Talk:Marion Zimmer Bradley

recent discussion of abuse allegations

There is some discussion below of a primary source of the child abuse that went on. One of the victims, the daughter, has just published a whole book on it, which I just finished reading, which is a primary source. That book also has many other source documents in it - not just the court case, also primary sources. In addition, the son, another victim, has given an interview, another primary source. "The Last Closet: The Dark Side of Avalon".

MZB frequently referenced the same things in her books, incest, pedophilia, ritualistic abuse, as suggested even in the primary article IE "I was a lesbian". Suggest those literally references be listed along with what occurred in real life, and the below about blogs being not a primary source archived as irrelevant now.

---

ARCHIVE BELOW -- add sources above to main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:A552:8200:68EF:8E6B:7587:341 (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you NeilN for your comment below. My revised comment: Previous talk page discussion, including recent comments by MZB's daughter on several matters, are currently archived and accessible via the archive link on this page. Arguably the most significant discussion there comes from several years ago, and debated whether or not to continue including allegations based on legal testimony/cases that apparently implicate MZB in complicity with crimes against minors. A pretty good sense of what this entails can be gathered from the current version of the entry on MZB's husband Walter H. Breen. Both of these individuals are now deceased. I believe that some discussion of these matters, which became in the 1960s and in some ways remain to this day a shattering controversy in the world of organized science fiction and fantasy fandom (search terms "breen boondoggle" "breendoggle"), belongs in the MZB article as well. Praghmatic (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The talk page wasn't deleted but archived - you can access it by clicking the "1" in the archive box. This is usually done when conversations are no longer active. Most of the conversations were last active 5-7 years ago. The single conversation active this year was last posted to over a month ago. I don't recommend bringing these old conversation back, but if you must, copy them from the archive to here and then delete them from the archive, leaving edit summaries indicating what you are doing. That way, we don't have duplicate copies. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@Praghmatic: In order to discuss changes to the article, there needs to be reliable sources that cover potential content. A cursory search reveals only blogs/tweets. Do you have anything that is of higher-quality? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: This is the main source for the recent accusations. The author of the post knows Moira Greyland, MZB's daughter. Supposedly, Greyland sent the author an email from her personal address, and Greyland is active in the comments section of this article. In absence of any conflicting evidence, I believe there's sufficient reason to believe the article is legit and, therefore, the article should be given the same importance as one authored by Greyland herself. The depositions (posted in 2000) can be read as further support of Greyland's claims, but inferences are not ironclad. Corax rarus (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A blog is not a reliable source. The fact that you (an editor with exactly one edit) tell us that the blogger knows Moira Greyland, and that the blogger "supposedly" received the email directly from Moira Greyland is not going to make the blog reliable. As for your statement that Greyland has been active on this talk page, we don't know that. An editor who claimed to be Moira Greyland made exactly one edit to this page, and never responded when the edit was removed and a polite, detailed message was left on her talk page explaining why. I'll leave instructions on her talk page on how to go about proving her identity if she wants to edit under her own name. Meters (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"The fact that you (an editor with exactly one edit) tell us..." is a poor argument (although apt given the argument over MZB's works). And I'm not referring to the Talk page. Anyhow, how reliable of a source is Moira Greyland's public Facebook page? It's connected to Greyland's official website (http://moiragreyland.com/), and it's "official" (just as Twitter celebrities are "official"). I'm not sure if everyone can see her June 12 post, but she verifies that the article is legitimate. Corax rarus (talk) 05:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

These kinds of things need to be reported on by high-quality secondary sources before they make it into the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised at the lack of inclusion in this article, but then I did a search and discovered the lack of reliable sources. Perhaps sometimes soon this will be picked up by a serious news outlet. However, her contributions to Breen's writings are known and perhaps are noteworthy. 174.56.118.119 (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The library and publishing news site Teleread has reported on the controversy. Is this considered a reliable news source? http://www.teleread.com/writing/marion-zimmer-bradley-child-abuser-says-daughter/ Artemis-Arethusa (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Any secondary source is going to be relying on this publicly-available primary source (Greyland's verified/official Facebook). As for reliable sourcing, MZB is deceased so that restriction does not apply. Could we mention it as "Greyland claims..." which then leaves us with WP:SELFSOURCE? I don't see which of the 5 SELFSOURCE rules it would violate (MZB is not a third party, this would not be an "exceptional" claim, etc) Corax rarus (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

In this situation, it would be considered an exceptional claim. Mike V • Talk 22:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Meters, thank you for leaving Moira the information on how to prove her identity; I'm helping her with that. (I've known her since our teens.) (edited to add signature) Zentomologist (talk) 04:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

These allegations have been circulated within the SciFi/Fantasy communities for years (as well as within the court case), so I jumped to thinking that this wasn't that extraordinary. However, I see how this could be a conflict of interest and/or out of character if someone is not familiar with MZB's history (her deposition was considered very out of character when it first went public).

