Talk:Teresa Nielsen Hayden

message: I didn't want to insert this independently, but mightn't it be helpful to create cross-links clarifying the distinction between Theresa Nielsen Hayden, science fiction writer, and Teresa Nielsen, fantasy artist.  They have extremely similar names and vaguely similar occupations.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD66:25A0:317B:7DBD:EB7A:A25B (talk) 00:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: "Nielsen Hayden is the inventor of disemvowelling."
I doubt this and it definitely needs a citation.  There is no mention of her "inventing" it on the disemvowelling site and I doubt that this was something that started with one person.  I will see what I can find out but that is my explanation for removing it.  Crito2161 01:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm surprised to see that the disemvoweling claim was in the article to be removed, having been deleted some time ago. The strongest claim that seems to be supportable with accepted sourcing is the one on the Disemvoweling article. (Briefly: the term predates the moderation technique, and the first use claim, in the sense of "as a moderation technique," seems impossible to prove, even though it's probably true.) Please see that article and its talk page for details, and do not reinsert the stronger claim that was just removed from here...again.   Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 01:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh.  My mistake.  I guess I just assumed it had previously been removed. Karen | Talk | contribs 01:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I highly, highly suspicious of the claim she invented disemvoweling and am curious as to when she supposedly did this. The practice (if not the term) certainly pre-dates the Internet and undoubtedly was being used on the 'net as early as the ARPANET days.  I certainly used it on early (mid-1980's) Bulletin board systems such as Stuart][, The Temple of Doom, and Pyrzqxgl. Unless better sources are found, I suggest it be removed. The Cory Doctorow source seems a bit circular since Hayden works for his Boing Boing blog (I don't mean to impune Doctorow, but suspect he got his info from Hayden rather than a third-pary) Simenzo 13:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-reading the current article I see it now states that Hayden is the first Internet-editor to practice disemvoweling (rather than the inventor of the practice).  I'm still a bit dubious of the claim in absence of better sources--also I suspect it hangs on a narrow definition of what a Internet-editor is. Simenzo 14:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says first recorded; and of course, this depends on the definition of Internet editor. The creation of the term by Arthur (who deserves his own article) on her blog helped solidify the association of the practice with her. --Orange Mike 14:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the emphasis on 'recorded' is a concession that in all likelihood she isn't the first?  Yes, yes, of course it depends on the definition of Internet-editor... the point is how narrow of a definition?  Would someone who moderates a discussion forum count as an Internet Editor?  At a certain point the factoid is so precariously balanced on particulars that it becomes a trivial/misleading 'first'. Finally, the fact that her blog solidifies the claim isn't really a third-party, source... if the point is that disemvoweling is associated with Hayden, fine... let's state that and leave out the "first" aspect. This reminds me a bit of Compton's patent on 'multimedia'--something that was both obvious & in general use. I think the proponents of Hayden (and, incidentally, I'm not an opponent of hers) are really doing her a disservice by stretching the readers' credulity by including this in her bio. Simenzo 14:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or perhaps the point is that Hayden disemvowels entire posts, instead of individual words (reading between the lines, that does seem to be what the article implies)... if that is the case, I'll back off my objections (but suggest that article is extended to include the extent of disemvowling. Simenzo 14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Nielsen Hayden (not Hayden) disemvowels entire articles.Shsilver 15:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case I suggest the article be edited (in fact I'll go do it now) to specify that... I think that's key to her "first recorded." 64.131.177.119 15:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Disemvowelling

message: *In January, 2006, Nielsen Hayden fell victim to the FDA's removal from the market of a prescription drug she regularly used for narcolepsy, without notice to her and other users. This situation, first brought to light on her weblog, was soon widely reported and commented on elsewhere.
There are two elements here. One is the loss of the subject's medication. We don't normally get into this level of detail about biographical subjects. Is the matter worth mentioning in a short article? Is her narcolepsy important? Should we say more about that? 
The second half simply says that the subject blogged on a topic and some fellow bloggers commented on her piece. That is insignificant, unencyclopedic, and depends on blogs as secondary sources. 
*Personal websites, blogs, and other self-published or vanity publications should not be used as secondary sources.
I propose we rewrite the material:
* Nielsen Hayden has narcolepsy and had been taking Cylert for the condition. However the Food and Drug Administration withdrew the drug from the marketplace in January 2006 with insufficient warning, leaving her with no effective replacement.
A little research shows that the issues with this drug, and advocacy for patients who used to take it, predated January 2006.. It would be inaccurate to assert that the subject was the first to bring this "to light". -Will Beback 11:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me, Will. Thanks! Karen | Talk | contribs 15:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: In this article in Information Week , Cory Doctorow credits Nielsen Hayden with inventing disemvowelling. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The statement appeared in a reliable source, so this is not a concern. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 16:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disemvowelling source

