Talk:Gilgamesh in the Outback

Original publication

Outside of the pages of Wikipedia, there's zero dispute about where this story first appeared. Note that the Locus Fiction Index, which is as about as definitive as things get for the genre, lists "Gilgamesh in the Outback" as reprinted from IASFM, while all the other stories in the volume are identified as originals [1] [2]. And, since you're now claiming that a second one of AgBerg's Gilgamesh novellas was original to the anthologies, perhaps you'll tell us which one. "Gilgamesh in Uruk", which appeared in IASFM six months before the anthology appeared [3]? Or "The Fascination of the Abomination", which ran in IASFM merely three months earlier [4]? This link might also be of value to you [5]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• xxxxx

Locus isn't consistent. To quote:

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, but thoroughly enjoyable.

Locus also is not a reliable source. The only reliable source is the Permissions Page or Copyright Information Page which appears at the front of every book published. I have a copy of Rebels in Hell here though any book would do, and this is exactly what is on the Permissions page:

REBELS IN HELL

This is a work of fiction. All of the characters and events in this book are fictional, and any resemblance to real people or events is purely coincidental.

Copyright © 1986 by Janet Morris

All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this book or portions thereof in any form.

A Baen Books Original

In Canada distributed by PaperJacks Ltd.,
330 Steelcase Road, Markham, Ontario

First Printing, July 1986

ISBN: 0-671-65577-9

Cover art by David Mattingly

Printed in Canada

Distributed by
SIMON & SCHUSTER
TRADE PUBLISHING GROUP
1230 Avenue of the Americas

New York, N. Y. 10020

Assuming I didn't make any typos, that is accurate. Do you see anything in the Permissions/Copyright page about Gilgamesh in the Outback being a reprint in Rebels in Hell? No you don't, because it wasn't. Now go get something like the "Science Fiction Hall of Fame" off your book shelf, and look at the Permissions/Copyright page. The entire thing says "Originally printed" for every single story. This is a legal necessity.

If the Silverberg and Benford stories were reprints the various Hell volumes would have had to indicate this on the Permissions/Copyright page. Since it wasn't indicated on the Permissions/Copyright page they were not reprints. Basic first grade logic.

Permissions/Copyright pages exist for legal reasons. They lay out who or what is responsible for what appears in a book. This allows anyone who has a complaint to know who to contact, and if necessary who to sue. Most books are published without any issues, and then you come to the odd one like John David California's 60 Years Later: Coming Through the Rye.

At this point I'm going to get a bit nasty. Sorry, but you've asked for it. You seem to be trying to educate Janet Morris about fine points of law on reprints, and what this requires in the way of permissions. Janet Morris has been an editor for a damned long time. Sit back and think. She's forgotten more about this than you will ever know.

Exactly how mad do you wish to make her? From her comment on the Heroes in Hell discussion page I suspect she is damned near ready to call in the lawyers.

Oh, and the Heroes in Hell discussion page says that this article was merged into the Heroes in Hell article. By bringing it back from the dead you may cause Wikipedia's system some problems. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 19:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Both publications of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" have a July 1987 publishing date. To call a work as "originally published," one would need citations of such things as printing and distribution records, appearance dates at newsstands and bookstores, all of which would be difficult. I would suggest avoiding this unnecessary controversy by simply stating the facts: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1987 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published by Baen Books." I have listed the works alphabetically by title. To claim that the work was "originally" published in Asimov's implies that Silverberg wrote it for Asimov's first and then Janet Morris, the Rebels in Hell editor, reprinted it in her anthology. This allegation requires a citation. To support a reprint in Rebels in Hell one would have to look at Silverberg's Rebels in Hell contracts and his Asimov's contracts - again, another citation. But why go to this unnecessary work when for WP purposes a statement of the actual publishing history is sufficient? To belabor the "originality" claim raises issues of intellectual property and even libel, since they raise questions of the editors' skills. This article should state the facts simply and avoid potential legal claims. Dokzap (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Correction: Both publications are for July 1986. The suggested edit would be: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published in July 1986 by Baen Books." Dokzap (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Except for the inconvenient fact that the cover date for Asimov's, as for just about all newsstand-distributed magazines, is the date it goes offsale. The actual publication date for this issue of Asimov's was June 3, 1986. The actual publication date for the August issue of Asimov's was July 1, 1986. The declared publication date for Rebels in Hell is also July 1, 1986. As I've pointed out elsewhere, with multiple citations, Asimov's has been reporting its publishing schedule virtually since it began publishing in the 1970s. You've been published in the magazine; just check your file copy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • I would suggest adding this paragraph from Robert Silverberg explaining the origin of his story:

"This fits (more or less) into the shared universe of Hell lorded over by C.J. Cherryh and Janet Morris, though it's not mentioned in this book (probably due to somebody's contracts with somebody else). It continues the adventures of the mythical king into a strange version of the afterworld. I call it strange because it does not fit completely with any religious vision of an afterlife. In the other Hell books, there is a basic Christian slant, with demons presiding over the dead and occasional references to a satanic being in charge, but Hell is not just for sinners. Everyone is there, from Hitler to the saints, from the beginning of the human race to sometime in the 21st century. Silverberg takes a more general view, and the Christian elements of Cherryh and Morris's scenario are not present, and in fact this book stands a little outside the general tone of the rest of the series. "One of the basic ideas of the Hell books is that once a person is there, it's forever. If you get killed you come back in a new body after a short time. Another basic idea is that there is no way out. Gilgamesh makes it his quest to find a way out of Hell, a way back to Earth. The irony is that in life, his quest was to make it to the land of the dead to be with his friend Enkidu, and now that he's there, he wants to leave, though he still seeks Enkidu. "The book started as the novella Gilgamesh in the Outback in Rebels in Hell and in that form was nominated for Nebula Award for best novella, 1987. Chapters 1-5 are that novella. Chapters 7-11 were published as The Fascination of the Abomination in Angels in Hell. The title character of Lord of Darkness features prominently in this book as well. I've read a number of the other books in the Hell series, and while they're sometimes enjoyable, I'm not sure I can recommend them. Cherryh's stories are particularly grating to me (which is unusual as she is one of my favorite writers), with their idea that only the famous people of history are important and ordinary people don't even rate bodies in Hell (this is not the way it works in Silverberg's Hell stories, or even many of the other writers in this shared universe). (Robert Silverberg, http://www.majipoor.com/work.php?id=1190Dokzap (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Of course it can't go into the article. First of all, dropping in a big block of text like this in would violate WP:NFCC, and probably be an overt copyvio. Second, it's quite apparent that Silverberg didn't write it and it therefore can't be presented as his own views. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and any other interested editors - You failed to respond to the following post by Dokzap which would solve this dispute, allow corresponding edits to be made on all affected pages and everyone could move on:

"The suggested edit would be: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published in July 1986 by Baen Books." Dokzap (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap"

Thus, there would be no perceived insult to either Mr. Silverberg or Ms. Morris and the Heroes in Hell shared word/universe, and the information would be completely accurate, since the story WAS published in both with the same publication date of July 1, 1986. Trying to prove this many years later which one was first seen by a human eye (outside of the involved publishing/distributing entities) is not possible due to issues of which you have been apprised before: advance copies for reviewers, early shipped copies to sellers, actual date of receipt by subscribers, etc.; to continue to insist you can determine which came first is sophistry. Wikipedia may not be about the "truth" but I think everyone believes it is at the very least factual and, hopefully, accurate. Hulcys930 (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

And that's why there are reliable sources including the academic/library reference, the copyrights permissions page, and the official copyright office records saying otherwise, not to mention the various corroborating if not definitive sources. And, of course, without explanation, you have once again misstated the magazine publication date, which was June 3, 1986. July 1, 1986 was the date of publication for the following, August issue. You're misunderstanding the cover date for a newsstand-distributed magazine, which indicates the date when the issue is to be removed from sale, an odd mistake for a published genre author to make. Even UrbanTerrorist acknowledged this point. Besides, Dokzap's argument rests on his erroneous claim that this reference [6], which says quite plainly "First published in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine," doesn't use the words "first published". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • • • I appreciate Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's citations adding information such as issue sell dates, which helps to the bibliographic understanding of the story's appearance. My suggestion stuck to the publication dates of record, however. "Published in the July 1986 Issac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine" is precise, because that is the magazine edition in which it appears. Note that this is important, since the magazine publication date on the spine/cover is the one used by the Nebula and Hugo awards. Using the "sell by" or "magazine distribution" date, Gregory Benford's Newton Sleep, published in the January 1986 Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction, would technically be a December 1985 publication. That would make it ineligible for 1986 awards, however. (There was a period when SFWA rules had rolling eligibility or the author could expess a preferred edition, however; I can't recall what the rules were in 1985-1986, although if one cared he could look it up.) Most bibliographies will use the month and date on the spine, cover, and table of contents page because, well, that's what it says.

If it pleases Hullaballoo Wolfowitz to note the earlier sell-by date, and to note that one citation says "first published," with a note to that citation, I do not object to that additional bibliographic citation. My suggestion was to make a simple, precise, non controversial citation. Note that the issue of "first published" or "originally published" is of limited utility, though, since Mr. Silverberg's quasi-official Web page, and his approved commentator, Jon Davis, has established the provenance of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" as having been written as part of the Heroes in Hell/Rebels in Hell series. Saying the work was "first published" in Asimov's does not take away from its creation as part of the Heroes in Hell/Rebels in Hell series -- unless one wants to deny the Majipoor.com citation.Dokzap (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

I found the following refutation of Mr. Wolfowitz' characterization of the "Gilgamesh In The Outback" information in a "reliable source" that brings into question his bias in the issue that started this entire debacle:

"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. However, in an abundance of caution that the information will be removed from the page at any moment, I apologize for the length but due to the subject matter I have no other choice and am copying the information here for the edification of the other editors: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

DELIBERATELY PRESENTING SELECTIVE AND MISLEADING INFORMATION AKA REWRITING HISTORY

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. However, in an abundance of caution that the information will be removed from the page at any moment, I apologize for the length but due to the subject matter I have no other choice and am copying the information here for the edification of the other editors:

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 UN-BIASED EDITORS, PLEASE EXAMINE THE CITATIONS OF BOTH VERSIONS OF THE "GILGAMESH IN THE OUTBACK" PAGE AND DECIDE WHAT SHOULD BE DONE. THANK YOU. Hulcys930 (talk) 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Re. citing Brian Thomsen's "Novel Ideas" as a source for "first published in July 1986 Asimov's"; Hulaballoo Wolfowitz has found a Google Books acknowledgements page from Brian Thomsen in "Novel Ideas" and cites it as evidence of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" as being first published in the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine. I suggest that the late Brian Thomsen might have had a conflict of interest or bias in wanting to note the "first published" listing for Asimov's. The American edition of "To the Land of the Living" was a Warner Books/Popular Library Questar book, and at the time (1990) Brian Thomsen was the Questar editor -- i.e., he edited "To The Land of the Living." Because of Thomsen's involvement with Silverberg in the editing of "To the Land of the Living," that Thomsen chose to acknowledge the Asimov's publication of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" and not the "Rebels in Hell" publication (or both) should not be taken as a definite and reliable citation. That citation should be qualified as possibly biased.Dokzap (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

This is utterly reprehensible garbage, a malicious smear of a well-respected man whose life was tragically cut short a few years ago and cannot defend his reputation. To suggest that Thomsen would somehow have decided to falsify copyright information in a book he edited, which would have both unprofessional and dishonest, without a shred of evidence or anything resembling a plausible motive, is behavior for which you should be thoroughly ashamed, especially since you're hiding behind a pseudonym. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I did not allege that Brian Thomsen falsified copyright in referencing the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's publication in "Novel Ideas" for Robert Silverberg's "Gilgamesh in the Outback." I alleged that he might have had a bias in favor of an author he edited. This is not a "malicious smear." It is an admirable trait for an editor to support a writer he edited. As someone also edited by Brian, and who knew him for more than 20 years, I can say that he had a reputation for supporting his writers, sometimes to the detriment of his own career. Why Brian chose to use the Asimov's citation is unknowable in the context of WP. As I have argued earlier, either the Rebels in Hell or Asimov's citations for "Gilgamesh in the Outback" are acceptable as bibliographic references. To be precise, both should be cited.