Zentomologist: If this is the case, I'm not too sure that proving Moira's identity as the Wikipedia editor will help, since she's still the author of the primary source and the potential issues for exceptional claims would still be present. Corax rarus (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The question I have is the following: If no "reliable source" picks this up, does that mean there is no chance this information will be added to the Wikipedia page? What is actually in dispute? If you look at Moira Greyland's comments on this Facebook post she confirms that she sent the E-Mail to Deidre and is the one who comments on Deidre's posts. So there is no doubt the allegations of child abuse against MZB come directly from her. Are you saying that her allegations alone are not credible enough to be included in the page? How would this be changed by a "reliable source" documenting her allegations? Sirana (talk) 08:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, the Guardian picked it up. This should be enough to include it in the page by any standard. Sirana (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014

The "Last Whole Earth Catalog", August 1972 edition, page 218, contains a letter from MZB about the possible dangers of home birth without access to professional medical assistance; it describes the near-disastrous birth of her third child. 69.72.24.37 (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 13:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Son's Request for Privacy

Patrick Breen would like his current name to NOT be linked to his birth name on his mother's wikipedia page. I have done that on the current page; if there's a way to remove it from the older copies, could an admin do that? I hope his privacy can be both respected and protected. Zentomologist (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Update 27 June 2014: Mark Greyland (previously Patrick Breen) has given permission for his current name to be used. Zentomologist (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Religion section

Bradley was a powerful influence on Neo-paganism, yet there was only a passing mention with none of her actual accomplishments listed. I've listed several of them with citations (and ran it past her daughter first, to make sure I wasn't putting up anything the family had requested not be posted). Zentomologist (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"Kittenish"

The noted critic Damon Knight has written[22] "Her work is distinctively feminine in tone, but lacks the clichés, overemphasis and other kittenish tricks which often make female fiction unreadable by males."

Good God, but this is sexist. Really, Wikipedia? This needs to be in the article?

