nomination included in the article?76.91.90.112 (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a good question, and when I checked a different source, it listed "David G. Hartwell, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Susan Palwick & KC" Shsilver (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
So how do we resolve a dispute like this, when two reputable sources are in obvious conflict? I looked at http://www.nyrsf.com/ and I think I figured out the root of the controversy. "Three issue into the process of publishing the magazine, we had a disagreement over whether to maintain a monthly schedule, and Patrick and Teresa resigned. Gordon Van Gelder, Robert H.K. Killheffer, and Jim Hornfischer joined the staff, and we settled in for the long haul, adding staff and losing staff from time to time, but always getting the issue done." Is it acceptable for a wikipedia editor to contact the Hugo organization to verify whether what was said is correct?76.91.90.112 (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The 1989 Hugo was for work published in 1988; for part of 1988, TNH and PNH were co-editors of NYRSF. At that time, the Hugo was awarded to the zine itself, not to the editor; but they were both editors for the first three ishes of the zine. (For a matter like this, the NYRSF website is deemed a reliable source). --Orange Mike | Talk 02:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you link the source you would propose to cite?76.91.90.112 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The history of NYRSF that you yourself provided? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is TNH's listing in the LOCUS Index of award nominations. http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit96.html#3854 She was a Hugo nominee that year. David Hartwell, owner & publisher of the magazine, provides the committee with a list of the editors of the magazine for the nominees list each year when the magazine makes the Hugo ballot, which it has every year of its publication. TNH was a founding editor of the magazine, and so was nominated in connection with it in its first year of publication. Why is this an issue for you?--Pleasantville (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the question of contacting a Hugo administrator, you are certainly welcome to do that, but you should not post private correspondence on Wikipedia, and a claim that an administrator had said something to you would be unsourced claim and violate Wikipedia's original research policy. If you contact a Hugo administrator, please ask the administrator to post directly in this space. We do, however, already have a former WorldCon Programming Director participating in this discussion. --Pleasantville (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Ya, my only issue is that two reliable sources are contradicting each other. The source(The Hugo Web Site) that is currently cited in the TNH article doesn't note her at all, I can't see how this couldn't be an issue.(I'm a bit new to this, but I assume WP:Verifiability) I left a message on the Hugo awards web site so you can follow the correspondence, I assume that they'll post a correction on their web site that includes TNH when they've figured it out, this would probably be ideal as I don't think a post to a talk page on Wikipedia would qualify as a source anyway, no matter who posted it. http://www.thehugoawards.org/?page_id=11 I'm fine just waiting until they post a fix before we make any corrections to this page, if you guys don't mind. 76.91.90.112 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I was nominated with her and administer the NYRSF site. She really really was on that Hugo ballot. --Pleasantville (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer

I have sent the Hugo site a correction and left a comment on the page where your question resides. --Pleasantville (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool, they modified the document that the this article already links to. (-: Thanks for the help. 76.91.90.112 (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

"Controversy" II[edit]

Looks like Pleasantville deleted my additions pertaining to RaceFail09, claiming that "blogs and LJs won't do" when it comes to "reliable sources." Um, I included FeministSF Wiki. Also, the various LJers had screencaps by TNH. Note, also, that hundreds of people have criticized the NHs at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiliVonShtup (talkcontribs) 14:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, especially as pertains to biographies of living persons. And no, the FeministSF Wiki will not do. See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
As an early member and contributor of the FeministSF Wiki, I must agree that it doesn't meet our definition of "reliable sources"; and screencaps, as anybody with a copy of Photoshop can attest, are among the easiest things on the planet to fake up. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Association with Tor[edit]

There were several references to subject's association with Tor, however, the citation did not reference her in the present or past tense - in fact it didn't reference her at all. I cannot find a reliable source that discusses or mentions her association or lack thereof with Tor, but it seems to be some sort of common knowledge in the industry. Perhaps it's some type of name confusion with her spouse, who appears on the Tor site as an editor. If anyone is interested and can find a good source, it would be good to make her work history accurate. Without a reliable source, there is no way to inculcate her involvement with Tor.