However, I withdraw my allegation of bias. In light of evidence suggested by the editor who tried to add a "Controversy" section to the WP:Heroes in Hell entry, in editing Silverberg's comments in "Novel Ideas," Brian Thomsen was aware of the Rebels in Hell and Heroes In Hell series origin of the story. See this citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heroes_in_Hell&diff=prev&oldid=449273627. Including Silverberg's commentary clearly shows Brian Thomsen understood the story's history, and thus overcomes the omission in the bibliographic citation of the Rebels in Hell publication.Dokzap (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

I should not have said HW's statement was "potentially libelous," as that is a violation of WP:LEGAL. His assertion alleges action by me which I do find to be in violation of WP:ETIQUETTE.Dokzap (talk) 05:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

You really need to keep closer watch than that. This was posted over a month before you responded. So it wasn't utterly reprehensible garbage until last night? No one is smearing Brian Thomsen. It was pointed out that Thomsen could only print what he was told, and what he understood. He interviewed Silverberg many years after the fact. Silverberg himself may have forgotten some of the details, since he had written many books after that. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wow, how amazing that "possibly biased" can be conflated with "This is utterly reprehensible garbage, a malicious smear of a well-respected man whose life was tragically cut short a few years ago and cannot defend his reputation. To suggest that Thomsen would somehow have decided to falsify copyright information in a book he edited, which would have both unprofessional and dishonest, without a shred of evidence..." As you very well know, no one did anything of the sort. Please stop going off on tangents and trying to confuse the issue of the sources used to validate information. It simply raises everyone's blood pressure to no purpose whatsoever. Also, I would personally appreciate it if you would stop using my talk page as a forum to insult my ethics and intentions. You do NOT know me, nor do you have a crystal ball telling you that I am an evil person who just wants to make you look bad.Hulcys930 (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Does this look as stupid to everyone else as it does to me?

First:

Gilgamesh in the Outback is a science fiction novella by Robert Silverberg, and part of Janet Morris's shared-universe series Heroes in Hell. It won the Hugo Award for Best Novella in 1987 and was also nominated for the Nebula Award for Best Novella in 1986.[1][2] Originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction[3][4], it was then printed in Rebels in Hell[5] before being incorporated into Silverberg's novel To the Land of the Living.

Second:

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]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.127.139 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 26 August 2011

To your First statement: correct

To your Second statement: correct (but not complete)

The other two stories, "Abomination" and "Uruk" were published in the Heroes in Hell series before Silverberg decided to combine them into a novel (with some significant rewriting)[7] in 1988 and 1989.

What exactly do you expect us to do when a long-time, experienced WP editor is deliberately, purposefully manipulating information to rewrite history and turn simple fact into a fairy story that makes him happy? "External Links" are demanded - so we add them. "Citations" are demanded - so we add them. We use HIS sources to refute his assertions and they are erased because they do not agree with the original assertions - by other editors who obviously do NOT go read the cited "sources" and look only at what was originally posted on the story page. It appears that no matter what we do, the truth is the victim here. I was actually told by another editor: "WP is about verifiability, not about Truth." Well, I guess that says it all, doesn't it? Hulcys930 (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.218.161.68, 9 September 2011

2nd paragraph, first line, remove the repeated word "for" -- 98.218.161.68 (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. - Dravecky (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

BLP dispute

There is a discussion on the BLP noticeboard about this article. The article as it is looks fine to me. Is there still a dispute?Jarhed (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Less than 30 minutes before you made this post, an anon with no edit history, hit the article, removing reliably sourced claims and censoring the article content to reflect the way new editions of books in the series are being hyped by its editor-publisher. The only BLP issues involved are vague claims by various people associated with series editor Janet Morris that Robert Silverberg, the author of this story and one of the most prominent and well-respected authors in the genre, and/or Brian Thomsen, a well-respected editor who sadly died a few years ago, somehow connived to place inaccurate copyright notices in several books, depriving Morris of credit she claims to be due. These editors are making the claims, and censoring/vandalizing the articles involved, even though the editor-publisher Janet Morris endorsed the now-disputed text (suggested by User:I Jethrobot as accurate and appropriate.[8]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz misunderstands GuardDog2/Janet Morris. She wrote "On a much happier note, I endorse the solution and edit made by Jethrobot, who says earlier today in this debate, and I agree, "I feel this is an optimal solution, and prior to your suggestion, have already made changes on Gilagamesh reflecting the chronological publication order without reference to copyright. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 22:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC). So perhaps we have a happy ending. Guarddog2 (talk) 03:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)"

Guarddog2/Morris says here that she agrees with the noncontroversial and consensus language I suggested and not the mistaken version of publishing history HW insists upon..Dokzap (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz misunderstands nothing here. This dispute continues to stray farther and farther away from reality. Either Dokzap is claiming to be Jethrobot, or that Morris thought he was, and was "endorsing" a suggestion he hadn't yet made at the time of her endorsement, or something even more illogical. "Reflecting the chronological publication order" does not mean "removing all references to it from the article."

For the record, this is the relevant text, as suggested by Jethrobot, placed by him into the article, and expressly endorsed by Guarddog/Morris:

Originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction, it was then printed in Rebels in Hell before being incorporated into Silverberg's novel To the Land of the Living.[9]

And here is the text as edited by me. HW, which the Morris-associated editor insist has been malignly and deceptively distorted by The Big Bad Wolfowitz:

Originally published in Asimov's Science Fiction, it was then printed in Rebels in Hell before being incorporated into Silverberg's novel To the Land of the Living.[10]

Purely disruptive, counterfactual, statements like Dokzap made here are prime examples of why I believe several of the Janet-Morris-associated editors have forfeited the assumption of good faith. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I am acting in good faith as someone with knowledge of the situation and who believes WP articles should adhere to the truth, particularly when the truth is told by a person directly involved. I would caution Hullaballo Wolfowitz to adhere to WP:Etiquette and stick to the point of the discussion.