Imagine substituting a race for a gender in that quote: "His work...lacks the cliches, overemphasis and other tricks which often make black fiction unreadable by whites."

````Stacy

I agree. What a horribly insulting quote to use in an otherwise balanced article. 140.209.60.226 (talk) 20:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

The way I interpreted that quote was "She was such a good writer that she managed to break through and make a name for herself even in the face of overtly sexist book critics." [I have no personal opinion on her writing, never read it.] I didn't think Wikipedia was endorsing Damon Knight's perspective, but rather showing a sample of critics at the time.

And Damon Knight was the husband of Kate Wilhelm. One can only imagine the drama. In any event the quote is sexist. But it's Damon Knight being sexist. Wikipedia isn't at fault for recording it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:143F:1800:29DD:800C:4A7F:DB62 (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of abuse in the lead

The reference to the allegations of sexual abuse has been removed from the lead by Sandstein. The reason given was "Considering that these accusations have just been made, they are not yet a prominent enough part of her bio to be mentioned in the lead." I disagree with this. I think it is important that such controversial developments are reflected in the lead and I have not found anything in the Manual of Style (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Biographies_of_living_persons -I am aware that MZB is not alive any more, but it is the most closely fitting section-) that something should be kept out of the lead, because it is too current. Also it should be noted that the allegations have been published on June 10, even if they have only been picked up by the Guardion on June, 27. If you believe the allegation should be kept out of the lead I would like you to post your criteria of when/under what condition they should be included. Thank you for your input. Sirana (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. This isn't a BLP issue, as the subject is dead. Per MOS:LEAD, "The lead ... should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies. ... The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." The abuse allegations are a prominent controversy, but they are based on a single blog post a day or so old. This means that they can't be seen by reliable sources to be as significant as the whole rest of Zimmer Bradley's biography put together - but that's how the lead would have appeared, judging by the length of the text added. Moreover, the lead is supposed to be a summary, but the text added would have been as long or longer than what is in the main article about the allegations. In brief, the text I removed from the lead would have given the issue undue weight within the lead, and would have looked like WP:RECENTISM. I imagine that if the issue keeps receiving coverage in mainstream media, a brief mention in a (somewhat expanded) lead would be appropriate.  Sandstein  17:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be very careful about including something "based on a single blog post a day or so old" in the article at all. We aren't news media. Jonathunder (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift reply and clarification, Sandstein. If there is more coverage about this I will expand the part about the allegations in the biography and add a summery in an expanded lead, if that is warranted. I would wish to add that this is not "based on a single blog post a day or so old". The Guardian article that is referenced is not only based on the blogpost (which was written on June 10) but also on comments Moira Greyland has made directly to the Guardian and the story has since been reported by the Washington Post. as well.Sirana (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your Washington Post link takes us to a piece by Alyssa Rosenberg who "blogs about pop culture for The Washington Post's Opinions section" as indicated there. It's an essay, not a news article. Jonathunder (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been covered in the Guardian, the WashPo, Bild and a number of fantasy/sci-fi publications. Given the fact that she is dead, I'm not sure how much more attention any fact about her could possibly get. As others have expressed, it's unlikely that this controversy is ever going to get a fair and complete hearing. Nevertheless, it's clearly of signal importance to understanding her life and placing her work into context -- and many of the facts, such as her testimony in court and her ex-husbands convictions, are indisputable. Nathan <sup>T</sup> 23:51, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Homoeroticism

Nothing is said here of the frequent criticism that MZB, especially in later Darkover works, seemed to excessively dwell on male homoerotic encounters. I haven't read up on her stuff in ages, but I recall this being a big "why we're not reading 'Darkover' any more" issue among fans in the late 80s, early 90s.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽<sup>ʌ</sup>ⱷ҅<sub>ᴥ</sub>ⱷ<sup>ʌ</sup>≼  01:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that it be added, it will need to be reliably sourced or it will just be POV or OR. I doubt that it was a big enough deal to have been covered in anything that would qualify as a reliable source. Meters (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How would you define "excessively"? The late '80s were quite homophobic. VasyaPetrovna (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Dead link

I don't know how to indicate this in a citation, but footnote #18 ("Marion Zimmer Bradley In Her Own Words") leads to a dead link.

The Stephen Goldin site has been mirrored at http://deirdre.net/stephen-goldin-mzb/ - I'll update links in the article. Argyriou (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Split

For split. It needs to be redirected to its special bibliography page.The Mad Hatter (talk)

• Oppose. Readable prose size of page is 19 kB, far below the 50 kB line that WP:SPLIT even begins to consider too big, and I don't see any justification for a WP:FORK based on content. —swpb<sup>T</sup> 18:34, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. It would be preferable to make the bibliography less than complete; an overview of works is an important part of articles on writers and other creative artists, and it is preferable to have that overview within the biography to set what is said elsewhere in context, but if the length is excessive there is no reason for us to list every last thing a writer published, especially if we have articles on series to link to. However in this case, I see no reason to doubt swpb's statement that the article is not too long per the standards established by consensus, so there is no clear reason to reduce it that way either. Yngvadottir (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Would the proposer of the split care to actually give a reason for the split? "It needs to be" is not even close to a reasonable rationale. It's not large enough to need to be split, and the bibliography is a key part of an article about an author. Meters (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Weak support: Often, authors with extensive works have a better quality biography if the bibliography is split off. At least, perhaps have this put into a chart format or have proper, full citations. Montanabw<sup>(talk)</sup> 21:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: The bibliography is long enough to justify a separate page: I looked at a "random sampling" of 20 author bibliography pages (from "Bibliographies by writer", E's and F's) -- exactly half of them were shorter than Bradley's and half were longer. But that alone is not really enough to justify a split if the rest of the page is (as swpb says) less than half of the recommended "split" size. Darrah (talk) 12:45, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Usually it isn't a question of the article's size, it's a question of flow and readability. Also, how long the published works list is, which in this case is very long. But I think that it is also best to maybe focus on improving the article itself. Montanabw<sup>(talk)</sup> 02:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: What is the problem of keeping full Categories of Fantasy and Sci-fi bibliographies, when so many authors, really need split pages and respected Darrah said many are half that big and half that small? As a librarian and information scientist, I believe that bibliographies should be divided if too big and really author is young or not that productive through his life-time. Kindest regards guys: The Mad Hatter (talk)
