Talk:Heroes in Hell/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Number of books / book order

There are actually 12 books in the series. The missing book is titled The Little Helliad by Janet and Chris Morris (1988 Baen Books ISBN 0-671-65366-0) and is written from the perspecive of Homer, who is confronted by Satan and forced to write an epic depicting Satan as a hero, much as Homer did for Achillies in the Iliad. Unlike most of the other books in the series, this novel is not a collection of short stories, but it does contain many characters previlant throughout the series including Alexander the Great, Tanya Burke, Welch, Nichols, Altos the Angel, Achilles, Lawrence of Arabia and of course, The Master of Lies himself, Satan. I also noticed that the order of the books in incorrect. I have the sequence as follows, despite conflicting publishing dates:

1. Heroes in Hell 2. Gates of Hell 3. Kings in Hell 4. Rebels in Hell 5. Crusaders in Hell 6. Legions in Hell 7. Angels in Hell 8. Masters in Hell 9. The Little Helliad 10. War in Hell 11. Prophets in Hell 12. Explorers in Hell

Good stuff. I added The Little Helliad and changed the order around to as above with one exception: Rebels has a publication date of 1986 and Kings has a publication date of 1987, so I left those in the order of publication. Does that make sense? Fairsing 17:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

New book pages

This is quite a respected series, relevant to a number of authors' careers. I propose creating individual (summary) pages of the individual books, linked-to from this main series page.

Among other things, CJ Cherryh's three Heroes In Hell books are the only ones in her bibliography that do not have their own pages, which is a visible gap in that bibliography.

Would there be any objections to creating a page for each book? Relevant linking, outside of the Cherryh biography, is from the various authors' biographies; most of the people who have contributed to volumes in this series are major, noteworthy, names with their own Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Jaywalker (talk • contribs) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I have no objection and in fact would welcome the creation of new articles for these books, particularly the three Cherryh novels. If you're new to Wikipedia, please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels#Article structure first. Your help here would be greatly appreciated. —Bruce1ee^talk 05:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We couldn't create articles for every one of them. I suppose the most notable ones could. Marcus Qwertyus 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that most or all of them would be notable, on the basis that: a) This is a highly prestigious series, with most of the individual authors being quite notable (and having their own pages), b) Many series of far less notability (such as the Starfist military-SF series) have short pages for each book. The information is already on this single large page; I'd essentially just be looking to break this page up into individual ones for each title, and listing the titles (as well as the stories in the series-naming first book) on this one page. --Luke Jaywalker (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm available if any help is needed. Marcus Qwertyus 21:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Restructuring of existing page

As discussed above, I've created pages for each of the individual volumes in the series, except for the first, Heroes in Hell itself. I'm looking now to: a) create a separate page for that book, as with the others, leaving this page to cover the overall series, and then b) remove the short stories from 'Books in the Series' (since those are now listed under the individual books), leaving 'Books' as just the list of volumes. Thoughts/objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Jaywalker (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting articles on all the book titles. I think removing the short story titles from this page, as I see you've already done, is fine – there's no need for that detail if it's covered in the individual books. —Bruce1ee^talk 06:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Many notable book series do not have articles for every book in the series. I've tagged each of the completely unreferenced sub-stubs for books in this series for merger to the series article as notability for the individual books has yet to be proven with reliable third-party sources for any of them. I do encourage any interested editor to improve these articles and, if notability for an individual volume can be proven, then it need not be merged. - Dravecky (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed, a merger here for many of the books in the series is appropriate due to a lack of reliable and in-depth coverage in independent, third-party sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Do not merge. This is an important series, seminal to the development of the shared universe form, and was sometimes referenced or discussed as a series as a whole, without specific volumes being called out. Two of the stories sold first serial rights to magazines. Two volumes had Nebula award finalists. One volume had a Hugo award winner. One volume had a cover nominated for a Locus award. The first volume was on the Locus best of the year list. Some WP editor decided to apply more stringent standards to this book, such as possession of paper reviews, than to many other books: how many citations are verifiably linked to possession of the entire review in question for other books on WP? Proof of existing reviews in non-trivial sources should be adequate demonstration of notability; content of the reviews is largely immaterial. For completeness alone, with different authors in each volume, each volume needs its own page. Many other books, including every other book (but not these three) by CJ Cherry, whether important or not or reviewed or not, have their own pages on Wikipedia, many of these with lesser credentials than these books as part of this landmark series. The debate over this topic was vicious and unprofessional, perhaps biased. The new volume Lawyers in Hell demonstrates that this series and this form continue to be viable, no matter the author's choice of publishers or perhaps because this series was chosen by the editors as a candidate for a modern marketing approach not dependent on old-style publishing methodologies, and is noteworthy because it brings the series out of a twenty-year hiatus using alternative publishing. Each volume should have an overview and each story a synopsis, and this is too much text for a single page. Nor will any sensible person put time into expanding the Wikipedia volume pages until the debate over merge is settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.2.177 (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

This is mostly irrelevant rubbish; the AFD discussion on the new volume show strong sentiment for a general merger. Virtually none of the individual book articles include any significant content beyond basic bibliographic data, easily merged into the main article. The contrary argument is just a mixture of peacockery and uncivil attacks on people who disagree, and most of its proponents seem to have been recruited for the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

It was merged until individual books meet the WP:Books notability requirements (as discussed on the AfD page). "Peacockery" and "uncivil attacks" notwithstanding, you're a little late for the grandstanding. So far as I know, only one person was "recruited" and that was to clarify some questions the newer contributors had. If you're going to help clean up this article, then by all means. But let's remain civil on here; the AfD page got fairly hostile before a consensus was reached. Cordova829 (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Merged

If you didn't notice the ridiculous number of merge tags at the top of this page, I have merged many of the books which contained no references or had poorly references concerning notability. There was a great deal of consensus for a merge during the AfD discussion, and there continues to be during the merger discussion. This action was done in accordance with WP:BOLD. Objections to a merge were not grounded, either stemming from claims from NPOV editors (e.g. authors of the book series) that the series is notable for being in-universe with multiple authors, or simple claims of WP:ILIKEIT. Books not merged have suitable references and they will remain on their own pages (for now).

If you wish to contest the merger, please discuss as such here with evidence of notability ((WP:NBOOKS that any the merged pages should have their own page. I, JethrobotUser talk:I Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 21:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, any clean-up efforts would be helpful. This merging has taken me a long time to complete. *sweat on brow* I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 21:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You've done a great job, I, Jethrobot. Thanks for all your hard work. Cordova829 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Tag-team promotional editing by COI editors and SPAs

There's a concerted effort to turn this article into a puff piece by inserted distorted, overblown, or just plain false claims. For example, C.J. Cherryh supposedly describes the series as a "seminal idea" influencing one of her own projects. This is phony; Cheeryh's actual statement, found at roughly the 5:30 mark in the first reference is "I've been part of Thieves' World and I've been part of Heroes in Hell, and I decided that I wanted to try one of these on my own, but that unlike the others I had the experience of seeing what happened when it went on to the point that they are now complicated beyond anybody's ability to figure out what's going on. And my notion was to follow one plot to its conclusion and stop". What's being put in the article is a hardly a fair representation of what Cherryh actually said, and it twists the meaning turning a mixed to negative comment into one that appears positive.

The "Reception" section includes a statement implying that the Encyclopedia of Fantasy implicitly or explictly asserted that the series was particularly important or significant; in fact, the volume simply provides a laundry list of such "shared world" franchises published by professional publishing houses. Moreover, the selection of examples is quite deceptive: three of the four examples, clearly the best-known ones, are not shared-world franchises at all, but major works where the author, after completing extensive solo work, has licensed a relatively small number of books comprising derivative works by other authors (and the MZBradley example is more a case of the author approving the commercial publication of fanfiction.) The Reception section is generally unbalanced and overly favorable, as well as cherry-picked; I'm particularly amused the by Orson Scott Card quote (which was originally misdated to 2001), since shortly after the analysis was published, the market for such series collapsed and almost all were cancelled or put on hiatus by their publishers).