I do admit that the chronology of WP edits can be confusing, particularly when examined with a narrow mind. No matter. If HW wants to know Guarddog2/Janet Morris' position on his edits, go to her talk page. She writes in conclusion:

"I suggest, since all problems have solutions, that a simpler and less controversial wording be adopted, or correct publishing terminology be used. Perhaps it could be said that story X was published in magazine X AND book x, and avoid the issue of applying non-standard publishing language altogether. The sequentiality issue is the problematic one. Or use correct publishing terminology, such as "Published in X book on A date and first-serialized in Y magazine on B date.

"In closing: I endorse none of HW's edits or statements or selective quotations on the topic of Heroes in Hell series and its stories, which statements and edits are at best confused and at worst misleading. Guarddog2 (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)."

Dokzap (talk)Dokzap

• Jarhed Yes, there is still a dispute on the BLP noticeboard about this article, which has not been closed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz chose to ignore a consensus reached in a different Dispute Resolution [[11]]and five days after consensus was reached, rewrote the article using a source from Brian Thomsen and selectively quoting and parsing the statement by Mr. Silverberg (Thomsen, Brian (2006). Novel Ideas - Fantasy. DAW. pp. 205-206. ISBN 9780756403096) to indicate the exact opposite of what Mr. Silverberg stated in this source and then had the page locked for 30 days with the incorrect information on it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was cautioned to accept the consensus as it stood but chose to ignore that advice.lifebaka 03:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz posting the following statement in the Edit History of this page regarding his substantial edit: "(cur | prev) 18:06, 27 August 2011 Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs) (3,798 bytes) (Rv, no consensus, and not a compromiuse[sic], but a capitulation to COI editors; Undid revision 446998036 by NebY (talk)) (undo)"
• Now that the page is unlocked, apparently, someone else went in to attempt to change the page back to its original wording (as it was before the Dispute Resolution) to reflect the actual events of 1986 but Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has already reverted it to his own belief system. Please check with the editors dealing with the BLP dispute before assuming that information on this page is accurate. The disputes regarding the Heroes in Hell series have been ongoing for over 2 months and span over 10 different pages and ANIs and DPNs. I can provide you a list of the various pages if you want to see them. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

• Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has got to be the stubbornest, most mule headed editor I've ever seen. He makes me look reasonable, and that takes some doing. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

If anybody cares what I think, first, I see no BLP issues in any of this and I wish you would not use that forum unless you can clearly spell out the BLP issue. Second, there are some editors on this article whose emotions are out of control. When I feel this way, I find that staying away from WP for at least a few days helps. Third, the accusations of bad faith that are flying around are against WP guidelines. If you editors continue this behavior, I predict that at least one of you will get himself or herself blocked. Finally, if you are having problems with a contentious editor, I recommend that you go to the administrator's noticeboard, read the instructions there, and follow them. I actually care about getting the Silverberg attribution right, and I want you editors to straighten it out. Have a great day!Jarhed (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys, I am responding to the additional info that was left on the BLP noticeboard. I do not care to work on this article at all except for BLP issues, and at present I don't see any. Please refrain from using the BLP noticeboard for a content dispute. Everything that I said in the paragraph above starting with "If anybody cares" still stands. Cheers!Jarhed (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Jarhed The only BLP issue here is the attempted alteration of the publishing history of Robert Silverberg's "Gilgamesh in the Outback" which was written for the Heroes in Hell(TM) series. H. Wolfowitz insists on trying to prove the story was written for Asimov's and then "reprinted" in Rebels in Hell which is inaccurate, as you can see by the mind-boggling amount of information above. At this point, all most editors want is for the publishing history to be a completely neutral, chronological statement:

"The suggested edit would be: "Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in the July 1986 Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine and the shared universe anthology Rebels in Hell, published in July 1986 by Baen Books." Dokzap (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Dokzap" as was agreed by consensus [[12]]. There is only one editor objecting to the above neutral language: H. Wolfowitz.

If this could be accomplished, the disputes would go away(I hope). Then WP can develop a new article about the definition of the terms of art: "first serial," "original publication" and "subsidiary rights" in publishing, which is an entirely different subject. Thank you. Hulcys930 (talk) 05:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

References

Neither order of publication nor first serial rights are needed

Okay, since there's obviously still a dispute about this, let's sit down and talk it out. From before I've seen zero dispute that this story was published in both Asimov's and Rebels in Hell in 1986. Why, then, can't we just agree to disagree about original publication, first serial rights, and all that, and simply say it was published in both in 1986. We'll all be equally (un)happy about the result, it'll be strictly factual and absolutely indisputable.

To be explicit, why don't we change the first paragraph of the lead as follows? (removals struck through, additions in green)

Gilgamesh in the Outback is a science fiction novella by Robert Silverberg, and part of Janet Morris's shared-universe series Heroes in Hell. It won the Hugo Award for Best Novella in 1987 and was also nominated for the Nebula Award for Best Novella in 1986. Originally It was published in Asimov's Science Fiction, it was then printed and in Rebels in Hell in 1986 before being incorporated into Silverberg's novel To the Land of the Living.