• Oppose at present: there is no point in splitting the list of titles into its own low-quality article with no sources and no added value. The main article would still need information about her output. I suggest the OP and any other interested editors start improving the current article to the point where a split would offer clear benefits and result in two high-quality articles. The main article needs extra well-sourced prose content covering things like an overview of each series, evolution of writing style, character development and portrayal, critical responses, ... The list would need sources (which databases were consulted to prepare the list, at a minimum), publishing history, ISBNs, details of cover art where available, a tabulation of information about each book (as we already have in List of Darkover books for that series), ... . --Mirokado (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support I think the section on the bibliography can have it's own section with a basic introduction here and a link to the list of works.--Taeyebaar (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
• Comment There are enough bibliography-sites like Sci Fan and Fantastic Fiction that provide good cover for much of the novels and the respected article can be turned a bit smaller and more readable in size than the current mash up and it can also lighten-up the article and put further motion into editing the main bibliography-page further. The Mad Hatter (talk)

Biography

No mention in biography of marriage, 25 year relationship to Walter Breen? Nor, in the section on accusations of his convictions for child abuse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.51.140 (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you should actually read the article? Their marriage, separation, and divorce are all covered in the very first section Marion Zimmer_Bradley#Biography. Meters (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Breen never convicted before 1990; "verbal molestation" of a high-school student

Breen had never been "convicted several times for child molestation" by the time of the late 1970s, which is the time that Moira Greyland had been referring to in her quotes and statements. In fact, when Breen was convicted in 1990, it was over one single accusation referring to 1989, and he was never convicted for anything but that one accusation of a single 1989 event. Moreover, it is of heightened importance that the 1989 accusation came from an interested party that obviously intended to prevent their own going to prison over child abuse and neglect by means of said accusation against Breen. In fact, this sole source remained under legal inverstigation as both a suspect and then even a defendant for years after Breen's death regarding false accusations and that they had tried to blame their own crimes on Breen. After MZB's death a further few years down the line, the legal charges and the investigations against the source were suddenly dropped overnight by means of an "out-of-court settlement", as if the entire purpose of the entire Breen issue had been to drive MZB into the grave.

All other supposed "convictions" of Breen's not relating to one single event in 1989 are ultimately sourced to one private, deleted website started by this one interested party that was trying to avoid going to prison by blaming one single act in 1989 on Breen, and it is exactly this where the sources linked in this current article have literally and liberally quoted from, making personal statements on behalf of that private website look like legal documents where not even that one website claimed those would be legal statements, as they were rather the website author's own speculations out of thin air. The best that website could actually come up with is a mid-1950s arrest for "lewd behavior" with a 21-or-22-year-old male that Breen was affiliated with at the time, but because some newspapers didn't find the old legal files decades later and only a two-line 1950s note in a local newspaper instead (which is what the website was working with as its only legal source to Breen's life prior to 1989, that one vague friggin' tiny newspaper note!), post-1990 they claimed this one single "arrest" would also refer to a "conviction" over "child molestation". For the entire issue of Breen's and all the *ACTUAL* legal documents for Breen and MZB's entire lifelong legal records, see Talk:Walter H. Breen#Article lacks quite a lot of official statements and commits and/or cites spurious synthesis.

So that's that, on to Greyland's accusations. They entirelly consist out of two things that were fully legal then and remain so to this day:

• a.) When Greyland was in her mid-20s during the late 1970s, on one single day Breen tried to unsuccessfully solicit her "17 or 18"-year-old boyfriend by verbal means while she was away at university. Decades later, Greyland refers to this one purely verbal incident when she was in her mid-20s as successfully completed child rape of both her and her boyfriend because of how hurt she felt that Breen was "breaking her trust" and "trying to invade their relationship". A decade after the event, she tried to legally report Breen over it during the late 1980s (which is what this one article pretty much refers to as "she reported him over his many acts of child molestation and had him convicted for it several times"), but since the entire anecdote constituted no illegal act whatsoever, Breen was never even investigated over it. Greyland and her brother are still talking about this one anecdote as a form of "completed child rape" today that they had to deal with.

• b.) In light of all the nonsense that was heaped upon Breen and MZB and that also fills both her and his WP articles, Greyland now also claims that the very fact that Breen was living in the same house with her and her mom during the 1960s while she was "from the age of three to 12" would *ALSO* constitute "child abuse". --2003:EF:13C1:CE30:A5FD:2912:5504:2CDE (talk) 04:23, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Breen was first convicted in 1954 for child sex abuse. [Unsigned comment]

He wasn't. See the sources linked above. He was arrested for one night because of a homosexual affair with a man over 21. --46.93.158.170 (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I edited it because I just found out about this today, and I think the abuse she facilitated for Breem is far more established, in her own words in deposition. Sapphiremind (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

References

"Ghostwritten" inaccurate?

Currently in the Bibliography, the Shadow's Gate series is annotated as (ghostwritten by Rosemary Edghill): the link is to an extended interview with Edghill (real name eluki bes shahar [sic]).

The process "Edghill" describes is one of her revising and expanding unpublished manuscripts by Bradley, with the latter's full co-operation. My feeling is that this does not constitute "ghostwriting", but rather co-authorship, albeit with one collaborator uncredited on the published books, and suggest that the annotation should be amended accordingly. The Rosemary Edghill article lists these books as being written "with Marion Zimmer Bradley". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.129.143 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

In the absence of any response (either pro or anti) over a period of 8 months, I'm going to go ahead and modify the article accordingly. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.73.1 (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Wording is Odd

>>Noted for the feminist perspective in her writing, her reputation has been posthumously marred by her daughter Moira Greyland's accusations of child sexual abuse, and for allegedly assisting her second husband, convicted child abuser Walter Breen, in sexually abusing multiple unrelated children.

These weren't just "accusations". They were founded in fact. Her reputation was only marred by her own actions. Why is this written in a way that blames these victims? 71.121.233.132 (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree and just changed this LeslieCarr (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)