Several editors of this article are repeatedly inserted the spurious claim that the (very notable) magazine Locus has nominated various installments of or stories in the series for its awards. This is, at best, grossly distorted. Locus gives awards based on its annual readers' poll, with its own rather elaborate and unusual voting system and nonstandard terminology. The magazine itself does not "nominate" anything. Instead, every participant in the poll "nominates" up to five works in every category and assigns them different numbers of points (most sources would call this "weighted voting"). When it publishes its results each year, it uses the term "votes" and "nominations" interchangeably. In 2008, it reported that there were 150 "nominations" for best science fiction novel and 188 "nominations" for best fantasy novel. Plainly this is not what Wikipedia refers to as "nomination" in the context of other awards, or how the term is commonly used, and is not an indication of significance. As I suggested independently here [1] some time ago, if any reference is to be made beyond the actual award winners, it should be to the poll results themselves.

Finally, for reasons that I cannot fathom, editors here are denying the plain facts that some of the best-known and best-received stories in the series were initially published in other outlets and reprinted in the anthologies themselves. One editor has explicitly changed the publishing history to state the series' most famous story, "Gilgamesh in the Outback," was "subsequently" reprinted by the science fiction magazine where it was actually first published. This is an outright lie, part of the mindless promotional editing that afflicts this article. The accurate publishing history is presented at the ISFDB [2], in various reference works (eg [3]), and even in Silverberg's authorized online bibliography [4]. Indeed, the story, like most Hugo-winning works, had itw own Wikipedia article [5], reporting that the story first appeared in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine until yesterday, when the publication data was altered by an IP/SPA [6], the the article itself was redirected without notice or discussion by an editor who acknowledges being an associate of the series' editor [7]. I'm particularly struck by the fact that the partisan editors here, while trying to meticulously document all sorts of trivial references to the series, are also working industriously to expunge any references to the fact that its best-known component work is part of Robert Silverberg's independently created "Gilgamesh" sequence, which began with a novel which has nothing to do with "Heroes in Hell" and continues with a novel which, although its parts were also reprinted in various series anthologies, was published outside the series without any conspicuous reference to it [8]. This is clearly not reasonable editing.

(A quick technical notes on dates, since someone will ask. The cover date on a magazine is its off-sale date, not the date on which it appears (as is the case for newspapers and most books). A monthly magazine with a July cover date would ordinarily appear in June or mid-to-late May. That's why those of you who have a scholarly interest in viewing naked pictures of Sarah Palin's daughter's erstwhile fiancee's sister will be able to pick up the September Playboy tomorrow at more efficient magazine outlets, even though it's just early August.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should recuse himself from editing this page due to WP:COI rules. I'm not sure what his or her problem is, but his constant refusal to follow Wikipedia's rules is getting tiring.

There's a concerted effort to turn this article into a puff piece by inserted distorted, overblown, or just plain false claims. For example, C.J. Cherryh supposedly describes the series as a "seminal idea" influencing one of her own projects. This is phony; Cheeryh's actual statement, found at roughly the 5:30 mark in the first reference is "I've been part of Thieves' World and I've been part of Heroes in Hell, and I decided that I wanted to try one of these on my own, but that unlike the others I had the experience of seeing what happened when it went on to the point that they are now complicated beyond anybody's ability to figure out what's going on. And my notion was to follow one plot to its conclusion and stop". What's being put in the article is a hardly a fair representation of what Cherryh actually said, and it twists the meaning turning a mixed to negative comment into one that appears positive.

If you have an issue with the wording, edit the wording, don't wipe it.

I suppose we could add that Cherryh is commenting on the fact that the series is "...complicated beyond anyone's ability to figure out what's going on," but I'm not sure this is a good source considering she a contributing author. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The "Reception" section includes a statement implying that the Encyclopedia of Fantasy implicitly or explictly asserted that the series was particularly important or significant; in fact, the volume simply provides a laundry list of such "shared world" franchises published by professional publishing houses. Moreover, the selection of examples is quite deceptive: three of the four examples, clearly the best-known ones, are not shared-world franchises at all, but major works where the author, after completing extensive solo work, has licensed a relatively small number of books comprising derivative works by other authors (and the MZBradley example is more a case of the author approving the commercial publication of fanfiction.) The Reception section is generally unbalanced and overly favorable, as well as cherry-picked; I'm particularly amused the by Orson Scott Card quote (which was originally misdated to 2001), since shortly after the analysis was published, the market for such series collapsed and almost all were cancelled or put on hiatus by their publishers).

And before the "Edit Wars" broke out here I was going to expand that section with a bunch of information on "Shared Worlds" that I have, however I'm in the middle of getting a several books ready for publication, I'm trying to keep up with my usually 5000 words per day output, I'm going places to take photos for some of other books I'm working on, and unlike Hullaballoo Wolfowitz I can't hang around Wikipedia all day and play with edits.

That's fine. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and no one's arguing the page should be deleted. So you have plenty of time to gather the sources needed to assert the significance of the series in shared-world fiction. However, Wolfowitz brings up a good point that the Encylopedia of Fanatasy doesn't really do much besides list the series. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Several editors of this article are repeatedly inserted the spurious claim that the (very notable) magazine Locus has nominated various installments of or stories in the series for its awards. This is, at best, grossly distorted. Locus gives awards based on its annual readers' poll, with its own rather elaborate and unusual voting system and nonstandard terminology. The magazine itself does not "nominate" anything. Instead, every participant in the poll "nominates" up to five works in every category and assigns them different numbers of points (most sources would call this "weighted voting"). When it publishes its results each year, it uses the term "votes" and "nominations" interchangeably. In 2008, it reported that there were 150 "nominations" for best science fiction novel and 188 "nominations" for best fantasy novel. Plainly this is not what Wikipedia refers to as "nomination" in the context of other awards, or how the term is commonly used, and is not an indication of significance. As I suggested independently here [9] some time ago, if any reference is to be made beyond the actual award winners, it should be to the poll results themselves.

This is one of the reasons that I say that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should recuse himself or herself for WP:COI. If you read the Locus web page it uses the word "nomination" very clearly on the page. The reason for the usage is clear to everyone except Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The readers of Locus Magazine (which do not include me) make the nominations, NOT THE MAGAZINE.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. The concern that Wolfowitz has is that the term "nomination," when used to describe an award for a book, is that such nominations are chosen by some independent committee or group, not just by readers of the magazine (for example, the Michael L. Printz Award, the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, or the Newbery Medal). The concern is that using the term "nomination" misrepresents the fact that the readers of the magazine (not an independent committee) vote on books. So, calling these nominations, despite what is written on the page, is misleading. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Finally, for reasons that I cannot fathom, editors here are denying the plain facts that some of the best-known and best-received stories in the series were initially published in other outlets and reprinted in the anthologies themselves. One editor has explicitly changed the publishing history to state the series' most famous story, "Gilgamesh in the Outback," was "subsequently" reprinted by the science fiction magazine where it was actually first published. This is an outright lie, part of the mindless promotional editing that afflicts this article. The accurate publishing history is presented at the ISFDB [10], in various reference works (eg [11]), and even in Silverberg's authorized online bibliography [12]. Indeed, the story, like most Hugo-winning works, had itw own Wikipedia article [13], reporting that the story first appeared in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine until yesterday, when the publication data was altered by an IP/SPA [14], the the article itself was redirected without notice or discussion by an editor who acknowledges being an associate of the series' editor [15]. I'm particularly struck by the fact that the partisan editors here, while trying to meticulously document all sorts of trivial references to the series, are also working industriously to expunge any references to the fact that its best-known component work is part of Robert Silverberg's independently created "Gilgamesh" sequence, which began with a novel which has nothing to do with "Heroes in Hell" and continues with a novel which, although its parts were also reprinted in various series anthologies, was published outside the series without any conspicuous reference to it [16]. This is clearly not reasonable editing.

We had a discussion about merging ALL of the Heroes in Hell articles, and against my complaints most of them were merged. All I did was complete an incomplete merge. Gilgamesh in the Outback as a story would not exist without the Shared World it is a part of, just like the Utah Jazz wouldn't exist without the NBA. To claim otherwise is ludicrous, and another example of why Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should recuse himself or herself for WP:COI.

Your opposition to the merge (found here) was that the AfD scared off people from editing the pages, and that because it ended, improvements would come shortly. That may or may not have been true, but the fact that most pages had no source asserting notability even after the AfD meant that there was no harm in merging them to the main series page. If you have sources, by all means, go ahead and recreate the page and merge the information out of the main page. Getting back to the particular story, whether it "wouldn't exist" or not without the series is not clear. Also, the WP:COI accusations do not make sense to me-- see my comments at the end your reply. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claims Silverberg's personal web page is accurate, but that anything Morris says is questionable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should recuse himself or herself for WP:COI.