Thoughts? lifebaka++ 00:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the form that was published in To the Land of the Living was edited to remove references to the Heroes in Hell milieu based on the quoted comment from Silverberg. I don't know for certain as I don't have a copy of the book to compare with my copy of Rebels in Hell, and while I did read the novel, that was around a quarter century ago. If this did happen, that does need to be mentioned in the reference to the novel publication. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 01:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's just stated in the third paragraph of the current article, rather than the first. lifebaka++ 02:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Lifebaka's suggestion is fine and fits with the suggestion I made weeks ago. When this went to dispute resolution, there was wide consensus to my proposal. Agreeing to disagreeing about first serial, original publication, etc., is wise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has stubbornly disagreed with this consensus, however, and when revisions have been attempted to reflect this neutral, noncontroversial version, he/she has undone them, leading to editing wars and this current situation. If HW will now agree with Lifebaka's suggestion, all will be well. If HW does not, nothing can be accomplished short of blocking HW from editing this page. To resolve this we a) must agree on the consensus suggestion, b) HW must agree or c) if HW does not agree, HW must be blocked. I would welcome a reasonable argument within WP:ETIQUETTE from HW as to why Lifebaka's suggestion is not agreeable.Dokzap (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

A strict chronological publishing history would be wonderful! The body of the article would also need to be reverted to its state prior to H.Wolfowitz' imaginative rewrite when he disagreed with the consensus reached in the Dispute Resolution, changing the wording that had existed basically unchanged since 2008. Since early August, a virtually identical NPOV publishing history has been proposed and agreed to by all editors except H.Wolfowitz. Based on the following edit comment from H.Wolfowitz:

"19:55, 11 August 2011‎ Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk | contribs)‎ (2,202 bytes) (rv, not previously discussed, and we do not merge Hugo-winning stories into low-rent series they're affiliated with; Undid revision 444313870 by UrbanTerrorist (talk))"

I will be pleased but surprised if you can obtain H.Wolfowitz' agreement.Hulcys930 (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

That comment had nothing to do with this dispute, as Ms Hulcy well knows, although my reference to the fact that the pay rates and circulation of the magazine where the story was first published were both reported at the time to be substantially higher than those for the Morris anthology which later reprinted it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

That comment was in the editor's own words, addressing an edit he made to this very story and it's publishing history. At that time, there had been absolutely no discussion or comments regarding how much was paid for stories being published in an anthology. The comment means what it says.Hulcys930 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hullaballoo, could you cite your source here? My information is that the Heroes in Hell series paid 3 cents a word more than Asimov's. I base that on contracts I have seen for Heroes in Hell stories (8 cents a word) and contracts for Asimov's (5 cents a word) from that era. Original anthologies in general have paid better than most sf/f magazines. ("Original anthology" in this context means short story collections for which the short story is originally created.) Original anthologies also generally pay royalties, if earned out. Reprint anthologies will pay less, which may lead to your confusion in calling the Heroes in Hell series "low rent." They're original anthologies, though, and paid a respectable word rate.Dokzap (talk) 04:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

My source, as I recall, was a discussion at the lamented Science Fiction Shop in NYC involving an author who'd been published by Jim Baen, but not at that point by Baen Books, a woman who was working for an NYC-based publisher, and the late Baird Searles. A lot of "shop talk" could be heard there, at least when only "regulars" were around. Keep in mind that not all authors would get the same rate from a magazine, and that the premium for better-known authors was often relatively substantial. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, even if accurate content reflecting conventional use in standard reference works is not "acceptable" to a group of people with a conflict of interest regarding the subject. While not, perhaps, initially intended for a content dispute of this type, the Wikimedia Foundation's directive that Wikipedia articles "respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic" calls for us to use terminology consistent with that found in other, comparable reference works, not an idiosyncratic, self-serving usage devised by a small group of COI editors undocumented and otherwise unsupported by any independent sources. When one reviews the overall discussion, it is evident that the proposal here, aside from catering to a small group of editors trying to force Wikipedia to conform its articles to their publisher's PR copy, was not supported to a consensus of the full set of participating editors, and their exhaustion of the willingness of volunteer editors to respond to their extended, tendentious, and regularly uncivil comments does not demonstrate support. And Wikipedia would not be bound to use any nonstandard terminology in contracts to which it is not a party, just as it is not bound by the bylaws of an organization that it is not a member of. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The above is a very convoluted way of saying "If Wikipedia has been using terminology that is incorrect to keep from confusing their readers, it must be followed religiously, regardless of the errors, even when it portrays situations incorrectly." The following definitions are found in numerous locations on the internet. They are not difficult to understand and in no way impact any supposed "PR" issue being constantly asserted by HW. I seriously doubt that the term "respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic" was intended to be conflated with: one must use this terminology even if the wording of the conventional expectations of readers gives the reader an absolutely inaccurate understanding. If the terms used in Wikipedia for very simple situations are incorrect, they should be changed:

Finding Go! Matching Questions and Resources in Getting Published (Winterwolf, 2004)[[13]]

"First Serial Rights: This allows work to be excerpted in magazines or other periodicals.

Reprint: A book or other publication in its second or subsequent printing. If extensive changes have been made, it’s called, instead, an edition."

Since the exact terms of art under discussion are listed in many places on the internet (see above) and in other venues substantiating the fact that the terms in question are well-known and used constantly in contracts in the publishing industry, the assertion that said terms are "an idiosyncratic, self-serving usage devised by a small group of COI editors undocumented and otherwise unsupported by any independent sources" is obviously seriously inaccurate. I was not aware of the assertion by H.Wolfowitz that there were no "independent sources" listed to verify the definitions used throughout the publishing industry. There are plenty more if anyone requires them.

Aside from the fact that no one is asking that the words "first serial" or "originally published" be included in the publishing history of this story any longer, insisting that it is acceptable to provide incorrect/inaccurate information based on the excuse that the Wikipedia terminology must be strictly adhered to even when by doing so, the reader is left with a wholly different view of history is, once again, sophistry. When the "generally accepted" definition varies from a definition of a specific term of art in a specific industry in such a way as to completely controvert the actual meaning of the terms, it would be advisable to use the correct terms and, if the general consensus feels it is necessary, a short, simple in-place attribution should clear up any confusion that might occur. Most people who would be reading about the publishing history of any publication would probably be able to figure out the terms without much trouble if given a short, accurate definition.Hulcys930 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No, Ms Hulcy, once again you're just making up a straw man argument and attributing it to me, just like you made up that story about myself, Orangemike, and Dravecky spending years in a conspiracy to tag-team edit Janet Morris articles out of existence. You claim that standard reference bibliographies like Ashley & Contento's Supernatural Index and Gale Publishing's "Contemporary Authors" are misusing "terms of art" and that Wikipedia is therefore incorrect when it uses those terms in the same way that standard references do. And your "authority" for this rather unlikely claim is a self-published self-help book for writers? You know, if those definitions were correct and complete, as they're obviously not, "serial" right would only cover the publishing of excerpts, not complete works, and short stories could never be "reprinted." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As the guy who created Category:Novels by Janet Morris and worked to clean up every single one of these articles, I clearly suck at conspiring against, well, anybody. I think the current 'debate' has long since crossed the line from silly to foolish and, based on the conflicting published sources and the amount of energy this has taken away from actual writing by all involved, can only support a blandly neutral statement that the novella was published in both the magazine and the anthology with no assertion of primacy. It's time to stake this energy-vampire through the heart and move on. - Dravecky (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