Kennedy Trengove (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be worth noting the TOR site itself no longer lists her name anywhere on there. I don't see how you could get more reliable than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sango75 (talkcontribs) 13:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


REMEMBER BLP. There's off-wiki agitation by anonymous enemies of the subject to remove the affiliation from Wikipedia. Reliable sources clearly indicate that she has been an editor at Tor (e,g, http://viableparadise.net/viable-paradise-instructors/teresa-nielsen-hayden/ and http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/nielsen_hayden_teresa), and of course it is true that she has long been an editor for that house. No change should be made to the page until and unless the change in status has been published in a reliable source. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that you are misreading the BLP policy. One of the BLP principles is the ability for a claim or fact to verified. The idea that a fact should remain until a reliable source says that the fact is not true is counter how evidence works. I removed the link and the reference after seeing that the source did not reference the subject at all. I am not sure what anonymous enemies have to do with this, but happenings in the larger world are irrelevant to NPOV and BLP guidelines so far as I can see. As far as the references being put back in, I don't see how the sources linked are reliable, NPOV, and notable. The reference to a writers workshop website is potentially even a self-contributed bio, which would violate reliable sources guidelines and self-publishing. Additionally, being a guest speaker at a yearly week long conference is not notable, and does not support being a teacher. The website lists her as a speaker and an instructor. The operation seems to be a money making enterprise to train authors to write saleable material. In that regard I am not sure any of it points to the subject being a "teacher", which normally connotes an activity of some substance and lasting impact to the students. I am neutral on the changes, and would like to see if anyone else has an opinion. I discount wholly the claim that "of course it is true" that she is an editor for that house - WP is not a place for debating what is or is not of course true, but rather, a place for publishing what is verifiable and encyclopedic about a subject. Kennedy Trengove (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
So took a little time, have tried to come up with some reliable sources that support extraordinary claims required for BLP standards - namely, verifiability. It is my opinion that there is a self-publishing problem. My count shows that well over half of the supporting references for this subject are either self-published, or published at a group-blogged website. Most of the works that are claimed to be edited by the subject are not sourced, and many of the historical elements are only self-sourced. My read of WP:RS indicates this is okay, but frowned upon and should not be relied on heavily or for extra-ordinary claims. I am going to be hold and re-work some of the text to try to capture a more NPOV, and to add a few reliable sources where appropriate. I'd be happy if someone made some improvements, especially with works edited by or for the subject. There is a great way to establish authorship, but what is the standard for editing? It seems easiest when the subject was nominated for an editing award because then there are NPOV sources to reference that are reliable and establish notability.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking even further, the newly posted sources claimed to be reliable appear to not met WP:RS. Locus Magazine Online, which is the source for the claim about a third-party (namely, bio information that the subject is some sort of editor for Tor) is part of the "commentary and essay" section of the site, which is not the same as the magazine, and is not signed. It is not possible to know from what is available if the postings carry the weight of editorial weight of the magazine proper, which would indicate a reliable source. Given this a BLP, the need to have a RS is critical. According to the Locus Online page linked, the website Perspectives contains "Essays and commentary, including Cory Doctorow's bimonthly columns from Locus Magazine, and (as of February 2009), a new Roundtable blog with posts from Locus reviewers and other invited guests". This indicates the content linked is not part of the editorial control of the magazine, but apart. WP:RS says "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.". The combination of the source being unsigned and in the "Perspectives" section of the website for the publication indicate that the source may not be acceptable. Combined with the enhanced scrutiny of BLP, I feel confident in removing the reference in favor of a better, NPOV RS.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
The subject was a long time consulting editor at Tor, but has not been listed on the editorial staff there since sometime between July 1, 2014 and September 24, 2014. Without regard to why the status change may have occurred, the article should reflect the fact that her staff position at Tor is in the past rather than ongoing. Nitpicking polish reverted to the present tense based in part on work she did on Hawk, which was released October 7, 2014. In Hawk she is credited with a "wonderful line edit," a job that must be completed months, sometimes a year or more, before a book is released. Nitpicking polish also noted that her page says she's there. To that point, her user profile at Tor.com appears to be quite stale. The last activity seems to have been over a year ago. If the reference is to her independent web site, it only says that she consults, which indicates that she does some freelance work. At one time she had a dedicated workspace at Tor. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that is true today. 98.248.37.30 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing Problems[edit]