OK. Well, the fair thing to do is not use either of those sources because Silverberg is a primary source and Morris is not independent. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claims that ISFDB is accurate. If Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wishes I will explain to him how he can get an account there (I have one) and how he too can edit ISFDB entries. I would like to ask him how this makes ISFDB entries accurate?

Agreed, ISFDB is a wiki, so we can't use this either. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claims that Concise Major 21st-Century Writers: A Selection of Sketches from Contemporary Authors by Tracey L. Matthews is accurate. What Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does not explain is how he has determined this to be the case. If he has decided that anything that is printed is accurate in that case he should accept Protocols of the Elders of Zion as accurate too.

What reason do you have to suspect the book is inaccurate? It is sufficiently independent of book series, it is not self-published, and the author has no obvious connection or opposition to the book series itself. It's true that not all printed matter is inherently accurate, but in the absence of a more specific argument as to why this book is a poor source, it seems perfectly fine to me. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Another point Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ignores is why Silverberg would have written the story without the anthology to publish it in. Because without the anthology there is no reason for Gilgamesh in the Outback to exist. The reason that Gilgamesh in the Outback and Newton Sleep were "best-known and best-received" were that they were published in more than one venue. As a professional writer I know the publicity game, something that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz won't have a clue about. If no one knows about a story it won't win a Hugo Award or Nebula Award. By being published in the magazines as well as in the anthologies Silverberg and Benford increased their chances of winning an award, and if you've got a damned good story that you think has a chance of winning, you've be a fool not to try to get it published in as many places as possible.

Regardless of your credentials, experience, and interpretation of how the story came to be successful, you need to provide sources substantiating your claims about the book's publicity. I'm not saying I don't believe you, but I am holding you accountable for your claims by asking that you verify them with independent sources. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's mention of To The Land of the Living is original research, and does not belong in Wikipedia. He could also make the claim that Silverberg's Gilgamesh in the Heroes in Hell series is a continuation of the same character from Gilgamesh the King. Again, that would be original research, which he is welcome to do, but it does not belong in Wikipedia.

I generally agree with this. The issue is complicated, because shared-world fiction necessarily relies on several authors contributing to a single book. What attribution is most fair? To the book overall, or to the author's own story? I don't know what the general practice is. Considering that the author's story specifically received the award (as opposed to the entire book), that's probably why it is mentioned as such on the cover of Land of the Living. Whether that indicates that the story is supposed to be separate or not from the larger series is not clear. Same goes for trying to make the connection between the two stories, unless Wolfowitz has a source providing evidence that the characters are the same (a primary source from the author would make most sense here). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

(A quick technical notes on dates, since someone will ask. The cover date on a magazine is its off-sale date, not the date on which it appears (as is the case for newspapers and most books). A monthly magazine with a July cover date would ordinarily appear in June or mid-to-late May. That's why those of you who have a scholarly interest in viewing naked pictures of Sarah Palin's daughter's erstwhile fiancee's sister will be able to pick up the September Playboy tomorrow at more efficient magazine outlets, even though it's just early August.)

Well golly gee willikers! As a Canadian Publisher I never knew that! What a shock!

The sarcasm is really, really unnecessary. Knock it off. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is clueless. He/she/it doesn't have anything to do with writing/publishing, and therefore has missed an important point. Reprints have to be cited. REPRINTS HAVE TO BE CITED.

So far we have one source that supports Wolfowitz's claims that it was published beforehand, and I've discussed why there's no reason to suspect inaccuracy above. You have not provided any sources supporting your claims and have not advanced a policy-based argument showing that Wolfowitz's source is inaccurate. (You have only said generally that "not all printed matter is factual"). Also, don't call other editors "clueless," as this represents a personal attack. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

If either Newton Sleep or Gilgamesh in the Outback were printed elsewhere first, then the relevant Heroes in Hell anthologies which are Heroes in Hell for Newton Sleep and Rebels in Hell for Gilgamesh in the Outback would needed to have printed the permission and citation on the rights page (the page where the copyright information is printed). Seriously. And it happens that I still have my original copies of both books, and it is not there. I have a scanner here, and I could scan the rights pages, and upload them to my website if you wish to see them. Now you can argue that it was missed in the originals, and it should be there in later editions. I challenge you to find an edition that has it there.

Can you provide an example on Google Books of how this kind of attribution is shown in another book series? If you have the scans, providing them and explaining them would also be helpful. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is acting irrationally, and should recuse himself or herself from editing these pages for WP:COI. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

For starters, I don't understand what evidence you have for repeatedly accusing Hullabaloo Wolfowitz of having a conflict of interest. You haven't specified anything about how the Wolfowitz's edits are related to self-promotion, close relationships, financial gain, self-citation, or any of the other "warning signs" listed at WP:COI. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• Mr Wolfowitz. My name is Janet Morris. I now have a Wikipedia editorship because of the prejudical and dismissive behavior of you and OrangeMike toward my work. I strongly suggest that you do not call any works published in the Heroes and Hell(TM) series 'reprints' unless you can prove it with citations from contracts, rights pages of published editions, or other acceptable criteria -- and I don't mean things like ISFDB, developed by people no more knowledgeable than you. My Heroes in Hell(TM) series has NEVER published a reprint. Despite what Silverberg did in the way he positioned his book and promoted it using the first serial attribution, we allowed the first serials for him and Benford. Subsequent to SIlverberg using his Hell stories in a novel of his, we did not allow any first serials. Since your insistence that Silverberg's Gilgamesh story is a reprint can dilute my intellectual property and the cohesion of my franchise, it is a serious matter. Please change the notation on Gilgamesh in the Outback to indicate that the publication in Asimov's magazine was a first serial, and if you have occasion to work on any more pages associated with my work, get your facts straight. Janet Morris ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guarddog2 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide evidence supporting your claim, please do. So far, I have not seen any yet. You should not criticize editors as being prejudicial or dismissive when they have made a good faith effort to search for sources (which Wolfowitz has clearly done so). Just because he has arrived at a different conclusion than you is simply a reflection of the sources he has found. Finally, although you are the author of the series, you do not own this Wikipedia page, as editors never own pages on Wikipedia. I would be careful about involving yourself in controversial issues on Wikipedia articles related to your work. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 09:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Janet Morris requests correction of factual inaccuracies and provides third-party citation

Mr. Jethrobot: I am here only to provide correction of inaccuracies and distortion of fact on Wikipedia in relation to my work, not to debate. Below find a citation from the copyright page of Rebels in Hell showing that there was no permission to reprint required for any story included in the volume, followed by a review from Locus on Line that clearly states that the two Silverberg stories (Silverberg only wrote two HIH stories, the first of which was Gilgamesh in the Outback, for Rebels in Hell) were ORIGINALLY published in the Heroes in Hell(TM) series volumes before being incorporated into a subsequent Silverberg novel. I cite the Rebels in Hell copyright page as follows: (front matter, unnumbered page 4): REBELS IN HELL Copyright (c) 1986 by Janet Morris. A Baen Books Original. First printing, July, 1986." followed by the ISBN number, etc. Nowhere is there a citation for previous publication or a "used by permission" citation, which would necessarily be there BY LAW if the Silverberg story in question were reprinted from another source. Here is the Locus-on-line citation stating that two Silverberg stories in the subject novel were reprints from Heroes in Hell. This citation is easy to find online and accessible to any interested party: Locus Online: Reviews by Claude Lalumière To the Land of the Living, a mosaic adapted from two novellas that originally appeared in the Heroes in Hell anthology series, is a much lighter affair, ... www.locusmag.com/2001/Reviews/​Lalumiere12.html