But that's not the issue any more. Janet Morris/Guarddog2 acknowledged that the story first appeared in IASFM here [14]. Dokzap agreed that the publication history was accurate here [15]. What these users (claim to) object to is the presentation of accurate bibliographical information using the standard bibliographical terminology used in thousands of other Wikipedia articles. There aren't any "conflicting published sources", either; every reference bibliography, and every copyrights permissions page that has turned up, identifies IASFM as the story's first publication. The same Morris-associated editors who are trying to doctor the publication history here are trying to remove similar information about other stories from related articles, even though there has never been any dispute over the accuracy of that information. This is, fundamentally, the same issue that ended up with a batch of blocks for Morris-associated accounts last year: an effort to force Wikipedia articles to reflect the terminology and slant of the PR/hype for her businesses. That has no place on Wikipedia, and that's worth spending time and effort to prevent. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately, that is still the issue. GITO was published in both Asimov's and Rebels in Hell in the same year with the same publication month printed on both publications. Simple, neutral language to that effect is all that is needed. I have no idea why Wolfowitz keeps insisting on using incorrect terminology that will confuse the reader when a completely neutral listing is the solution. The story was written for Rebels in Hell and published in Asimov's as a first serial contemporaneously with the publication of the anthology. Baen Books is the publisher so stating that Asimov's is the "first publisher" simply confuses the issue. No one is even insisting on describing the Asimov publication as a "first serial" publication (which it was). The confusion disappears with a neutral, chronological listing, which has long been proposed as the solution to this edit war.

There is no connection between these pages in the present with any activity by others in the past, although H.Wolfowitz seems to think if he says that often enough he will override the current situation. I have no idea what the "Supernatural" and "Contento" publications mentioned above have to do with Wikipedia or these pages. A simple, neutral listing is in no way "reflect[ing] the terminology and slant of the PR/hype for [Janet Morris'] business." This has been the accusation from H.Wolfowitz since the beginning of this ridiculous situation and it is completely false, yet he claims it in every edit he reverts as the excuse to change the page back to the way he wants it, rather than what the consensus agreed to and to wording suggested by User:Lifebaka. I am at a loss to explain how "published in Asimov's and in Rebels in Hell in 1986" conflates with "they are trying to take over WP and make it their marketing tool." Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.Hulcys930 (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Story Type

The article starts with the words 'Gilgamesh in the Outback is a science fiction novella'. I believe that the story is around ten thousand words, which would make it a short story according to the SFWA definitions. There is also the issue of Genre. Technically Gilgamesh in the Outback is a Bangsian Fantasy. A careful read of it will show that it has none of the trappings usually associated with Science Fiction stories. Since the awards it won, and was nominated for are awards that are associated with SFWA, and since it is self evidently a Bangsian Fantasy, I would suggest changing the wording to 'Gilgamesh in the Outback is a Bangsian Fantasy short story'. Sorry if this sounds like minor quibbling, but I like getting the details right. Aspergers Syndrome you know. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

SFWA awarded it a Nebula as a novella (and it fit the WSFS definition of a novella for its Hugo Award win) so describing it as a short story would be neither prudent nor accurate. Saying it's a "Bangsian fantasy novella" (note capitalization) would be best. - Dravecky (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This issue can be tended to after some consensus is established about Lifebaka's suggestion.Hulcys930 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Right, the award was for novella. Sorry, suffering from Thanksgiving dinner overload, and I'm having problems thinking. Suspect I've gained twenty pounds. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Note that SFWA was founded as the Science Fiction Writers of America and then became the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America, but to remain using the same initials, is formally known as the Science-fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Somewhere along the way fantasy writers joined the organization and then Nebulas were allowed to be awarded to science fiction or fantasy works. That Gilgamesh in the Outback won a Nebula doesn't mean it is necessarily fantasy or science fiction, just an award given by a fantasy and science fiction writers organization. I think there's a tiny disclaimer on the bottom of the lucite block that says "No genre categorization should be inferred by the receipt of this award." OK, I'm kidding about that. I'll go with "fantasy," though as best describing GITO.Dokzap (talk) 06:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Dokzap

Actually, SFWA and the Nebula Awards covered fantasy from the beginning; the only change involved the name of the organization. There was a fantasy novelette nominated for the very first Nebulas, Leiber's "Four Ghosts in Hamlet"; the first fantasy novel to be nominated was Black Easter, in 1969; and Leiber's "Ill Met in Lankhmar" became the first fantasy to win a Nebula in 1971. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I know it wasn't particularly well-received, but is there a link anywhere for "The Land of the Living" as either a British or American novel? Maybe there is something on a UK novel site.Hulcys930 (talk) 02:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Refimprove|date=June 2011 Tag

One other point. Looking at the state of the citations, I believe that we can now remove the 'This article needs additional citations for verification' tag. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 21:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Since no one has commented to the negative, I have removed the tag. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 10:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Country of first Publication - Gilgamesh in the Outback = United States | To the Land of the Living = United Kingdom

