Talk:Heroes in Hell (book)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger discussion[edit]

The centralized discussion is taking place at Talk:Heroes in Hell.

Many notable book series do not have articles for every book in the series. I've tagged this and each of the other 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) 00:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Publication information[edit]

And the dispute conyinues to fester. As pointed out on my talk page, "originally published" is s standard Wikipedia usage, indicating first chronological publication, used in more than 10,000 articles; it is also virtually the exclusive phrasing used in category titles, found in more than 300 of them, such as "Works originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction" and "Works originally published in The New Yorker". (In contrast, the phrasing "first published" is used in only two category titles.) The phrase "first serialized" is used on Wikipedia in its natural language sense, to indicate a work, usually book-length, published in a periodical in multiple installments. The obscure alternate meaning of "first serial," used primarily in publishing contracts to denote initial magazine publication, would not be appropriate as the IP wants it used, because two of the three stories involved were first published in books, not magazines.
This dispute is rooted in the insistence by a single author/publisher that Wikipedia must use her own terminology, even if it is nonstandard and sometimes misleading to the general audience which the relevant Wikipedia articles are written for. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting "first serialized" to "originally published," Hullaballoo Wolfowitz a) repeats the error of not citing the source for how it is known that the work is "originally published" and b) confuses a common English phrase with a precise term of art used in publishing contracts. "First serial" is accurate in describing a work that first appears in advance of book publication. Technically this is called a "subsidiary right." "An Introduction to Publishing Contracts" by Charles Petit, Sean Fodera, and the Science-fiction and fantasy writers of America explains the relationship of subsidiary rights to book publication. The authors write, "Subsidiary rights are ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher ... Exercise of these rights before publication is known as first serial rights." [1], p. 14. Note the phrase "ancillary to the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publishers." To use the phrase "original publication" may be acceptable in common language when the book form is the actual first publication in any form. However, to use it to refer to a first serial of part of a work that later appears in book form is inaccurate and may confuse the bibliographic record. If there is a first-serial publication, using "original publication" is erroneous, because it implies this is the actual publication of the work by the acquiring publisher. While using the phrase "first serial" to refer to a single publication of a work that later appears in its intended book form may lack specific verifiability, its use is defensible if that work later appears as part of a whole book.
As a Wikipedia project, I would propose an editor write an article describing traditional publishing terms such as "subsidiary rights," "first-serial rights," etc. It is clear that many editors who do not have specialized knowledge of publishing terms need some guidance.
Speaking to the specifics of this garbled edit by Hullaballo Wolfowitz, I propose deleting the term "original publication" in this article and as a noncontroversial compromise, describe other publications of the work without time quantifiers such as "first," etc. Merely state the date of the publication and its title. However, given this explanation here of subsidiary rights and first-serial rights, the use of the term "first serial" is more verifiable than "original publication," which is not verifiable at all.Dokzap (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap[reply]