Locus Online: Reviews by Claude Lalumière www.locusmag.com

One hopes that the factual inaccuracies on Wikipedia involving my copyrighted material and Heroes in Hell(TM) series franchise intellectual property will now be corrected by you and misleading or incorrect statements expunged. 98.23.59.186 (talk) 18:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's time to put this out of its misery. I don't know who's making trouble from this IP and posing as Morris under the Guarddog2 account, but it's almost certainly not Morris. A quick check of the main article shows that Bob Silverberg wrote three stories for these anthologies, not two as this impersonator so blithely asserts. Full bibliographical details, reliably sourced, in my post at Talk: Gilgamesh in the Outback, with more extensive discussion. Those sources, which are taken from contemporaneous reports. should outweigh the slips by a reviewer writing 15 years later, on a matter that's peripheral to his review. I'll also note that the IP's impersonation of a lawyer is no better than its impersonation of Morris; I just randomly pulled three books with magazine serializations out of a bookcase, and two didn't mention prior magazine publication (for the record, the 1976 edition of Inferno, by Niven and Pournelle, which appeared in Galaxy[17] (which even says "Another Original publication of POCKET BOOKS" on its copyright page), and the Berkley edition of Our Lady of Darkness, by Fritz Leiber, which doesn't mention its appearance in F&SF as "The Pale Brown Thing".[18] We're not talking rocket science here, and this continued insistence on relatively easy-to-debunk counterfactualisms looks to be deliberatively disruptive, an attempt to run knowledgeable uninvolved editors off in order to WP:OWN the article(s) involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the signed one was Janet. I talked to her last night, and confirmed that she was using the Guarddog2 user name. I also saw the unsigned post this morning, and checked the IP address. The IP address is from the area where I know her home is. Of course there's about a 300,000 people living in the general area, so I cannot say definitively that it was her that made that post. But it does match her style of writing, and I would say that the odds are that it was her. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for Oversight by ANYONE of a Who Has Some Ability to Control Editors

Messrs. Wolfowitz and Jethrobot: The issue of COI is that each and every page regarding a Janet Morris story, novel or anthology has been the subject of inordinate scrutiny for a number of years by three WP editors: OrangeMike, Dravecky and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. For instance, I made an edit to the Heroes in Hell page and Mr. Wolfowitz removed it within 45 minutes. Are ALL WP edits addressed in so timely a manner? If all WP pages were also subjected to the level of demand for citation, references, etc., that Heroes in Hell and other books by Ms. Morris were, there would be several hundred thousand pages fewer in WP. It is extremely easy to find pages that have existed for years with no citations or references at all or sometimes only one reference to the author's own website. Yet these pages receive no microscopic attention from these three editors (since the pages have not been edited for years in some cases, even though they are fiction novels or short stories). OrangeMike has admitted (in the AfD discussion regarding Lawyers in Hell) he has a bias against Ms. Morris for a character she created a quarter of a century ago because he misunderstood the nature of the character. OrangeMike, Draveckyand Hullaballoo Wolfowitz take turns making edits to the Morris pages so that it appears there is no one particular editor editing her pages. However, all that is needed is to go to ANY page for a Janet Morris novel or anthology and look at the history to see these three editors' names in an obvious "tag team" attack on each page. If necessary, I will be happy to attach as many WP cites as you wish to prove this assertion, but WP experts can find the pages faster than I can cite them. The AfD of Heroes in Hell/Lawyers in Hell itself shows how deeply these editors are committed to making it as difficult as possible for any of Ms. Morris' work to be included in WP without fighting a battle against editors with many years of experience doing an inordinate amount of work to denigrate and dismiss Ms. Morris' books and stories. (OrangeMike commented that the Lawyers in Hell page was an attempt by a "minor writer" to aggrandize her own literary history, even though Ms. Morris was not the author of the page. I thought "good faith" was to be assumed, not dismissed out of hand. Of course, since that page was merged with the rest of the Heroes in Hell series, the OrangeMike comment no longer exists). I have not imagined the concerted attempts by these three editors to devalue every page of Janet Morris' writing history; anyone who cares can go to her pages and find evidence of these same three editors making sweeping deletions on the flimsiest of excuses. I believe a review by someone (though I have no idea who it might be) who has some ability to control out-of-control editors needs to be directed to these pages and the AfD of Lawyers in Hell/Heroes in Hell... someone who has not in any way participated in the editing of any of these pages.

It is also time to stop calling other editors liars who misrepresent their identity when there is no evidence on which to base these claims. It is time for editors to stop using language such as "skanky" to describe a minor edit to the page of a series that has lasted for 20 years. These editors have many years of experience with WP and use unknown acronyms and complex "rules" to challenge edits by less-experienced editors. No, I do not know each and every WP rule verbatim by memory as they obviously do.

Even though it is unfortunate, it is easy to see why some have resorted to sarcasm when addressing issues of dubious factualism - especially when the editor they are addressing completely dismisses a post from the author herself explaining the rights issues of stories from the series SHE CREATED AND PUBLISHED, that these editors apparently will do anything to prove were written and printed elsewhere before appearing in Heroes in Hell -- even though the stories are SET in the shared universe milieu created by Ms. Morris, which makes it obvious they were not written independently and then included later in Heroes in Hell. If you have not read Mr. Silverberg's two Gilgamesh stories, I suggest reading them before insisting they were NOT written for the hell shared universe. I am actually old enough to have read the books when they were published and know in what order the stories were written and published.

This argument can continue ad infinitum and nothing will be "proved" to the satisfaction of these editors. It would be lovely if they would content themselves with using their knowledge to make GENUINE edits to pages that need help in order to make WP MORE informative, instead of simply spending hours trying to destroy pages they have decided are "unworthy." The issue of WP losing editors in droves might be impacted by newer editors being slapped down in snotty, unprofessional language, simply because they are not as knowledgeable as long-time editors who can find some justification for deleting just about any information added. I, for one, have a real job and cannot spend numerous hours per day reading the copious editing rules and instructions or watching WP pages and edits to swoop down on edits with which I do not agree. It was my understanding that Mr. Wales wanted WP to be inclusive and friendly to new editors and that they be encouraged to contribute to WP, not intimidated by those with more experience.

No, I have not used an overwhelming number of "citations" or "references" to back my assertions here since that is pretty obviously a gambit used to dismiss statements by people who disagree with these long-time editors. This is just from observation and common sense.

I ask these editors to please move on and fixate on some other WP issue aside from Ms. Morris on their OWN good faith. If that cannot be tolerated by these editors, I alternatively request a review and oversight of this behavior by someone higher up the food chain at WP. Thank you.Hulcys930 (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

---my comments below--- bluewillow991967

I'm going to try to avoid dickery. I have disclosed a COI issue on Jethrobot's talk page. I am very new to Wikipedia, so I don't have this disclosure set up on my home page yet. Consider the reference as me disclosing here, for the moment. I'm not even sure how to indent this properly, so please bear with me--I'm just learning.

I think a more wikipedia-accurate term for the complaints about the behavior of the three users Hulcys930 is criticizing would be WP:TEND. Notice I say I'm trying to avoid dickery, and as part of that attempt, I'm going to assume the three referenced editors have a good faith belief that their point of view is neutral and they're just trying to defend the standards of WP. And there's where what I see as at least borderline WP:TEND comes into play--I think they've cast themselves as defenders of the faith who are Writing a Great Wrong by trying to defend WP from information about Janet Morris's work.

For the record, I barely know Ms. Morris. We've met, we've talked, and I'm submitting a story to one of her anthologies. I'm a professional author---3 published novels, major house (I'm Julie Cochrane). Submitting a story to somebody isn't really a relationship at this level---all it means is that the anthology editor is buying stories and is willing to read one of mine with a view towards buying it. As I said elsewhere, if I thought getting involved in this would risk Janet buying a story from me she wouldn't otherwise buy, I'd avoid it like the plague---I only want my *good* stories published. This ain't my first rodeo, I don't need my name in print again bad enough to put it on something if it turns out I should have buried whatever story under the kitty litter.

Where I think the behaviors are at least *bordering on* WP:TEND are where the editors are focused on *removing* information instead of just changing wording where necessary to preserve neutral point of view. The LOCUS nomination would be a case in point. It's easy enough to say, "nominated by LOCUS readers" or something equally harmless---and by "harmless" I mean both neutral and accurate.

I am not, myself, accusing anyone of WP:TEND. Mostly that's because I don't have the familiarity with WP yet to track down the citations and support it. What I am saying here is that the kind of behavior being criticized seems to better fit under the umbrella of WP:TEND rather than WP:COI.

I think the editors in question really do believe they're "protecting" WP and WP's standards. That's kind of the problem, I think. They cross over into overzealousness, the people who like Janet's stuff then bend over backwards to try to document absolutely everything, this looks to the other three like these editors are trying to use WP for promotional purposes, they then feel a stronger urge to "protect" WP from same, and pretty soon nobody is assuming good faith from anybody.

Instead of considering me a SPA, please consider me a *new* editor, with this subject just being the first place I saw I might do some good for the end-result article by commenting.

I think the whole page would be best served by, instead of just reversing edits because oh my goodness there's an edit and the sources you find don't seem to support it, you leave the edits that add information in place and instead focus on refining wording so that the underlying facts are clear in a neutral POV way. Calling a publication subsequent to a first serial a "reprint" is not neutral POV---it's inaccurate terminology. "Reprint" means something else.

I have here in my hands _Chicks Ahoy_, an anthology edited by Esther Friesner. I'll use it as an example of what you see in the publication information page on an anthology. It's published by Baen Books. Here's what it says, "Chicks in Chainmail (c) 1995 by Esther Friesner. Did You Say Chicks?! (c) 1998 by Esther Friesner and Martin Harry Greenberg. Chicks 'n Chained Males 1999 by Esther Friesner. All stories copyrighted by the authors individually." And then it continues, yada yada. That's the relevant part. It's an omnibus of three anthologies. You'll note that it shows the date the anthologies were originally published---since they were actual books, not magazines. Note that it says the individual authors of the individual stories retain their copyrights of these stories.

I have in my hands Man-Kzin Wars XII, also an anthology put out by Baen. On the cover it says "Created by Larry Niven." Inside, on the publication data page, the relevant section says, "Copyright (c) 2009 by Larry Niven. 'Echoes of Distant Guns' copyright (c) 2009 Matthew Joseph Harrington; 'Aquila Advenio' copyright (c) 2009 by Hal Colebatch & Matthew Joseph Harrington; 'The Trooper and the Triangle' copyright (c) 2009 by Hal Colebatch" and so forth as it continues on through the individual stories.

Now I have in my hands Heroes in Hell, also an anthology put out by Baen. On the cover it says, "Created by Janet Morris with the diabolical assistance of Gregory Benford, C.J. Cherryh, David Drake." Inside, on the publication data page, the relevant section says, "Copyright (c) 1986 by Janet Morris." That's it, that's all of that section where it names the copyright holders.

Now I have in my hands Rebels in Hell, also an anthology put out by Baen. On the cover it says, "Created by Janet Morris with the diabolical assistance of Martin Caidin, C.J. Cherryh, David Drake, Bill Kerby, Robert Silverberg." Inside, on the publication data page, the relevant section says, "Copyright (c) 1986 by Janet Morris." That's it, that's all of that section where it names the copyright holders.

Obviously, I'm not typing in the whole, entire publication data page for each book. There are plenty of short story anthologies in your public library or your local big box bookstore. My point is that the reason the publication data that names copyright holders is so short and sweet for HiH and RiH is that Janet has the copyright on all of it. She has the copyright on all of it because, obviously, that's part of the deal under which the individual story authors submitted their stories. In the case of Gilgamesh and the other Silverberg stories, when she says "we allowed" him to put a first serial in a magazine, that's what that means---the book's publication page itself says she flat owns the copyrights.

Somebody correct me, please, if I'm explaining this wrong. I'm not perfect.

Just pulling another couple of anthologies off my shelves at random, _The Wild Side_, edited by Mark L. Van Name, and _Fangs for the Mammaries_, edited by Esther Friesner, both also put out by Baen (I have a lot of their books), all list the copyright of the editor and then the copyrights of the individual authors on the individual stories------because that's the way the rights were contracted.

If someone is going to bill himself as a "knowledgeable independent editor" for the purpose of disputing a rights and publication information issue---and this isn't sarcasm and I'm not trying to be snarky with this---then he needs to take the time and effort to learn what the items on the publication information pages of different kinds of books mean. You can't evaluate the validity or worth of cited sources if you don't have the personal, individual knowledge base to find out what the publication information on that page means. That page is the gold standard for a "source" of the rights information on a book---unless you have cites to a lawsuit where a court decided the rights were otherwise.

I know paper isn't popular at Wikipedia as a source citation because you can't just google it. However, the whole entire worlds of academia and law and history and science---the entire world of accumulated human knowledge and culture---considers dead tree editions to be valid sourcing. (Not saying electrons are invalid, just that dead tree is valid.)

I would say that refusal to consider the information on a book's publication information page to be accurate, in the absence of a lawsuit over it, would pretty much be a slam dunk example of a single behavior of tendentiousness in editing. I want to assume good faith, I want to assume that what I see that looks like WP:TEND is actually just a touch of overzealousness that the editors in question will recognize and draw back from, I want to not indulge in dickery, myself.

But I have to say that if Wikipedia can't recognize publication information page of a book as the gold standard source (in the absence of a lawsuit), then it's hitting a major failing right there in its endeavor to be a serious encyclopedia.

I don't know if I'm reading the meaning of the rights legalese on those pages perfectly, but I do know that if the publication data page on the book itself says one thing and some other source somewhere else says something else, and that other source isn't a lawsuit over the rights, that the other source is inferior and to be presumed incorrect.

Sorry this is so long, sorry it's not indented, whatever other good faith disagreements or edgings into overzealousness or overcheerleading that we might or might not have by various editors, can we at least not get or stay tendentious over such a black and white issue as the rights issue?

I don't see anybody disputing that the stories in question had a "first serial" appearance at such and such a place on such and such a date. This is a dispute over semantics and terminology, and Wikipedia's primary goal of having a neutral point of view should make it a slam dunk that you use the terminology that is legally and technically the correct and accurate terminology to relate that information----that is, that story X had a "first serial" appearance in such and such a serial publication on such and such a date.

If a consensus of people involved really thinks a Wikipedia reader might not understand what a "first serial" is, then make an entry explaining "first serial" and hyperlink from the words "first serial." I think it would probably be an enhancement to Wikipedia to have an article for "First Serial Rights." Or an article on publication rights generally that includes an explanation of first serial rights.

Bluewillow991967 (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• You're faded, Julie. What you're saying is demonstrably not true. It's false. It's dead wrong. It's easily disproved.

I've got, in front of me, a copy of the January 1986 issue of The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction. It's got a pretty ugly cover that's difficult to describe, but the cover illustrates a story called "Newton Sleep", by Gregory Benford. You can figure that out pretty easily from the cover itself [19], or by looking at page 5, where it says so. (If that title doesn't ring a bell, open your copy of Heroes in Hell to the table of contents. I believe the story begins on page 18.) Anyway, now I'm looking at page 127 of the F&SF issue. It says "Newton Sleep" near the top of the page, in big letters [20] (there's a Google snippet scan, you don't even have to find the hardcopy). Right above that, it says "The story will appear in a book titled HEROES IN HELL, to be published in March 1986 by Baen Books." Just in case you don't trust me, here's the snippet scan [21]. Don't miss the fact that it says "will appear" and "to be published"; this publication predates the book by several months. And then we look at the bottom of page 127, where you'll find a copyright notice. It doesn't say "copyright (c) 1986 by Janet Morris". It doesn't say "copyright (c) 1985 by Janet Morris". It doesn't mention Janet Morris. It says "copyright (c) 1985 by Abbenford Associates". [22] (surprise, another Google snippet scan!} What's "Abbenford Associates"? It's Greg Benford's personal corporation that holds his copyrights. If the name wasn't enough of a clue, its president of record is one Gregory Benford [23]. There's even a book that says so, too [24]. And if you do a GBooks search on the term, you'll find lots more Greg Benford writing that it holds the copyrights to, but nothing else associated with Janet Morris.[25] Oh, look, what do we have here! It's the copyrights page for Nebula Awards 22. It's the official annual awards book from the Science Fiction Writers of America. I'll bet they're really careful and scrupulous about authors' rights. What do you think they say about "Newton Sleep"? They say "Copyright © 1985 by Abbenford Associates. Reprinted from The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction (Mercury Press, Inc.), January 1986 issue, by permission of the author." Nothing about Janet Morris. Nothing about Heroes in Hell. It ought to be quite obvious that Janet Morris does not own the copyright to this "Heroes in Hell" story, and that it was first published in a well-known magazine and, several months later, reprinted in Heroes in Hell.