Since no one is talking about why they are changing the 'Country' designation and I'm not psychic, I'm having to guess. Is it possibly because when Gilgamesh in the Outback was published in book form by Silverberg in the novel 'To the Land of the Living' that it was originally publishing in the UK? Or am I missing something? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Obviously that is the issue, but any excuse to accuse me of Conflict of Interest, promotional editing, removing "sourced" material, IP hopping, etc., etc., ad nauseum will be jumped on. I guess I just have to wait until someone higher than the present administrators involved decided to do something about a contentious editor who refuses to abide by consensus... a fact everyone seems to ignore. Probably because it is just too much trouble to go through all of the massive verbiage to evaluate the fact that this page keeps being changed to reflect a false reality - wrong publisher, wrong history of the creation of the story, and everything else.Hulcys930 (talk) 18:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight

With all the energy expended on this article, it remains woefully incomplete and gives undue weight to publication history while lacking a plot summary, critical reaction, awards and honors, and other basic features of this sort of article. - Dravecky (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. That is why the merge into the Heroes in Hell page needs to be completed, as per the consensus. There just isn't enough information to make a decent article about this story. There was enough information to make an article about the book it was contained in, but the consensus was that it be merged. When I went to merge it Hullaballoo Wolfowitz flipped out. You may have noticed that he doesn't pay attention to the consensus, UrbanTerrorist (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm still wondering where "the consensus" is. I haven't seen one that this page should be merged, and I doubt one that this page must be merged could exist (I, for one, would oppose it, as this story is clearly notable in its own right). Please point to it, via link. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The consensus was that all articles about books or stories in the series be merged, and that was done up to a certain point, where things stopped. When I tried to continue the merge I got outraged complaints that this article was not meant to be included, but the discussion did not exempt it. The discussion took place during an Articles for Deletion. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be against merger, purely on the basis of the Hugo win establishing independent notability, but this article needs to be about the novella—not just its publication history—and I don't see any progress in that direction. - Dravecky (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There has never been any consensus for merger of this article into the series article. The "consensus" UrbanTerrorist refers to the Lawyers in Hell AFD, where I proposed merging the thirteen individual book articles into the series articles. This story article was not included in the proposed merger. After that AFD closed as no consensus, User:I Jethrobot followed up by proposing that all the "book articles" be merged into the series article [16]; he did the heavy lifting there, although I handled one article that he missed, where all the relevant information was already in the series article. UrbanTerrorist then, without any prior discussion, redirected this article to the series article without preserving any content, but labelled his action as a merge. I reverted his action with the edit summary "rv, not previously discussed, and we do not merge Hugo-winning stories into low-rent series they're affiliated with". UrbanTerrorist responded with a string of (escalating) comments in various places which resulted in his being blocked for a while. His rather strange claim that I "flipped out" doesn't reflect what actually happened.

I agree that the article could use further expansion. The Morris band's repeated removal of undisputed information like the story's status as a sequel to Gilgamesh the King certainly goes in the wrong direction. I'm actually the only editor who's added material going beyond the publication history -- Silverberg's comments about how he game to write the story, as well as its relationship to other of his works (I'm still looking for an RS about its eventual linkage to his novel Lord of Darkness). As I've said elsewhere, I've been adding reception information to (hundreds of) sff articles over the last few months, as I go through crates of things that were packed away (and unhappily discard some flooding-damaged stuff), checking through the review sections in various magazines, for example -- but the storage was rather haphazard, so particular items aren't easy to locate until the appropriate box turns up. The last few crates haven't been very helpful, but who knows what's in the next layer. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The Consensus was that all articles about the series be merged. This is an article about the series, therefore the merge should be completed. The content in question already existed in the main article, with the exception of the edits which Hullaballoo Wolfowitz keeps adding in, against the consensus of the other editors. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

This article is not about a book in that series. It's about a Hugo Award-winning novella that happened to be included in one of these books and this independently notable. Perhaps a more careful review of the actual consensus is in order. Actually, it's moot in any case as consensus for this article is against merger, regardless of any earlier discussion. - Dravecky (talk) 06:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I seem to remember the following editors being in favor of the merge as well: Marcus Qwertyus, Luke Jaywalker, I, Jethrobot, Cordova829, Guarddog2, bluewillow991967, Hulcys930, Knihi, Dokzap, and Mzmadmike. Now it is quite possible that my memory isn't correct in all cases, why don't we post messages on their talk pages and find out what they think. After all, the important thing is to determine what the consensus is, isn't it? UrbanTerrorist (talk) 18:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the fact that this article has been described as "woefully incomplete" it would seem to be proper to put it under Rebels in Hell on the Heroes in Hell series page since the other two stories mentioned are listed under the volumes for which they were written. In the the Brian Thomsen source, Mr. Thomsen quotes Mr. Silverberg as being especially proud of the Hugo since it was the first awarded to a story in a shared world/universe. A search would still point to the story. MergeHulcys930 (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I was and am entirely in favor of this merger. Luke Jaywalker (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've finished letting everyone know about this. I've also offered those whose talk pages have gotten out of control my expertise at setting up Mizabot for archiving. However it appears that some of them have gafiated. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• This page has enough content to make a standalone article so I'm for keeping it. Just because it can be merged doesn't mean it should be. Marcus Qwertyus 16:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

This novella is a Hugo winner and Nebula nominee; I never thought for a moment that it was included in the merger decision about the volumes in the series! That would be absurd. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Agree. I do think we should continue with the merger for the rest of the articles, save for Gilgamesh in the Outback, since it won a Hugo. Question - do Hugo nominees count as "reputable" by Wiki standards? I couldn't make heads nor tales of the exacting definition, since it was only a nomination. Cordova829 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