I'm betting you have never even seen one of the books you feel entitled to describe and whose publishing history and accuracy you seem to know more about than the people who actually wrote the stories (CJ Cherryh, Janet Morris, Robert Silverberg, Greg Benford, et al.) and who signed the contracts to produce those stories. Of course, the idea that the editor/creator of the series would co-write a story with a fellow author for some OTHER publication, a story that just HAPPENED to be written in the Heroes in Hell shared world, and THEN decide to include it in the first anthology of a series she invented consisting of all-original stories, is absolutely hilarious! Thanks, I needed that laugh... Maybe if you actually read the stories you feel competent to tell "millions of people" about, and discovered they were all written in the Heroes in Hell shared universe (a very specific place with rules as to how everything works), you MIGHT be able to understand why everyone keeps contradicting your "expertise" in relation to the series and the stories. I know you think we are just being mean and picking on you (even though there is no reason for anyone to do so) but truly, it's just because you keep asserting more and more unbelievably wrong ideas about things that happened a quarter of a century ago that you just do not understand.Hulcys930 (talk) 05:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the content, not the contributor. - MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie: You might post the same request to Mr. Wolfowitz at [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]], [[6]], [[7]], [[8]] and [[9]] In all fairness, I have attempted to "tone-down" the dialog and stick simply to information, but when something comes up with which Mr. Wolfowitz disagrees, but which he cannot refute, his usual MO is to attack us by accusing us of saying things we haven't, or saying we have attacked him when we haven't, including accusing me personally of participating in witchcraft (the actual definition of a "coven") while he continues to vandalize the Heroes in Hell series pages because he disagrees with the terms of art "first serial" and "reprint" which have been defined for him multiple times. There are plenty of examples of uncivil behavior on both sides of this dispute. We have attempted to ignore him and completely disengage, but he responds by altering pages with inaccurate information and if we change that, he starts edit warring again. You might want to follow the above links before becoming enmeshed on either side of this dispute.Hulcys930 (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to note, again, that your post does not discuss the article at all. I'm not interested in what you think of each other. Please try to work toward some kind of compromise. - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was a compromise reached a month or so ago, suggested by User:I Jethrobot, where we would leave the story's publication history/chronology in the article, but omit any explicit reference to the fact that it was reprinted in the Morris anthology. This didn't sit very well with me, because it meant we were removing accurate information, of a type mentioned uncontroversially in many other articles, under pressure from a coordinated group of editors with obvious COI issues -- almost all of them are either writers published by Morris or acquaintances of hers. But it seemed like the only efficient manner of resolving the dispute and ending the disruption, so I acquiesced. The Morris clique, almost without stopping, renewed the dispute once the compromise language was in place, demanding further concessions without providing any independent support for their claim that the publication history is "inaccurate," even though it is supported by citations to the US Copyright Office, to a well-regarded reference bibliography published by Gale, and to copyright permissions in other published work. No reliable, contrary references have been provided, for all the invectivc that's been thrown in my direction. I haven't been the only target; Ms Hulcy issued an entirely made-up broadside [10] accusing me of conspiring with two well-respected administrators in running a years-long campaign to disparage Morris and her work. As the admin who closed the AFD which started this unpleasantness several months ago stated, the approach of this group of users has been to "bludgeon" a discussion into incomprehensibility, and that style, rather than reasonable discussion of facts and verifiable claims, continues to be put forward. It's behavior that has nothing to do with building or improving an encyclopedia. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After substantial debate, a consensus was reached regarding the wording to be used on the Gilgamesh in the Outback page and, as far as the debating parties were concerned, that matter was closed on August 22, 2011, as follows:

The actual consensus to which Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and the involved editors agreed was as follows:
However, on August 27, 2011, five days following the closure of the Dispute, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz substantially rewrote the Gilgamesh in the Outback page, deliberately misrepresenting not only the publishing history of this short story, but Mr. Silverberg's own account from Thomsen, Brian (2006). Novel Ideas - Fantasy. DAW. pp. 205-206. ISBN 9780756403096., Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's own source. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Gilgamesh_in_the_Outback&action=history

Hulcys930 (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking here, but it's not at all surprising that FutPerf protected meta:The Wrong Version. You're going to find that complaints about that fall on deaf ears, since Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback was basically silent following the protection. lifebaka++ 16:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, I was was not aware of the existence of meta:The Wrong Version to be applied to the situation on the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. It is difficult to look up how to fix something when you do not know the procedure exists in the first place.
The wording approved by Guarddog2 and all the participants in the dispute was approved as it would be in the page as it existed at that time. The rest of the page was not discussed as needing any changes, nor were any expected to be made outside the wording agreed to as the consensus (completely neutral publication history without "originally published," "reprinted" or other terms of art that might be misunderstood).
No one was aware the page had been rewritten and then protected with completely different wording until it was already a fait accompli. Since there was a 30-day hold on making any more changes to the page, I understood that it was necessary to wait for the block against editing to be lifted in order to be able to make any changes. So now are you saying I was supposed to try to get the wording changed WHILE the block was in place? Since I am also a "newbie" does it not seem reasonable that I and other new editors would think there was nothing we could do until the block was lifted? Or were we supposed to start a new Dispute Resolution regarding the NEW inaccuracies made and locked by HW? Hulcys930 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And, for whatever it's worth, the "wrong version" that was protected was endorsed by Guarddog2;/Janet Morris (at least with regard to the language describing the publishing history): "I endorse the solution and edit made by Jethrobot, . . . reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright." [11] That agreed-on text is exactly what is present in the article now and as protected. It's quite strange to see Ms Hulcy now claiming that this text, which Morris endorsed, amounts to "deliberately misrepresenting" the publishing history. I also added some requested references, most significantly to US Copyright Office records, without altering that text. I did add additional text to the article, replacing a generic, unsourced description of the Heroes in Hell milieu (which read like it was paraphrased from back cover copy) with a summary of Silverberg's account of the writing of the story and its sequels. I added this text because UrbanTerrorist (and, as I recall, other associated editors) had supported redirecting the page to the general Heroes in Hell article. since other components of the series had already been merged there. The text I added makes clear that the story is also part of, and more strongly related to, Silverberg's own "Gilgamesh" sequence, showing that the redirect is inappropriate. (The story is also connected to another Silverberg novel, Lord of Darkness, but less directly.)
This whole mess could and should have been put to rest with that agreed-on compromise solution. Instead, Ms Hulcy and a few of her associates have kept inflaming the dispute and trying to make it a personality-centered one rather one focusing on reliably sourced text. That really needs to stop. Now. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This response attempts to obfuscate the information regarding the editing history of the Gilgamesh in the Outback page. This will have to be addressed with someone who can calmly and reasonably evaluate the two different versions of the page and the entirety of the sources and determine the appropriateness of the two versions. There is no reason to go back and discuss the entire editing history of the story, the book, the series, etc. That was the problem we had with the Heroes in Hell series discussion that came close to 100K words - disagreements about pages, stories, volumes and the series, all being discussed in the same format, by editors with selective memory.Hulcys930 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A neutral third party to guide the discussion is a very good idea. I suggest that you open a request for one of the available types of Mediation. - MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.sfwa.org/archive/contracts/IntroPubContracts5521.pdf

Neutral Chronological Publishing History[edit]

Neutral Chronological Publishing History

Based on the suggestions of lifebaka on a related page, changed the publishing history of Newton Sleep to strictly chronological, neutral listing. Removed inaccurate publishing history of The Prince and Baselius (bonus features in which a publisher prints a "teaser" (anything from a few pages to a chapter) in the back of a book to entice readers to buy a different and unrelated book by the same publisher are not considered "being published").Hulcys930 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ms Hulcy is, as usually, making things up and removing sourced information she knows is accurate to make the article match the spin from the publisher for which she is a promotional blogger. In two of the three changes to publication history she makes, she has deliberately misstated the date of publication of the stories involved. She as a unique definition of "chronological", which involves removal of virtually all chronological references. While she also claims (without citing any references) that stories which first appeared in print in 1985 were somehow not "published" at that time, reliable references and declared copyright dates say otherwise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Hulcy is not making up anything. I was following the suggested wording from Lifebaka on a related page. You may take a poll to see if anyone else believes that an excerpt of a story added as a "bonus feature" in the back of an unrelated book is considered by anyone in the industry as an instance of "publication" which would be listed in a publishing chronology. Stories frequently have a copyright date slightly before the copyright date of the entire anthology, but that does not mean that the insertion of a "bonus feature" is the reason for the discrepancy of copyright dates. I doubt it is helpful to continually characterize my (and others') edits as being made to "make the article match the spin from the publisher for which she is a promotional blogger." I wasn't aware that having written a single "Welcome" boilerplate paragraph on a web-site constituted being a "promotional blogger." There is simply no evidence to support H.Wolfowitz' continual accusations that ANY edits to Heroes in Hell and its related pages is "promotional" in nature. Accuracy is not "promotional."Hulcys930 (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OtherRealms[edit]

Questions have been raised about the significance of this publication. Within the genre, the magazine was certainly regarded as significant; it was nominated for the Hugo Award in 1989, as was the reviewer quoted, Charles ("Chuq") von Rospach. The magazine had many prominent contributors, perhaps most notably publishing the reviews of Charles de Lint. It stopped publishing in 1991, when von Rospach became the book reviewer for Amazing Stories, and de Lint became the book review columnist for F&SF shortly thereafter, a position he still holds. More than 75% of the reviews listed in the series article come from similar publications, many less significant, and the IP-hopping editor wants the reference removed simply because the review was unfavorable. The comments accurately reflect relevant opinion within the genre, and NPOV prohibits its removal simply because it isn't agreed with. The Heroes in Hell articles already include "cherry-picked" quotes touting more favorable reviews and commentary; the full spectrum of opinion should be reflected. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess I can live with that. But Hallaballoo, it seems to me you have enough knowledge and information here (which I assume you can prove) to write up the publication as an article--if you do that you will preempt at least some future questions. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can he? There was a post made earlier implying that Hullaballoo (correct spelling) knows Charles ("Chuq") von Rospach. If so, this would put him in a COI position. Under the circumstances it would be wiser if he let someone else write the article. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • On which of the boards where you and your fellow Morris dancers coordinate your edits off-Wiki did this particular falsehood appear, because it's rather plainly not here? And, given your acknowledged business relationship with Morris, why would you be exempt from the rule you would (incorrectly) apply to me? Really, isn't this just another example of the phony COI claims you've been pushing for months? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heroes in Hell (book). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heroes_in_Hell_(book)&oldid=1202687176"