I continue to find sourcing problems with references that have been here a long time. The source for the subjects editing of a major novel points to a comment left on a group-blog, by the subject herself. Working on finding better sources and removing items that don't meet sourcing guidelines. Anyone up to help? Kennedy Trengove (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Kennedy, given your (apparent) depth of ignorance of this field, I wish you would slow down your current pace or desist entirely. Locus Online is one of the most reliable sources in this field, along with File 770 and Ansible, due to the intense vigor with which the SF community tends to self-police. Are you even familiar with these matters? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
OrangeMike-- Thanks for your constructive feedback! I will throttle back the boldness and see what turns up in time. I admit I have no idea about the SF community or the subject, but I am happy to hear it polices itself well. Despite that, the 'Locus Online' publication linked to does not appear to be meet the written guidelines as I read them. For one thing, the article is unsigned, and in a section of the publication described as "essays and commentary". The publication also goes out of it's way to seperate itself from the website. The website is titled as "the website of the magazine". So whereas the magazine is unquestionably a reliable source, the website, especially for BLP, appears to not be. I have not made any edits that are substantive to the subject, except for ones related to sourcing. These require no special knowledge of the subject, the field, or anything else. I am open to better sources, and if the subject is prominent I think that reliable and BLP worthy ones will not be a problem. Can you recommend what the best way is way to source editorial involvement of a novel?Kennedy Trengove (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
User:Orangemike, who is something of an expert in this field, is correct. There is absolutely no question about many of these things -- that the subject has edited any number of important books, that she has taught at Viable Paradise, etc. Better sourcing is always welcome, but in fact Locus and Ansible are really good sources, and for non-contentious things self-published sources are acceptable in any case. You might also consider that User:Orangemike and myself have been editing Wikipedia for years and years, and you're lecturing us on details of WP:BLP after ostensibly having two or three days of experience here. Because the subject is known to have enemies and rivals of various kinds, we all should be especially careful that changes are made prudently. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Mark, thank you also for you constructive feedback. However, regardless of what is known and what is well known and not in question, for BLP, only what is verified and verifiable can be published, whether positive, neutral, or negative. If the only reference to the subject teaching is from a workshop website, and not from reliably secondary sources, I have to question that it's really notable, and thus encyclopedic. I am sorry that you found my comments on the talk page to be lectures, that was not my intent, and I will try to be more constructive in them in the future. Although the tone might not have struck you right, I hope that you would agree that using, as a source for a BLP, a comment on a blog post by the subject, violates WP:RS, which explicitly states that user generated comments should not be used as a source. I welcome better sources that establish notability, reliability, and meet the guidelines for BLP.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Notability is an issue for the subject; verifiability is an issue with assertions of fact. Primary and secondary sources can be just fine for verification of facts, if they're reasonably authoritative. - Dravecky (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Dravecky, thank's for pointing that out. I have re-read notability and see the note about content within a subject not having to be notable. That certainly makes sense and it makes it a lot easier to write articles. I've worked on trying to just make sure the links used as sources are not dead, and are on topic, and I think I have them all cleaned up. Several were broken and possibly changed from the last time they were referenced. Can you take a stab at how to find sources for works edited? The sole source does not verify the information cited.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)