message: In relation to our other dispute, I've been looking through the citations on this article to get a feeling about what qualifies for mention.  I noticed something odd when I checked the citation on the 1989 Hugo,  it doesn't actually mention Teresa Nielsen Hayden.  "The New York Review of Science Fiction ed. by Kathryn Cramer, David G. Hartwell and Gordon Van Gelder". 
Why is this nomination included in the article?76.91.90.112 (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a good question, and when I checked a different source, it listed "David G. Hartwell, Patrick Nielsen Hayden, Teresa Nielsen Hayden, Susan Palwick & KC" Shsilver (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So how do we resolve a dispute like this, when two reputable sources are in obvious conflict?   I looked at http://www.nyrsf.com/ and I think I figured out the root of the controversy.  "Three issue into the process of publishing the magazine, we had a disagreement over whether to maintain a monthly schedule, and Patrick and Teresa resigned. Gordon Van Gelder, Robert H.K. Killheffer, and Jim Hornfischer joined the staff, and we settled in for the long haul, adding staff and losing staff from time to time, but always getting the issue done."  Is it acceptable for a wikipedia editor to contact the Hugo organization to verify whether what was said is correct?76.91.90.112 (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1989 Hugo was for work published in 1988; for part of 1988, TNH and PNH were co-editors of NYRSF. At that time, the Hugo was awarded to the zine itself, not to the editor; but they were both editors for the first three ishes of the zine. (For a matter like this, the NYRSF website is deemed a reliable source). --Orange Mike  |  Talk 02:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you link the source you would propose to cite?76.91.90.112 (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of NYRSF that you yourself provided? --Orange Mike  |  Talk 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is TNH's listing in the LOCUS Index of award nominations. http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/NomLit96.html#3854 She was a Hugo nominee that year. David Hartwell, owner & publisher of the magazine, provides the committee with a list of the editors of the magazine for the nominees list  each year when the magazine makes the Hugo ballot, which it has every year of its publication. TNH was a founding editor of the magazine, and so was nominated in connection with it in its first year of publication. Why is this an issue for you?--Pleasantville (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Regarding the question of contacting a Hugo administrator, you are certainly welcome to do that, but you should not post private correspondence on Wikipedia, and a claim that an administrator had said something to you would be unsourced claim and violate Wikipedia's original research policy. If you contact a Hugo administrator, please ask the administrator to post directly in this space. We do, however, already have a former WorldCon Programming Director participating in this discussion. --Pleasantville (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya,  my only issue is that two reliable sources are contradicting each other.  The source(The Hugo Web Site) that is currently cited in the TNH article doesn't note her at all,  I can't see how this couldn't be an issue.(I'm a bit new to this, but I assume WP:Verifiability) I left a message on the Hugo awards web site so you can follow the correspondence, I assume that they'll post a correction on their web site that includes TNH when they've figured it out,  this would probably be ideal as I don't think a post to a talk page on Wikipedia would qualify as a source anyway, no matter who posted it.  http://www.thehugoawards.org/?page_id=11 I'm fine just waiting until they post a fix before we make any corrections to this page, if you guys don't mind.  76.91.90.112 (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I have sent the Hugo site a correction and left a comment on the page where your question resides. --Pleasantville (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, they modified the document that the this article already links to. (-:  Thanks for the help. 76.91.90.112 (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1989 Hugo Nomination 

message: Looks like Pleasantville deleted my additions pertaining to RaceFail09, claiming that "blogs and LJs won't do" when it comes to "reliable sources." Um, I included FeministSF Wiki. Also, the various LJers had screencaps by TNH. Note, also, that hundreds of people have criticized the NHs at this point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by LiliVonShtup (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources, especially as pertains to biographies of living persons. And no, the FeministSF Wiki will not do. See also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. --Pleasantville (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