Google hasn't scanned the Asimov's SF for 1986 yet, so I can't indulge myself as much at your expense on the next story. But here's the copyrights page for an anthology including "Gilgamesh in the Outback," another one of the stories at issue [26]. It says "Copyright © 1986 by Agberg, Ltd. First published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, July 1986. Reprinted by permission of the author and Agberg, Ltd." Now with Ag being the chemical symbol for silver, it should be pretty clear that the copyright holder here is Robert Silverberg's personal corporation, and that neither Morris, nor Heroes in Hell, nor Rebels in Hell, nor "first serial" is mentioned.

Both Bob Silverberg and Greg Benford will be in Reno next weekend. If you're going to be there, and you mentioned to either of them that Janet Morris "flat owns the copyrights" to those Hugo-winning/Nebula-nominated stories of theirs, they might have a rather different opinion. Might be useful in livening things up, what with Harlan not being on the schedule and all that. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

--- my comments follow. bluewillow991967 --- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluewillow991967 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If the publication pages are the gold standard, the platinum standard---what the judges would look at if it were in court as the final word---would be the contracts themselves. The specific contracts involved are the final word on who owns which rights and what reverts under what condition and when.

As I said, I am not perfect, I am also not a lawyer, but what you're still missing is that first serial rights are different from the rights to print in an anthology and sale of a prior first serial does not make something a reprint.

I believe in this case it may be (can't guarantee it) possible to get scanned copies of the actual, signed contracts. Ms. Morris "flat owns" whatever the contracts say she does---and doesn't own what they say she doesn't. Whatever that is. And yes, you can "flat own" the copyright to someone else's story if that's what they sold you---even if it wins an award, whatever. You still get credit for writing it, of course. It all depends on the terms in the original contract and I admit that I have not read the actual contracts for the stories involved.

So would you accept a scan of the actual signed contracts as definitive? *If* those could be obtained? I haven't asked, so I don't know if Ms. Morris would be willing to go to the trouble of digging through her files, scanning the documents, and providing the file. It's a lot of work. It would be worth it to her, I think, to clear the matter up if this was Brittanica. I'm not

And what would you accept as sufficient proof that there's a difference between something that has a preceding first serial publication versus a "reprint"?

If someone tracks down (I don't know if this is possible or not) a neutral copyright lawyer that deals with commercial fiction, would that be definitive enough for you?

Understand, I am not disputing the prior chronological appearance of the stories in a magazine, and I am not calling you a liar about what you're typing in----as I hope you're not calling me one.

I am disputing with you on the correct terminology for this particular kinds of rights issue. "It had a prior first serial appearance" versus "that's a reprint."

As far as anything being "at my expense"---I didn't think Wikipedia was supposed to be about someone's "expense." This isn't Usenet. I thought the point was supposed to be to get an accurate, reasonably complete, neutral POV article.

My understanding is that Ms. Morris deleted her editor account after being warned by someone to stay out of it, so if you will agree to accept contract scans as definitive proof on the rights issue, someone will have to relay the request. As I said, I don't know if she has the time to fiddle with it.

But the real point is that all *I* want you to agree to is use the correct terminology, and I think it would be more than fair to link the words "first serial" to a stub that briefly explains what that is. All I personally would like to see is that piece of accuracy---the terminology.

Why? I'm a writer. It's to the advantage of all of us everywhere that Wikipedia in general understand publication rights and the correct terminology so the facts will be right on the stuff for *all* of us. I'm hoping that if we can get the issue of standards of proof for publication rights and terminology for publication rights settled and preferably documented somewhere that no other author will have to fight this same battle over again next week or next year.

Jethrobot, if you're reading this, I'd like to request that when we finally get this issue settled somebody from Wikipedia work on some documentation for WP editors that will give future editors accurate information on the overview of how rights work. I dunno, maybe we can get someone from SFWA or one of the publishing houses to look over it and make sure that the guidelines are accurate. Something this simply black and white as "first serial" versus "reprint" shouldn't be world war three to get fixed.

I know I have three tight deadlines to address before I take on another project, myself. But if nobody else has done it by the time I get through those, I'll look at it, because there clearly needs to be a document laying this kind of thing out.

Bluewillow991967 (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

• Is this a trick question or something? Are you saying that if the contract contains a non-standard definition of "reprint" or "original" or something, that Wikipedia should depart from plain language and ordinary meaning? Maybe we should debate what the meaning of "is" is, too! Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a trick question at all. What I'm saying is that the article doesn't have neutral wording unless it's clear on the established--or establishable--facts: That the stories in question did hit the shelves as first serials in magazines before the anthology came out and that the stories were written specifically for inclusion in the anthology in the first place and specifically for the hell shared universe in the first place.

I see two main divisions of the issue here. Issue one is neutral wording of the facts, issue two is what the facts are.

I haven't read the contracts. I only brought them up as possibly shedding light on the facts. And, as I said, I don't even know if Ms. Morris has time or inclination to dig them out or provide scans of them.

Okay, an example. I've got a story in progress, "The Farmer." Doesn't matter what it's about except that it's SF and being written as a complete stand-alone, not in anyone else's world or at the request of some anthology editor. If I sold NAFSR to Asimov's (I should be so lucky), and then an anthology picked it up, that would indeed normally be a reprint.

The difference here is what the standard terminology is when it's created in someone else's universe, solicited by them to be written in their universe, and written for that anthology specifically in the first place but the anthology editor allows the story to go in a magazine and still be included.

If it was a "work for hire" in the contract it would be a slam dunk. If it was an "all rights" in the contract it would be a slam dunk. If it was "first publication" rights in the contract, then we're getting into territory where "I am not a lawyer" comes into play.

I haven't read the contract. What I'm debating with you here is standards of proof in sourcing and what constitutes neutral POV wording.

What would you accept as evidence proving the stories in question were written for the hell shared universe, by solicitation from the publisher and editor?

The "trick" here is that I've got a solo novel on contract and if it sells well someone somewhere will probably make me a page. Heck, someone could establish notability now if they cared that much. There's no existing page because I don't care that much and nobody has independently cared that much to do one---I'm covered adequately under my co-author's page for purposes of someone looking it up, yeah, whatever. But if my solo novels do as well as the collabs did, then at some point somebody somewhere will take it upon themselves to make a page regardless of not knowing me, etc.

This is a "do unto others" golden rule thing for me. It is in my self-interest for Wikipedia to maintain as strong a tradition as possible--across the board--for neutral POV, completeness, and accuracy. It is in my more specific self-interest to see that issues like this one (involving commercial fiction and authors) get that neutral POV, completeness, and accuracy.

If this article doesn't end up meeting those three standards (from my perspective, when all the sources are in and the discussion has run its course), then it won't be the end of the world, but the fooforaw has made me aware of the need to stay abreast of what happens on various author and novel pages when there's a controversy.

You will notice I accepted your citations of magazine rights pages in good faith as being part of the picture without personally having to have the dead tree in my own hands. No trick---just want the resulting page neutral, complete, and accurate.

151.199.126.60 (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

That was me. I guess what I'm coming down to is that there's no point in my posting sources that participating editors aren't going to accept as authoritative, valid sourcing. It makes more sense to discuss what constitutes mutually acceptable sourcing for the purposes of the issue at hand, first, and then do that. Agreeing on what sourcing would be acceptable also helps to separate the issue itself from "being right." IOW, I'm trying for as much mutual good faith as possible and to stick to a specific issue and trying for mutual openness to take that where the facts and the requirements of neutral POV lead.

I do apologize on one point. Looking again at my dead tree copies of HiH and RiH, on the actual stories' first page some stories have individual author copyrights listed and some don't. I missed it when I originally checked the dead tree because of the stories that don't show the notice. (See pp15,191 of RiH as examples.)

Bluewillow991967 (talk) 14:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposals for dealing with Gilgamesh.

I was away this weekend and could not involve myself in the flagrantly massive discussion this has received while I was away.

I have taken an inordinately amount of my own time to read through the following discussions on this discussion page, WP:AN/I, Guarddog2's talk page and my own talk page. For those of you who saw these discussions and thought, "too long, didn't read, these topics were discussed:

1. Whether Gilgamesh is a reprint or not,
2. discussion over the "first serial" status of Gilgamesh and how it relates to reprint in the literary/publishing sense,
3. whether it is standard practice to provide copyright attributions to individual authors are listed for individual stories in shared-world fiction,
4. whether legal threats have been made about inaccuracies on the article regarding the above issues,
5. the tirades on how Wikipedia is hard to understand, that some of the newer editors have real lives and little time to learn it, and that some editors who have been here longer are difficult to deal with.

I have also received extraordinarily long comments on my talk page on similar issues from Bluewillow991967. I realize this is a complicated issue, but I persuade editors to be concise in their responses. This is getting to be too much.

There is so much going on here that I really do not have the patience to address all of the above; I am beginning to wonder if there might be a simpler solution to address the contention over Gilgamesh. There is a lot of contention about using the term "reprint" here, and as NeBY has said at WP:AN/I about it, I'm not sure using the term "reprint" is going to be especially helpful here. Here are a few alternatives:

• Rather than debate on where it was published first, or deal with the apparently convoluted nature of the term "reprint," we could simply say it was published in both IASFM and in Rebels without specifying the original copyright. So it might read something like the following:

(story, also published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, won the Hugo Award for Best Novella in 1987, was nominated 1986 Nebula Award for Best Novella.)

• Because there appears to be some agreement in describing IASFM as having "first serial" rights to Gilgamesh, we could describe it as a "first serial" without describing it as a reprint:

(story, published with first serial rights in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, won the Hugo Award for Best Novella in 1987, was nominated 1986 Nebula Award for Best Novella.)

• A final alternative would be just to completely drop the copyright issue of where the story was published first and just be content with the knowledge that Gilgamesh was published in Rebels, period:

(story, won the Hugo Award for Best Novella in 1987, was nominated 1986 Nebula Award for Best Novella.)

• Let me know if any of these alternatives suit you, or if you have another, please let me know. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 04:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're quite right to cut to the central issue and quite patient too! For myself, I prefer your third solution, as we have ISFDB for publication histories. After that, I like your second offering but it's a bit baffling to the casual reader and we'd have to create first serial rights. I like the first least, as "also published" rather seems to make the two appearances equal, and it's clear that without HIH it wouldn't have appeared in IASFM, or the New Hugo Winners vol II either. NebY (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The third option works best for me. It seems the simplest and clearest. Note that the language would want to be changed on both pages, HIH and the Gilgamesh story's. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 18:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Been away for a while and had a hard time tracking down where the discussion went. Sorry bout that. What NebY said. Prefer the 3rd option then the 2nd. Knihi (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The third option seems clear and simple. Bluewillow991967 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

• I strongly object to any significsnt changes of the sort described above. The existing texts are factually accurate, are consistent with established Wikipedia practice, and fairly and accurately present the relevant material in an appropriate context. I'll try to present the relevant points as briefly as I can manage, which won't be very.
  • The matter of original publication became an issue raised in the Lawyer in Hell AFD, which also developed into an informal merge discussion regarding the other volumes in the series.
  • There is no longer any dispute that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" and its two sequels, as well as "Newton Sleep," the other award-nominated story, were not originally published in the HiH series, but instead first appeared in magazines. See the discussion immediately above, particularly the copyright citations I provided. Note also that the technical, moderately obscure term "first serial" is a more specific way of designating that original publication occurred in magazine form, so that terms like "original publication" and "first appeared" are correct whenever "first serial" would be correct, and are easier to understand for any reader of the article not steeped in publishing industry legalisms.
  • Wikipedia practice generally is to identify the original publication of shorter works (review, for example, the articles on other Hugo- or Nebula-winning novellas), and that the pertinent infobox actually includes a field for doing so. It would be completely contrary to Wikipedia practice to mention a later publication/reprint of the story while suppressing information on the original publication. Note that the original publication was cited in the article for three-and-one-half-years, until the accurate publishing history was defaced by an SPA last week.
  • The phrasing in the articles as they stand conforms to standard Wikipedia usage, standard dictionary definitions, and the usage of the relevant professional organization, the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America (SFWA). In SFWA's presentation "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts," online here [27], on page 15, "first serial" is limited in meaning to publication "prior to publication in book form," while "reprint" covers later publications in book form, including "collections."
  • There are many examples of Wikipedia articles where the first appearance of material in book form following "first serial" publication is described as "reprint" or "reprinted". Evidence (short story), Trends (short story), Heredity (short story), Homo Sol, Time Pussy, Sucker Bait, Breeds There a Man...?, —And He Built a Crooked House, Question and Answer, The Red Queen's Race, Marius (Anderson), The Men and the Mirror, Special Delivery (short story), Thing of Beauty (short story), Project Nightmare, Uphill Climb, The Bone Flute. There are many, many, many more such references; this is merely a sample of articles on sf/f stories with individual articles.
  • The argument that Rebels in Hell was the more important publication of Silverberg's story is particularly lousy. At the time of its publication, Silverberg was one of the most successful post-"Golden Age" writers in the genre, and certainly, by far, the most successful among the writers Morris enlisted. If he wasn't "allowed" to sell magazine rights, the story wouldn't have been written; the anthology couldn't have afforded to pay him market rates. IASFM, where it was first published, had a circulation of about 80,000, probably higher than the total print run for the anthology. Silverberg was a big name; Gilgamesh the King might not quite have made the best seller list, but it came close -- the NYTimes listed it as a candidate [28]. And when Rebels was published, it was advertised with the tag line "As Gilgamesh the King steps off the National Bestseller lists and into hell!" [29] (By the way, Morris' ownership of the Heroes in Hell property couldn't have stopped Silverbob from writing the story without Morris's approval. She doesn't own all stories set in Hell, after all, just the original details that trademark the franchise. What she really owns via the franchise are some infernal bells and whistles and the occasional designer pitchfork. There's a whole genre of such afterlife stories ("Bangsian fantasy"). and Morris's version isn't much more than a cross between Farmer's Riverworld and Niven/Pournelle's Inferno.
  • That there has been a great deal of bad behavior in this dispute by SPAs and/or editors identifying themselves as people associated with Janet Morris. For example, after Orange Mike AFD'd Lawyers in Hell. he was groundlessly attacked for "an ongoing, malicious bias". After Dravecky noted that self-identified authors with stories in the book, he was added to the target list. When I reported accurate publication information,well, you can see what happened to me here. And of course there's Guarddog2, who identifies as Janet Morris, who popped in to cite an error in a review as "proof" that the publication data I cited was wrong, even though she knew full well it was correct -- an attempt to deceive that I find greatly surprising from a writer of Morris's credentials, and a reason I've had doubts about that user's identity. There's also been canvassing on Facebook and on the "Baen's Bar" website, which explains where these talking-in-unison SPAs have been coming from. It's not surprising that so many COI editors want to promote a franchise they work in, but they're not contributing to WP:CONSENSUS regardless of their number. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the fact that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has done the following:

• Provided instances of independent, third-party sources documenting that Gilgamesh appeared to have first been published in IASFM,
• showed that the term "first serial" does not appear to be substantially different from reprint in the sense that both terms reflect printing of the story entirely in a hard-cover medium based on this this source and,
• also showed that there are several other articles that specify stories as reprints when they are first serials,

as well as the following:

• Editors opposing the usage of "reprint" have not advanced an argument that provides documented proof that Morris owned the first copyright to Gilgamesh or Newton Sleep (although some editors have said that the contract could be scanned, in which case I would be open to reconsidering the phrasing, and I hope that Hullabaloo Wolfowitz would be as well).

I think the current version, stating that these stories were "originally published" in their respective magazines, is reasonable. Opposing editors have said, more or less, that "first serial" is meaningfully different from "reprint," that we have to read the series to understand, that we have to take their word that the "flat out" copyrights belong to Morris, or that we are too inexperienced as individuals not familiar with the publishing process. Although we generally try to assume good faith these arguments are mostly unreasonable given the lack of verifiability of their claims and the conflict of interest the authors have, even if they may not have strong relations with Morris, no longer have a financial interest, or claim to not have a promotional interest. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to catch up on all this discussion. Whew. Quite a lot. Just a couple of concise observations. Hi Hullaballoo! Unless you know Mr. Silverberg, your second to last point strikes me as speculative at best.

I'm not sure why an encyclopedia would shy away from explaining terms like "first serial". The fact that it's little known outside the industry -- isn't that an argument for explaining it?

To the point: I'm not sure "originally published" is the issue. Author is hired to write a story for an anthology. Author requests permission to pre-publish the story in another periodical. Permission is given. Story comes out in book for which it was originally contracted. Years and years later this discussion happens. "Aha," says an editor, "Story is a reprint! Strike the article on the book in which it appears, as without this story I feel the book is non-notable."

Maybe I'm tracking this wrong, coming back late to the party and all, but isn't that at the heart of the issue? The use to which categorizing the story as a reprint was put? And if so, should I (or anyone) put back a page on Rebels in Hell, will it again be deleted under a claim of non-notability? That's what I'm wondering.

Also, and I'm not sure this is what's happening, but using this history of the story to justify saying it was NOT published in Rebels seems flat out misleading.Knihi (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the current version, stating that these stories were "originally published" in their respective magazines, is reasonable. Opposing editors have said, more or less, that "first serial" is meaningfully different from "reprint," that we have to read the series to understand, that we have to take their word that the "flat out" copyrights belong to Morris, or that we are too inexperienced as individuals not familiar with the publishing process. Although we generally try to assume good faith these arguments are mostly unreasonable given the lack of verifiability of their claims and the conflict of interest the authors have, even if they may not have strong relations with Morris, no longer have a financial interest, or claim to not have a promotional interest. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 01:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually the verifiability is in the books themselves. The stories would not exist without the anthologies, Ipso facto. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to catch up on all this discussion. Whew. Quite a lot. Just a couple of concise observations. Hi Hullaballoo! Unless you know Mr. Silverberg, your second to last point strikes me as speculative at best.

I'm not sure why an encyclopedia would shy away from explaining terms like "first serial". The fact that it's little known outside the industry -- isn't that an argument for explaining it?

To the point: I'm not sure "originally published" is the issue. Author is hired to write a story for an anthology. Author requests permission to pre-publish the story in another periodical. Permission is given. Story comes out in book for which it was originally contracted. Years and years later this discussion happens. "Aha," says an editor, "Story is a reprint! Strike the article on the book in which it appears, as without this story I feel the book is non-notable."

Maybe I'm tracking this wrong, coming back late to the party and all, but isn't that at the heart of the issue? The use to which categorizing the story as a reprint was put? And if so, should I (or anyone) put back a page on Rebels in Hell, will it again be deleted under a claim of non-notability? That's what I'm wondering.

Also, and I'm not sure this is what's happening, but using this history of the story to justify saying it was NOT published in Rebels seems flat out misleading.Knihi (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, this does raise a series of questions. I gather that I've missed a few things because I've been busy working on the books I'm getting ready for publication, and also getting read to celebrate my 25th wedding anniversary. And then there's the computers I'm putting together, the recording work I'm doing.

And of course I'm five non-fiction articles behind right now. I just don't have the time to be in here every day. I don't know how the hell Wolfie and Orange Mike manage to do it. Sometimes it seems like they live here.

So there was apparently some stuff that happened here that I didn't see. Like the WP:ANI thing that I got a notice on, but when I went there I couldn't find anything.

I know at one point I got a comment that "It doesn't matter. Things aren't that much of a rush. Wikipedia can wait a few days." But when I come back a few days later, Wolfie has gone nuts once again.

It's beginning to look like I might have to spend my entire life sitting on top of this article to keep Wolfie from messing it up. In some cases he might even be correct, but because of his slash and burn editorial style, it takes twice as long to figure out what he's done and fix the damage after he makes a visit than if anyone else does it. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: I am posting this in a number of different places because I'm not sure how the disputes/sections are broken down and archived.

"The following information was edited into the Gilgamesh In The Outback page, along with the message to Mr. Wolfowitz, by someone not familiar with Wikipedia (identified only by an IP). However, in an abundance of caution that the information will be removed from the page at any moment (it was removed less than 5 minutes after it appeared), I apologize for the length but due to the subject matter I have no other choice and am copying the information here for preservation and the edification of the other editors:Hulcys930 (talk) 08:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

DELIBERATELY PRESENTING SELECTIVE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION AKA REWRITING HISTORY

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I want to apologize in advance for making these comments here, but there is no room to address these issues in the edit summary, so I will make them here and you can modify it. I think this comes under the WP "Ignore All Rules" rule. Anyway you keep reverting my edits and this last time you claimed my edit summary is utterly false and without credibility. I take that as an affront. I made my edits on the 23rd and you reverted them 3 times. You said my work was inaccurate based on changes YOU made to the source Gilgamesh in the Outback article on the 22nd that I had not even seen. The last time I looked at Gilgamesh in the Outback - you had not added the Plot Summary. Now that I see what you have done, I believe you have completely left the concept of NPOV behind and are actively working to skew the facts. You added the following to the Gilgamesh in the Outback article:

Robert Silverberg wrote that he was "drawn into" writing a story for for the "Heroes in Hell" project. While he remembered that the central concept of the series was "never clearly explained" to him, he noted the similarity of "Heroes in Hell" to Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld works, and decided "to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier." After writing "Gilgamesh in the Outback," he decided that, since the story "was all so much fun," to write two sequels, "The Fascination of the Abomination" and "Gilgamesh in Uruk." In writing those stories, as Silverberg recalled, he "never read many of the other 'Heroes in Hell' stories", and had "no idea" of how consistent his work was with that of his "putative collaborators"; instead, he had "gone his own way . . . with only the most tangential links to what others had invented."[6]

You injected nuance and insinuation with your selective choice of particular words and their quotation marks to take the true meaning out of context.

What Mr. Silverberg actually wrote was this (your source - same page - the actual wording - First Paragraph)

"During the heyday of the shared-world science-fiction anthologies, back in the mid-1980's, I was drawn into a project called Heroes in Hell, the general premise of which was (as far as I understood it) that everybody who had ever lived, and a good many mythical beings besides, had been resurrected in a quasi-afterlife in a place that was called, for the sake of convenience, Hell. The concept was never clearly explained to me - one of the problems with these shared-world deals - and so I never fully grasped what I was supposed to be doing. But the idea struck me as reminiscent of the great Philip Jose Farmer Riverworld concept of humanity's total resurrection in some strange place, which I had long admired, and here was my chance to run my own variant on what Farmer had done a couple of decades earlier."

The second paragraph described Gilgamesh's character development and companion characters.

The third paragraph - again verbatim:

"It was all so much fun that I went on to write a second Gilgamesh in Hell novella, featuring the likes of Pablo Picasso and Simon Magus, and then a third. I never read very many of the other Heroes in Hell stories, so I have no idea how well my stories integrated themselves with those of my putative collaborators in the series, but I was enjoying myself and the novellas (which were also being published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine) were popular among readers. "Gilgamesh in the Outback," in fact, won a Hugo for Best Novella in 1987, one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that."

I am a Commissioned Officer in the United States Army. I know the various and sundry meanings of the word "Commission." What the first paragraph does do, is corroborate, directly from Robert Silverberg, that "Gilgamesh in the Outback" was commissioned for the series Heroes in Hell - the point I keep trying to make in the Heroes in Hell article. He signed a contract to produce an original story for the series. The third paragraph corroborates that - oh by the way - it was ALSO published in Asimov's - not originally published there. It was written for the book, with the magazine sale in the same month a first serial sale giving Mr. Silverberg extra income. I used a different source to talk to the pedigree of the story on the Heroes in Hell site - Silverberg's quasi-official website. Your source is better in that it tells the truth directly with his words, rather than his complicit blessing which you discount. Your insinuations make it sound nefarious, that Mr. Silverberg was somehow lured into participating in this lowly endeavor, while sharing the spotlight with other Hugo winning authors who wrote in this series such as CJ Cherryh and George Alec Effinger or Hugo nominees Gregory Benford, Robert Sheckley and Robert Asprin. Silverberg even states he had so much fun he wrote two more Hell novellas. Then he goes on to make the point, proudly, that his Hugo for the work, was one of the few shared-world stories ever to achieve that distinction. Note - "shared world" - part of a series - not a standalone story written for a magazine. I am not going to belabor this any longer. I hope you see that that your objectivity has somehow been compromised. Please do the right thing and correct the misconceptions so that WP can remain a valued "accurate" encyclopedic source.

All editors, please examine the citations of both versions of the "Gilgamesh in the Outback" page and decide what should be done, since the dispute is not when the story was published but it's provenance as part of the original "Heroes in Hell" series, which Mr. Wolfowitz steadfastly insists is not true, even when presented with Mr. Silverberg's own words contradicting Mr. Wolfowitz' stance. THANK YOU. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)