User:UrbanTerrorist tells me an administrator needs "a show of hands" regarding the scope of merger discussions of the "xxx In Hell" articles. I doubt that and I wasn't involved at the time, but I have reviewed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lawyers_in_Hell and found that the article remained focused on articles about the books and should not be seen as achieving any consensus on articles about stories within the books. I noticed the closing administrator's remarks, "The result was no consensus. Its impossible to read anything into this nonsense. I suggest that this gets relisted and the editors who have been bludgeoning this discussion to the point of imcomprehensibility should restrict themselves to one comment each." It is most regrettable that some editors have continued to worry at and fight over the bones of articles touching on Janet Morris's books for months and have made few, if any, other contributions to the encyclopedia. It is to the credit of the editor whom antagonists now refer to as "one editor" (thus evading searches?) that he has carried on working on maintaining and improving Wikipedia across a wide range of subjects. I personally regret that I have not had the opportunity to engage with User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz on the point on which I disagree with him in the "xxx In Hell" articles as even the briefest conversation is interrupted by walls of words, threats and even the occasional utilitarian and swiftly withdrawn apology. In short, I am astounded and saddened that fine-tuning Wikipedia on such a trivial matter could become so important to anyone. There are much worse things in the world to be combated and much greater things to be achieved. NebY (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Humpf. Well, some users may have made few edits, but I've made a lot, most of them on highly technical subjects. I usually avoid silly stuff like this. However NebY does bring up an interesting point. All of the merge discussion did occur after the AfD, the language used was "All Pages", there were no exclusions mentioned. At least not until I tried to complete the merge, at which point various complaints were advanced. If you had not intended this article to be merged, you should have said so during the merge discussion. Since you didn't say so during the merge discussion, I think the merge should be completed, else the merge should be undone.

Another issue that should be considered is Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive135#Gilgamesh in the Outback which I've just found. It makes interesting reading. In it editor Hullaballoo Wolfowitz appears to be a side of one. The only editor who agreed with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. It is very unusual to find an editor standing alone. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, I'll point out that User:Dravecky initiated the post-AFD merger discussion here [17], referring to "each of the completely unreferenced sub-stubs for books in this series", and tagged all of the (book) articles he thought should be merged. When User:I Jethrobot carried out the merge proposal [18], he said "I have merged many of the books" and then referred to "Books not merged". UrbanTerrorist's claim that the merge proposal applied to "All Pages" therefore appears counterfactual. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of belaboring Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, the merger discussion he is talking about apparently happened while I was taking a one week wiki-vacation after the AfD. I had been told, though I doubt that I could find the words anymore and I can't remember who said them, there's no rush, take some time off. When I come back I found that a lot of things that I would not have agreed with had been done. I did however read what little discussion did take place, and the wording was all articles. I submit that all articles is a fairly simple term. If it had said all articles except for Gilgamesh in the Outback we would be dealing with a different situation.

In trying to complete the merge, I am being open and above board. I have tried to make certain that all of the editors involved have had their chance to comment. I went back through this entire discussion board and informed everyone who had every posted on it on their talk page about this discussion. I did the same with the Heroes in Hell discussion board. Some may be on a wiki-vacation. Others may not choose to make their opinion known. That's fine. I've done my part to make sure that they know that this discussion is occurring. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 02:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, I wish every Hugo-winning novella has its own standalone article and would never under any circumstances call for the merger of a properly referenced article about such a novella, novelette, or short story. If there is somehow confusion on this point, let it end here. - Dravecky (talk) 03:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

If User:UrbanTerrorist cannot find evidence to confirm his memory and the evidence that is found does not confirm his memory, we may have to assume that his memory is at fault. NebY (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understood the merge included all pages, including Gilgamesh in the Outback. I favor that. Advisory that I'm slightly involved, having written one story in this universe.Mzmadmike (talk) 01:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding of the Lawyers in Hell AfD was that it only covered the books in the Heroes in Hell series and not any of the story articles linked to in the books. Being a notable Hugo-winning novella, I believe that Gilgamesh in the Outback should remain a free-standing article. —Bruce1ee^talk 08:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Request Edit of locked page

The reference in the first paragraph that says

"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."

The words "which were also published in the Heroes in Hell series" [or the names of the specific books] should be added immediately after "Uruk." Otherwise it looks like he wrote the stories and they just sat on his desk until To the Land of the Living was created by merging the three stories.

In the Infobox, the Publisher field needs to have "Baen Books" added since the story was published in Rebels in Hell from Baen. Thank You.Hulcys930 (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Brian Thomsen Description of "Gilgamesh in the Outback" supporting addition of Baen Books as publisher and inclusion in the Rebels in Hell entry

The following is the actual summary of Gilgamesh in the Outback by Brian Thomsen, without any redacted words or phrases or selective editing:

'"Gilgamesh in the Outback" by Robert Silverberg started out as the author's entry in the shared world anthology series entitled Heroes in Hell created by Janet and Chris Morris. The story and its endearing supporting players that included Robert Howard and H.P. Lovecraft as well as the eponymous Sumerian himself in the afterlife went on to win a Hugo Award and inspired three more tales of Gilgamesh wandering through a landscape peopled with such historical luminaries as Prester John and Picasso on his way "to the land of the living," a destination that clearly resembles our world until he eventually winds up right back where he started in the Outback because even in the afterlife history repeats itself.' (See refs)

The above obviously supports the contention that, according to Mr. Thomsen, Mr. Silverberg wrote the story for the Heroes in Hell series, specifically for Rebels in Hell and was printed in Asimov's Science Fiction,(See refs) as a "first sequel." The neutral, chronological listing suggested by lifebaka simply indicating the story was published in Asimov's and Rebels in Hell should replace the present publishing history, without reference to "first serial" "originally published" or any other verbiage.

The inaccurate description text of the page which attempts to show the story as having been written independently of the shared world anthology, and then "reprinted" in 'Rebels in Hell' later, needs to be edited to reflect the truthful genesis of the story.

Refs:

Thomsen, Brian; Greenberg, Martin H., eds (March 2006). Novel Ideas — Fantasy. New York, NY: DAW Books. pp. 1-2 (introductory material). ISBN 978-1-101-15755-8).

The Supernatural Index:A Listing of Fantasy, Supernatural, Occult, Weird, and Horror Anthologies, Mike Ashley & William G. Contento, Greenwood Press, 1995, p.507 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hulcys930 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would care to explain for us, Ms Hulcy, how the existing language in the article, which I added, "writing a story for the "Heroes in Hell" project", in any way suggests that the story was not written for that project. You have been making this absurd argument, over and over, for months without ever explaining it, and it is hard to see it as anything other than utterly and completely divorced from reality. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)