text: As an early member and contributor of the FeministSF Wiki, I must agree that it doesn't meet our definition of "reliable sources"; and screencaps, as anybody with a copy of Photoshop can attest, are among the easiest things on the planet to fake up. --Orange Mike  |  Talk 14:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" II 

message: There were several references to subject's association with Tor, however, the citation did not reference her in the present or past tense - in fact it didn't reference her at all.  I cannot find a reliable source that discusses or mentions her association or lack thereof with Tor, but it seems to be some sort of common knowledge in the industry.  Perhaps it's some type of name confusion with her spouse, who appears on the Tor site as an editor.  If anyone is interested and can find a good source, it would be good to make her work history accurate.  Without a reliable source, there is no way to inculcate her involvement with Tor.  
Kennedy Trengove (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that you are misreading the BLP policy.  One of the BLP principles is the ability for a claim or fact to verified.  The idea that a fact should remain until a reliable source says that the fact is not true is counter how evidence works.  I removed the link and the reference after seeing that the source did not reference the subject at all.  I am not sure what anonymous enemies have to do with this, but happenings in the larger world are irrelevant to NPOV and BLP guidelines so far as I can see.  As far as the references being put back in, I don't see how the sources linked are reliable, NPOV, and notable.  The reference to a writers workshop website is potentially even a self-contributed bio, which would violate reliable sources guidelines and self-publishing.  Additionally, being a guest speaker at a yearly week long conference is not notable, and does not support being a teacher.   The website lists her as a speaker and an instructor.   The operation seems to be a money making enterprise to train authors to write saleable material.  In that regard I am not sure any of it points to the subject being a "teacher", which normally connotes an activity of some substance and lasting impact to the students.  I am neutral on the changes, and would like to see if anyone else has an opinion.  I discount wholly the claim that "of course it is true" that she is an editor for that house - WP is not a place for debating what is or is not of course true, but rather, a place for publishing what is verifiable and encyclopedic about a subject. Kennedy Trengove (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So took a little time, have tried to come up with some reliable sources that support extraordinary claims required for BLP standards - namely, verifiability.  It is my opinion that there is a self-publishing problem.  My count shows that well over half of the supporting references for this subject are either self-published, or published at a group-blogged website.  Most of the works that are claimed to be edited by the subject are not sourced, and many of the historical elements are only self-sourced.  My read of WP:RS indicates this is okay, but frowned upon and should not be relied on heavily or for extra-ordinary claims.  I am going to be hold and re-work some of the text to try to capture a more NPOV, and to add a few reliable sources where appropriate.  I'd be happy if someone made some improvements, especially with works edited by or for the subject.  There is a great way to establish authorship, but what is the standard for editing?  It seems easiest when the subject was nominated for an editing award because then there are NPOV sources to reference that are reliable and establish notability.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking even further, the newly posted sources claimed to be reliable appear to not met WP:RS.  Locus Magazine Online, which is the source for the claim about a third-party (namely, bio information that the subject is some sort of editor for Tor) is part of the "commentary and essay" section of the site, which is not the same as the magazine, and is not signed.  It is not possible to know from what is available if the postings carry the weight of editorial weight of the magazine proper, which would indicate a reliable source.  Given this a BLP, the need to have a RS is critical.  According to the Locus Online page linked, the website Perspectives contains "Essays and commentary, including Cory Doctorow's bimonthly columns from Locus Magazine, and (as of February 2009), a new Roundtable blog with posts from Locus reviewers and other invited guests".  This indicates the content linked is not part of the editorial control of the magazine, but apart.  WP:RS says "Some news organizations host online columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.".  The combination of the source being unsigned and in the "Perspectives" section of the website for the publication indicate that the source may not be acceptable.  Combined with the enhanced scrutiny of BLP, I feel confident in removing the reference in favor of a better, NPOV RS.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

text: The subject was a long time consulting editor at Tor, but has not been listed on the editorial staff there since sometime between July 1, 2014 and September 24, 2014.  Without regard to why the status change may have occurred, the article should reflect the fact that her staff position at Tor is in the past rather than ongoing.  Nitpicking polish reverted to the present tense based in part on work she did on Hawk, which was released October 7, 2014.  In Hawk she is credited with a "wonderful line edit," a job that must be completed months, sometimes a year or more, before a book is released.  Nitpicking polish also noted that her page says she's there.  To that point, her user profile at Tor.com appears to be quite stale. The last activity seems to have been over a year ago.  If the reference is to her independent web site, it only says that she consults, which indicates that she does some freelance work. At one time she had a dedicated workspace at Tor. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that is true today. 98.248.37.30 (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

text: The subject is no longer a consulting editor at Tor. The controversy over this issue here on Wikipedia would have been easily resolved long ago when the issue was first broached if the subject were indeed still on the staff in any capacity. The presentation of actual evidence based on Wikipedia guidelines, e.g., a staff or bio page on the Tor website, has not and will not be forthcoming.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B167:22FB:3144:ADAB:8FF9:7E81 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Association with Tor 

message: I continue to find sourcing problems with references that have been here a long time.  The source for the subjects editing of a major novel points to a comment left on a group-blog, by the subject herself.  Working on finding better sources and removing items that don't meet sourcing guidelines.  Anyone up to help?
Kennedy Trengove (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Kennedy, given your (apparent) depth of ignorance of this field, I wish you would slow down your current pace or desist entirely. Locus Online is one of the most reliable sources in this field, along with File 770 and Ansible, due to the intense vigor with which the SF community tends to self-police. Are you even familiar with these matters? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OrangeMike-- Thanks for your constructive feedback!  I will throttle back the boldness and see what turns up in time.  I admit I have no idea about the SF community or the subject, but I am happy to hear it polices itself well.  Despite that, the 'Locus Online' publication linked to does not appear to be meet the written guidelines as I read them.  For one thing, the article is unsigned, and in a section of the publication described as "essays and commentary".  The publication also goes out of it's way to seperate itself from the website.  The website is titled as "the website of the magazine".  So whereas the magazine is unquestionably a reliable source, the website, especially for BLP, appears to not be.   I have not made any edits that are substantive to the subject, except for ones related to sourcing.  These require no special knowledge of the subject, the field, or anything else.  I am open to better sources, and if the subject is prominent I think that reliable and BLP worthy ones will not be a problem.  Can you recommend what the best way is way to source editorial involvement of a novel?Kennedy Trengove (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

text: User:Orangemike, who is something of an expert in this field, is correct.  There is absolutely no question about many of these things -- that the subject has edited any number of important books, that she has taught at Viable Paradise, etc. Better sourcing is always welcome, but in fact Locus and Ansible are really good sources, and for non-contentious things self-published sources are acceptable in any case.  You might also consider that User:Orangemike and myself have been editing Wikipedia for years and years, and you're lecturing us on details of WP:BLP after ostensibly having two or three days of experience here. Because the subject is known to have enemies and rivals of various kinds, we all should be especially careful that changes are made prudently. MarkBernstein (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Mark, thank you also for you constructive feedback.  However, regardless of what is known and what is well known and not in question, for BLP, only what is verified and verifiable can be published, whether positive, neutral, or negative.  If the only reference to the subject teaching is from a workshop website, and not from reliably secondary sources, I have to question that it's really notable, and thus encyclopedic.  I am sorry that you found my comments on the talk page to be lectures, that was not my intent, and I will try to be more constructive in them in the future.   Although the tone might not have struck you right, I hope that you would agree that using, as a source for a BLP, a comment on a blog post by the subject, violates WP:RS, which explicitly states that user generated comments should not be used as a source.  I welcome better sources that establish notability, reliability, and meet the guidelines for BLP.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability is an issue for the subject; verifiability is an issue with assertions of fact. Primary and secondary sources can be just fine for verification of facts, if they're reasonably authoritative. - Dravecky (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Dravecky, thank's for pointing that out.  I have re-read notability and see the note about content within a subject not having to be notable.  That certainly makes sense and it makes it a lot easier to write articles.  I've worked on trying to just make sure the links used as sources are not dead, and are on topic, and I think I have them all cleaned up.  Several were broken and possibly changed from the last time they were referenced.  Can you take a stab at how to find sources for works edited?  The sole source does not verify the information cited.Kennedy Trengove (talk) 06:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing Problems 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Teresa Nielsen Hayden. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070609045318/http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN2475960&imageid=&cap=&from=business to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlebusiness.aspx?type=tnBusinessNews&storyID=nN2475960&imageid=&cap=&from=business
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified