Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:07, 25 September 2008

An editor has reassessed this article to determine if it meets the good article criteria and so can be listed as a good article. The article was delisted. For further information see the reassessment page.

	Alan Moore was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 17, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted March 8, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 15, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted July 8, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 22, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Arts and Entertainment This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.

Factural accuracy: Marital Status

I just recently added the detail that Melinda Gebbie is Moore's fiancée, based on the article and interview in the August 23, 2006 Village Voice, but I then scrolled further down and saw that it asserts that she's his wife. Have they gotten married within the past two and a half months? Can anyone confirm what their marital status is with a source? Thanks. Nightscream 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Reference 17 (northants echo) which is dated 08 November 2006 refers to Melinda Gebbie as his fiancee, this suggests to me that they are not married. Though they are now co-habiting, which is interesting after i read an interview some years back extolling the joys of both having their own houses —Foxydavid 15:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

They are married. It's not an RS, but Neil Gaiman blogged about the wedding in about... October? September? As it's fairly non-controversial, I'll find some coverage and post it. ThuranX (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

One: Our own page on her: Melinda_Gebbie. Two, this which cites NG's blog. Finally, Half way down the first page 'married earlier this year], article written 2007. ThuranX (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaiman's blog would be reliable enough for this if you asked me, but the extra one's don't hurt. Gaiman is in his sphere of expertise and his views are published in reliable publications. Hiding T 16:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

Can we have some discussion about the second paragraph of the introduction? It's my opinion that the whole thing should be removed, influences should be listed under influences in the photo box. The actual content of this paragraph other than the list of influences almost non-existent, I believe it pushes the actual valuable content further down the page. Look up almost any author on Misplaced Pages; you won't normally find a list of influences in the second paragraph. I think that it's symptomatic of a comics "community" craving acceptance by readers of non illustrated literature and I for one think it's time to admit that that acceptance is already there when someone arrives at this page; what's important is to and present some good encycopedic content.

I disagree very strongly. Any artist's influences are important and should not be neglected. Specifically in Moore's case, a large part of the impact he made was down to him having a wider range of influences than the average comics writer in the early 80s. Along with the likes of Bryan Talbot and Grant Morrison, he is part of a movement that stems from the New Wave science fiction writers of the 60s and 70s. To include his influences is to place his work in context and tell the reader something about his work. To ignore them and treat him in isolation is uninformative and risks becoming a cult of personality. Such an approach is sadly not uncommon - the article on Bill Sienkiewicz mentions his influence on other artists, but not that he was influenced by artists like Neal Adams, Barron Storey and Ralph Steadman, and Glenn Fabry's article doesn't mention the influence of Moebius or Gustave Courbet, but they should, and if I can find appropriate references they will. --Nicknack009 22:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well what you have written makes more sense and reads better than what is there. I think that phrases like "a large part of the impact he made was down to him having a wider range of influences than the average comics writer in the early 80s. Along with the likes of Bryan Talbot and Grant Morrison, he is part of a movement that stems from the New Wave science fiction writers of the 60s and 70s." Should be in the article but the list itself should be moved to the list of influences in the data box or whatever it's called under his photo on the right. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.20.47.30 (talk) 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

Comic Strip Cartoonists

Can somebody please cite a reason as to why he is included in the comic strip cartoonists? To the extent of my knowledge, that is a misrepresentation of what he does. Comic books are generally not the same as comic strips, though they might have at one time been quite similar. Unless of course, he actually has done comic strip writing before, in which case I withdraw my statement. But I'd like a reason. Jjmckool 07:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the "early work" section you'll see he started out drawing comic strips for British music magazines and a local newspaper. --Nicknack009 16:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, I lays my head down in defeat. Didn't read the whole article, my bad. Jjmckool 23:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

GA status

After taking a look at the article, as well as its many failed FA candidacies, I think that the same issues raised in the FA reviews might bar the article from GA status. The article was promoted to GA status about a year and a half ago, but the GA criteria have changed dramatically since then (in fact I think there were no criteria at all in Jan 2006). The main problems as far as I see them, are that many of the fair-use images either lack a rationale or don't give it's source. There are also many sections that are under referenced or not referenced at all. That is in addition to some of the other points brought up in the FA reviews. I wanted to bring this up here to give editors and contributors a chance to work on the article and hopefully improve it based on the GA criteria. Otherwise, I'll nominate the article for GA review soon. Drewcifer3000 05:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've hidden the images lacking rationales. To be honest, I'm not sure we need as many as we have. Beyond that, I agree that there are problems with this article. Some kind of outside review might not go amiss. --Mark H Wilkinson 08:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Politics

I added a link to an interview regarding his anarchist leanings. I will add a politics section sometime in the next week.  ;) veganbikepunk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganbikepunk (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bits and bobs

Things that might be useful include:

• Interview with the Daily Telegraph
• Ragnarok - his first film

Picked them up via Lying in the Gutters and thought they could come in handy. (Emperor 02:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

Another - an interview about anarchy. (Emperor 14:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC))

V for Vendetta Template

I'm removing this template from all its articles:

Which, I agree, is fairly provocative. However, I don't see how "V for Vendetta" deserves this on its own, or what useful information it provides. Surely the links in the articles are sufficient? If people want to revert my changes, that's fine by me. But please reply to this post so we can get a discussion started. At the moment I see no reason why the template should exist. Maccy69 13:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

We are discussing comic-specific categories on the Comics Project talk page and the suggestion is to make them into such navboxes and this would include the V for Vendetta one. (Emperor 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC))

I've reverted my previous edit and requested a template deletion instead, see below. Maccy69 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:V for Vendetta

Template:V for Vendetta has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Maccy69 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

External links removal rationale

Hello. Although the EL removal looked extreme, I thought it is warranted. Please see discussion below.

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

• Alan Moore on split from DC/V for Vendetta
• Roger Whitson writes on Alan Moore's relationship with William Blake in Watchmen
• "To Hell with Alan Moore" an overview of movies based on the works of Alan Moore
• Alan Moore speaks to his personal politics with Strangers In A Tangled Wilderness
• Index of interviews
• Alan Moore interviewed on Get Fresh (YouTube clip)

Although I think the sites above have good content, they could be used as references to imporve the article, but not as an EL.

1. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

• America's Best Comics
• Alan Moore on Marvel.com
• 4ColorHeroes Moore For Free

Even if the idea is to send the reader to the way of content, there is many more links that could be used here for his past work... in this case maybe it would be better to use a DMOZ tag. Thoughts? --Legionarius (talk) 18:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The clause "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" under "Links normally to be avoided" does not give you licence to remove almost any link, as you appear to believe. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a collection of all knowledge on a given subject, so your interpretation of this clause is incorrect. Most of the links given are interviews with Moore, and no matter how good or how comprehensive this article got, the words of the man himself would be a resource beyond what the article could provide. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Any particular reason why Mr Moore's details appear to be in the "writer" infobox rather than the "comics creator" one..? ntnon (talk) 03:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Biography and personal life

I have removed a surname from this section as I do not believe these details should be published on the internet without that person's consent. I appreciate the information has been widely available for some years, and still is available quite easily, but I do not think that it is something that should be included on a Misplaced Pages entry without that person's consent. Its seems prurient and tabloidy to me. I am Mr Moore's daughter, and I know that all parties involved have now got different partners, and apart from my father, they have normal day jobs too. I would appreciate it if my deleting this name was respected, and it not be replaced in the text. --Leah Moore (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Alan Moore Artwork

Hello, I have in my possession two posters that Alan Moore produced to support social causes - one is from the early 1980s and one is from the year 2007. Would they be helpful additions to the article? (I can scan them). --Killerofcruft (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Philosophy

I'm going to request a bit of assistance on this one, since I'm busy on multiple projects. I'm going to try to pull together a "Philosophy" section – perhaps a subsection of his biography, although we may have enough for a whole section onto itself, as he has been interviewed about it often. This is for any of his spiritual, political, and philosophical positions. Anything regarding religion, sexuality, aesthetics, environmentalism, anarchism, and anything you can think of. I'll try to write it up in a few days and continue as we go.--Cast (talk) 03:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

no matter what his views are, this page really doesn't belong in "WikiProject Philosophy", which is where it is now, strangely.70.55.55.235 (talk) 00:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is appropriate. Take a look at the banner. Mr. Moore is listed under the WP Philosophy "Anarchist Task Force", due to his anarchist philosophy. The task force isn't just focused on articles explaining anarchist philosophy, but also on anarchist biographies. Alan Moore has repeatedly expressed his anarchist views in interviews, and used them as the basis for V for Vendetta. He has also used his philosophical views as the basis for other books, such as his exploration of ethics in Watchmen, the sex-positive perspective in Lost Girls, and also his environmentalist and anti-nuclear approach to Swamp Thing. The Philosophy banner is appropriate for this article; we just need to create a philosophy section for it.--Cast (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be able to get something associated with this from - see, for example, the section above - his work/support/posters for various charities. A Northampton Council Housing one was a recent instance, which surely implies a philosophical position akin to socialism... (Or something.) ntnon (talk) 02:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, and I'll look into them, but so we're clear, I don't want to make any leaps and state he has positions based on implication. I want quotes where he lays out his personal opinions in notable interviews.--Cast (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course. I would suspect this instance would have been covered in a local paper, but I'm sure I recall mention in another interview, too. I'll try and have a look later on for you. Are you working on the section online, offline or 'later on'..? ntnon (talk) 03:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to work on it on the actual article space, as working from a sandbox can limit the amount of input generated from browsing users, and working on it offline always leaves the possibility that it may be lost. By editing-as-I-go I can at least avoid losing my updates, even if it will increase the article history menu exponentially (I have a habit of constantly having to correct myself, or second guessing edits, causing relatively small changes to take place over the course of a dozen even smaller edits.) I would like to just compile as many links to online sources on a small list right here, on this section of the talk page. All the same, I'm not editing the article right now, as I'm taking a break from my usual wiki-projects, like the anarchism task force, and by extension, this anarchist biography. I'll get to it in time, but you may feel free to begin editing it as you wish. I'll put a few source links down right now. (Note, this isn't an attempt at "source solicitation". I just can't think of a better place to put such a list. Seems appropriate for it to be here, anyway.) --Cast (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Alan Moore commentary on:

• magic, religion, and fundamentalist Christianity:Alan Moore interview with Stewart Lee, on Youtube.
• anarchism: Authors on Anarchism, on Infoshop.org
• anarchism: Alan Moore interview on V for Vendetta and anarchism, on Youtube
• literature, art, environmentalism, and fantasy: Monsters, Maniacs and Moore, series on Youtube.
• fantasy: Alan Moore on the value of fantasy, on Youtube
• life transformation: Alan Moore Steve Bissette on Prisoners of Gravity, on Youtube.
• art & literature: Inside Out East 21/03/08, on Youtube
• Pornography vs. Erotica, and sexuality: Alan Moore interview on Lost Girls, on Youtube.
• the role of dystopian fiction, as commentary on the present: The Mindscape Of Alan Moore - Excerpt 1 - V, on Youtube.
• censorship, freedom of speech, etc.: Protest

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Alan Moore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article does not meet the Good article criteria. The following are issues that need to be resolved for this article to keep its Good article status:

• There are too many paragraphs that go unreferenced, including most of the "Comics career" section
• Most of the references are not formatted per WP:CITE/ES to include at least a publisher and access date.

Once these issues have been resolved, please respond back here. Thank you. Gary King (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to walk me through this, because I can't see either as part of the good article criteria. Hiding T 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:GA? says "Factually accurate and verifiable". Gary King (talk) 14:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see that. It doesn't demand inline citations though. And you have yet to explain the publisher and access date issue. I don't see where your assertions are based in the guidance page linked. There is a reference section as required, which lists the work required to verify the relevant paragraphs, and I don't see where publisher is demanded for good articles, the guidance only requires it for Featured Articles, and there's no requirement in that page to provide an access date. How do you want to go forwards from here? I'd like to work out what the issues are and work out how to fix them, if that's okay? Hiding T 19:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, well first of all there is no policy that applies only to featured articles; technically speaking, the policies apply to all articles, but featured articles are just scrutinized more than any other article. Good article reviews and assessments are up to individual reviewers to decide whether or not articles meet the requirements; when I do reviews, I'm fairly strict, but when doing reassessments, I usually just bring it up only if it's a major issue. And the major issue here is that there is too much information that does not have a source; it cannot be assumed that the reader should take all of this as true when there are no references to back it up. Gary King (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You may need to re-read WP:CS: The name of the publisher, city of publication, and ISBN are optional, although publisher is generally required for featured articles. That clearly states that certain guidance only applies to Featured Articles. As to the assessments, if they are based on one person's opinion I'd suggest, with respect, they're a busted flush per WP:CONSENSUS. And the article is referenced. The works required to verify the information are listed at Alan_Moore#References. The reader is not expected to take it as true. The reader is provided with the sources. Hiding T 19:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are the inline references for the following paragraphs:

• "After the failure"
• "In March 2006 Moore"
• "After dropping out of school,"
• "Deciding he could"
• "Of his work during this period"
• "Moore's British work "
• "Moore's run on Swamp Thing"
• "The limited series Watchmen,"
• "Alongside roughly contemporaneous "
• "In 1987 Moore submitted"
• "Moore's relations with"
• "A variety of projects "
• "After prompting by cartoonist"
• "Moore contributed two serials"
• "Lost Girls, with artist Melinda Gebbie"
• "He also wrote a graphic novel"
• "With Moore's much anticipated"
• "After several years out "
• "Tapping into the early issues"
• "The series was to have concluded"
• "Following 1963, Moore worked"
• "After working on Jim Lee's"
• "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, a team-up"
• "Tom Strong, a post-modern"
• "Top 10, a deadpan police procedural"
• "Promethea, a superheroine explicitly"
• "Tomorrow Stories was an anthology series"
• "Before publication, Lee sold Wildstorm"
• "Moore plotted the six issue mini-series"
• "The last straw came when producer"
• "This latest conflict between Moore "
• "The re-release of V for Vendetta i"
• "Moore has won numerous "
• "Moore has been nominated"
• "He received the Harvey Award f"
• "In addition, he received nominations fo"
• "He has also received th"
• "Comics publisher Top Shelf release"
• "Moore has also written short stories"
• "Moore has written one screenplay"
• "Alan Moore participated and starred "
• "Several of his books such as From Hell, "
• "He has also made brief forays into music. "
• "Moore co-wrote the song "Leopardman At C&A" w"
• "Moore is a practicing magician who worships "

Gary King (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• We seem to be starting from the position that inline citation are a requirement for everything. That's not how I read the relevant policies and guidance. Hiding T 20:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN says "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Gary King (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. So which statements in particular are you challenging. I find it odd that you'd challenge a statement such as "Also in 2006, he appeared on the BBC's The Culture Show". That's cited as is, it's verifiable to the primary source. Which particular statements are causing you issues? Hiding T 20:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have issues with sections that have absolutely no references. I find it odd that you are continuing to contest the addition of more inline citations to this article, when it clearly needs some. If you would like to, we can bring this to WP:GAR to get a broader consensus. Gary King (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think we are talking at cross purposes. I've already demonstrated that the references are there, so maybe we can avoid the hyperbolic statement that sections have absolutely no references. You would be correct to state that there are sections containing no inline citations, something not demanded by policy, as your quotation of it shows. What I am asking you for is specific claims which you believe need citations. I do not understand why this is so unreasonable, since it is the principle upon which WP:V is based. You seem to me to be stating one of two things: that you are challenging every sentence which does not have an inline citation at the end of it; or that every sentence should have an inline citation. The first I would suggest is disrupting Misplaced Pages to prove a point, and the second is incorrect per policy. I don't know any other way to interpret your actions, for which I apologise. The typical way of asking for citations is to add {{cite}} to each statement you wish to challenge. If you don't want to do that in the article, I don't see why you can't copy relevant sentences to the talk page. Look, here is an example. Up abpove you seem to require a citation for the fact that Tomorrow Stories was an anthology series. That's primary source. It's like asking for a cite on the fact that Friends is a television show. The citation is within the text itself. A reader asking himself whether Tomorrow Stories really is an anthology series can verify it by referring to an issue of the series. Look, I apologise if you are feel I am being objectionable, that isn't my intention. I want to help this article, but I don't know what it is you want sourced, and I don't feel guidance calls for an inline citation after each sentence, which is what I feel you are calling for. I'm trying to cite the most contestable facts, but I have my hands tied elsewhere at the minute, so I can't devote my full attention to this. Perhaps you would care to pitch in? Hiding T 21:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

At the very least, I'd like to see citations for events that have occurred, such as in "Personal and early life". I still feel like you would rather keep debating this rather than actually place inline citations, as if this is easier. I'm not treating this differently from the other Good articles that I have reviewed, just FYI. Gary King (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the article I've already added two inline citations whilst the debate has been ongoing, so I resent your accusation and I feel I could direct it back at you. However that doesn't really get us anywhere, does it, and we're meant to focus on the content. As I said, all I asked for were specific statements you wished to challenge, I'm not sure why that has proved so hard to detail. And I don't mean to suggest you are treating this article any differently to any other, and I look forwards to your help in citing sources. Which areas do you want to take care of? Hiding T 10:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

These could certainly use references:

• "In March 2006 Moore completed"
• "The limited series Watchmen, begun in 1986 and collected as a trade paperback in 1987, cemented his reputation." – the bolded text could certainly be considered POV unless a source was used that used these words
• My point is that most of the article is unreferenced; too many sentences are worded as facts when there are no inline citations to prove it. Here is an example article that was recently promoted to Good article that references well (most recently promoted Good articles have good amounts of references; I chose the first article listed at Misplaced Pages:Good articles/recent): Hed PE. If you'd like to see example featured articles, which ideally articles should compare to, here's the most recent one: Mario Power Tennis (which I chose at Misplaced Pages:Featured articles promoted in 2008). Gary King (talk) 14:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I know the FA process moderately, I've nursed three articles in FARC. Typically I was given a list of statements to source. That's why I asked here. I will attempt to source the statements you've listed here, unless you beat me to it. Hiding T 10:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a sample of the statements that I believe should be sourced:

• "After Moore had received widespread commercial success for his comic-writing, he decided to turn his back on mainstream comics to develop other projects. Together with his wife and their lover, he set up Mad Love Publishing in 1989. The company suffered several setbacks, however, and Phyllis and Deborah left Moore to live together, with his two children."
• "In March 2006 Moore completed his self-penned comics books line, and once again announced his decision to return to less commercially-oriented works. Also in 2006, he appeared on the BBC's The Culture Show and joined a campaign to try and save Northampton council housing from being sold to private companies. In March 2007 he appeared at a Robert Anton Wilson tribute concert at the Queen Elizabeth Hall."
• "For his life's work Moore was honored in 2008 with the Max & Moritz Prize."
• "At 2000 AD he started by writing one-off Future Shocks and Time Twisters, moving on to series such as Skizz (E.T. as written by Alan Bleasdale) with artist Jim Baikie, D.R. and Quinch (a sci-fi take on National Lampoon's characters O.C. and Stiggs) with Davis, and The Ballad of Halo Jones (the first series in the comic to be based around a female character) with Ian Gibson. The last two proved amongst the most popular strips to appear in 2000 AD but Moore became increasingly concerned at his lack of creator's rights, and in 1986 stopped writing for 2000 AD, leaving the Halo Jones story incomplete. The theme of fallings out with publishers on matters of principle would become a common one in Moore's later career."

These are from the "Personal and early life" and "Early work" sections. Most of the second half of "American mainstream" needs sources, so we can move on to that once the above is done. Gary King (talk) 01:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• • Most of that I would suggest is sourced from the works in the references, two listed there are bios. I don;t have them so I can't verify it, but that would be my guess. Let me ask around and see if I know someone who has them or find a library that has them. Otherwise, it's down to web searches. Is there a deadline? I've got real life issues over the weekend. Hiding T 13:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Typically it's seven days. Gary King (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I need a favour. Can you put this on hold until after October. I appreciate this is a big ask, but the 0.7 dvd version's deadline is October and I think efforts are better focussed on the articles in a worse state than this. For more information see Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team#Style_questions. Incidentally, if you can help out on those articles in any way, I think it would be appreciated. Let me know either way. I'd hate to see this lose GA status without having had a good effort at finding the sources, but I don't think it is in the best interests of Misplaced Pages to focus my attention here right now, if that makes sense. I think the potential for embarrassment with the 0.7 is more worthy of my time. Hope you can see my point of view and agree to an extension. Hiding T 14:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all, I stumbled across this article because I love Moore's work (Watchmen, Batman: The Killing Joke, and V for Vendetta) and I submitted it for reassessment because I'd like to see it really deserve that GA classification. Late October is quite a ways from now; I think it might make more sense to remove this article from GA and then when you are ready you can contact me and we can work together to bring this article back up to GA, and then have someone else re-review it for GA again. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you can't hold off, I'll try and fix all the errors by the end of the week. It was worth an ask. Hiding T 21:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Because seven days has passed since this reassessment began, I will now re-assess the article to B-class status. Please renominate the article again at GAN once it meets the Good article criteria. Gary King (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, real life intervened. When my life is less busy I'll get this worked back up. Hiding T 14:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Right. What next?

Sources for: * Wein & Swamp Thing; * Proto-Vertigo; * Adult sensibilities; * Miracleman (from comics.org, or similar; maybe Kimota!); * Watchmen issues, promotional items, ratings; * Mad Love; * Big Numbers; (* From Hell (film) reviews..?); * Supreme? Issue references - matching the 80pg Giants to #52, etc.? ...I suppose. But who would challenge these things really...?!

The reintroduction of the Demon, the Stranger, etc. needs no external source, although the Swamp Thing issue numbers would be a help. Is it worth sourcing the "high profile" of The Killing Joke with a footnote from DC Direct noting that it would be one of the earliest prestige format titles, or that Tim Burton and Christopher Nolan both like it..? Or is it just patently obvious and "un-challengeable" as a fact as is? Does the Watchmen cement need a Time citation, or is the wealth of information at Watchmen enough to make this a clearly obvious fact?

Should Chuck Austen be piped to Beckum? DC's V reprints needs to be clarified to make it clearer that they were issues before a TPB. Brought to Light is lacking its author. The GOSH/Lost Girls situation needs clarifying - GOSH didn't stop it; Top Shelf talked to GOSH and they all (Moore, Gebbie, Staros, GOSH) agreed it would be politer and easier just to hold off until 2008. GOSH didn't stop it coming out. The Big Numbers info is duplicated. "Return to the mainstream" needs a rewrite - the Liefeld and Lee breakaway companies shouldn't really be lumped together, so the opening line is disingenuous at best, and wrong at worst. (The opening paragraph could do with the actual quote about 'grim 'n' gritty deriving from Moore's bad mood in the 80s' ...is it from the DKR introduction..?) Is it worth mentioning that John Byrne dislikes 1963, and thinks it mean-spirited, rather than gentle parody..? Does the 1963 annual's non-appearance need any more info, or does the 1963 article cover it? It's WildStorm, with a capital 'S'. Can Amazon not shipping the Dossier out of the US be cited in any way?

Disputes & Awards need work and sources. Music needs to be updated. The Simpsons episode ought to mention that his ire comes from his deepset beliefs in creator's rights, since those are threaded throughout everything he's ever done.

What else needs to be tackled..? ntnon (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Lying in the Gutters

I've twice restored a reference to Lying In The Gutters, which was deleted on the grounds that it's a "gossip" column. More accurately, it's a column that includes both gossip and credible reportage. Johnston labels the whole thing "gossip" because that gives him the leeway to do both, and probably improves his page-hits. But he labels each item (or some cases, an entire week's column) according to its level of journalistic credibility, which makes it possible to cite him as a reliable source for the items that qualify as journalism. This particular article was clearly labeled as "not gossip" and was based on an actual interview with Moore with direct quotes. Moore knows about the column and hasn't denounced it as fraudulent (which he wouldn't be shy about doing). It's as reliable a source on this subject than any other article which claims to quote Moore. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute respectfully everything you just said. He uses a light system to assess the credibility of what he writes. This allows him to have the ability to deny whatever he wants if it is inaccurate. Therefore nothing he writes in the LITG column is credible. This has been established at other articles before. NOT a responsible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allknowingallseeing (talk • contribs) 19:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

If its known a a gossip column that precludes it from being a wikipedia reliable source. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily. WP:V is quite clear on the matter of exceptions for the blanket condemnation of self-published and questionable sources - namely in the following two points:

:::Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source.

:::Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Questionable sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Because of this, they can be treated similarly to the way self-published sources are treated. Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves...

Now, some of the points under contention here are exempt anyway, because they are not inherently questionable - an interview is not inherently questionable; a piece of investigative journalism is not inherently questionable. Spurious speculation and random gossip is of course generally un-citeable, but the guidelines above allow for select quotation on select, corroborated subjects because:

• Johnston is a reliable expert on the subject of comics, able to contact (although admittedly he may not always do so) the people he writes about for comment.
• (This logic is paradoxical, but allowed under the above guideline.) When Johnston's articles/interviews are quoted elsewhere, i.e. "a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source," it becomes a logically acceptable source in its own right. So when Johnston interviews Moore, and these comments are picked up elsewhere...
• "Questionable sources should only be used as sources about themselves..." Some interpretations of that guideline would specifically exempt interviews as even being labelled 'questionable'.
• "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking." An interview expressing the subject's personal views can only be fact-checked by that person, strongly suggesting accuracy when comments are not retracted/corrected. Mr Johnston has not retroactively edited these comments out, Mr Moore has not notably dissociated himself from them.

The comment User:Allknowingallseeing edited out regarding From Hell was rightly removed. The criticism's of V for Vendetta may be petty, and thus could be left out for reasons of pettiness/politeness, but could easily be kept as cited from a reasonable source. A 'more reliable' source would certainly be advisable and preferable. But 'straight from the horse's mouth' is surely the most reliable source. Admittedly here it is filtered through a potentially questionable source, so debates on various sources - and specific items within the sources, since even a 'reliable' publciation can err - are the right way forward. Disagreement is valid and useful, but in-built 'plausible deniability' is not grounds to dimiss snippets of information. ntnon (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I ask anyone weighing in on this (especially Allknowingallseeing ) to set aside their assumptions about LITG and read the specific article cited, particularly its intro. Even if you were to summarily dismiss most other installments of the column because of Johnston's usual disclaimers, this article has no claim of plausible deniability on it. It is presented as "investigative journalism", and when Johnston takes the trouble to adhere to journalistic standards (as he chose to do for this article) and both he and his publisher stand by it, it is prejudicial to assert that his is somehow less reliable a source than that of any other interviewer (particularly since he is considered an expert on the subject of Moore's disputes with publishers). - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Quite. "..some of the points under contention here are exempt anyway, because they are not inherently questionable - an interview is not inherently questionable; a piece of investigative journalism is not inherently questionable." ntnon (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the consensus at the Comics Project was that while some sites might be acceptable to use, we can't use their gossip columns and LitG is the main one, something which Johnston himself has accepted in one column. However, he has conducted a lot of useful interviews (in the various columns he has written) and can be considered "reliable" if he, for example, passes on a comment from a named source - it is the rumour that we have to avoid. As has been said, he did switch the column to an investigative journalism footing for a while which means it needn't be considered as a gossip column and so it is suitable for inclusion (although just to be on the safe side I think this should be decided on a case-by-case basis). (Emperor (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC))

Judging citations of LITG on a case-by-case basis is exactly what I have been arguing for. - JasonAQuest (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily the usually LitG as a gossip column (that is pretty much out) just the switch to a more journalistic take of which the link in question is one. (Emperor (talk) 00:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

If we cite a gossip site as a reference, one that revels in publishing rumors, then how are we an encyclopedia?Allknowingallseeing (talk) 05:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We would be the kind that has reasonable discussions on a case-by-case basis to determine the verifiability and notability of a source. You can't trust or distrust a source %100 percent of the time.--Cast (talk) 05:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Kind of like we don't automatically assume that every "new" user whose very first edits are assertive ones steeped in an opinionated familiarity with Misplaced Pages policies, is a sockpuppet. - JasonAQuest (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that the link in question is when LiTG wasn't operating as a gossip column and so it doesn't fall under the consensus decision that we shouldn't use gossip columns, even if they are on sites we'd usually happily link to in other circumstances (LitG just being the highest profile example). I don't see a problem with that but obviously if there is the feeling this is just some kind of fancy loop hole (which I don't think it is) then we will take it back to the Comics Project to kick around. (Emperor (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC))

Then, Cast, that would mean that SOMETIMES People magazine is a valid source. And it isn't.Allknowingallseeing (talk) 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Not ever? I'd appreciate a citation for this. -JasonAQuest (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There can be no citation for this. There are going to be times when People Magazine is a reliable source for some kind of information. This user has revealed their ideological tendency, and in previous edits, has made inappropriate remarks, such as insisting that the source in question must be disregarded for using a "light system" when none is present; that the article is a gossip column, when it is only authored by a man who writes a separate gossip column; and that the source is questionable, when the quoted information is a direct quote from the article subject, Alan Moore himself. I don't think it is possible to negotiate with a user who is unwilling to compromise despite their repeated display of misdirection and ignorance in the case. I move that the source be used and that any further attempts by Allknowingallseeing to remove it be viewed as an act of disruptive Wikilawyering. I cite the second, third, and fourth points which describe such actions:

2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its principles;

3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Misplaced Pages:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express;

4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.

--Cast (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what? No, I'm not going to go this far just yet. I'm going to give the user a little bit longer to prove (not merely assert) their point. But for all this disruption, I hope that proof of this cite's non-reliability will be swift in coming – really, it should have come by now. --Cast (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't talk about appropriate. PLease do not condescend. I have spoken to Rich Johnston directly and he does not feel that his column should be taken as the definitive of anything. People magazine is NEVER to be a source. Weekly World News is not an encyclopedic source. It is clear to this editor that you want to undermine the encyclopedia by bringing in non-encyclopedic sources. A FAR MORE experienced editor than either of us, a fan of Haile Selassie, has spoken that Johnston is not an encyclopedic source. Let it go. Move on. Find a girl etc. Allknowingallseeing (talk) 07:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Of that entire comment, the bit by Rich Johnston is the only useful part you've just left, but again, the cited column is using direct quotes of Alan Moore, so his opinion in this sole scenario is inaccurate. People Magazine is an appropriate source for non-controversial statements about the magazine itself. So at least that one time, it would be. Weekly World News would not be useful as a source on its article content, but could be used to see who is part of its production staff. Who is this more experienced editor, and why is their opinion on this matter more valid than mine? Find a girl? What makes you think I'm not a girl? Careful: now you're moving into personal insult territory. I'm really going to have to insist you address that the cited column is referring to a direct quote on the part of Alan Moore. Do you feel that Rich Jonston would not have accurately reproduced the quote? It is not a controversial quote to believe Moore would have made, and given his high profile, it's incredibly unlikely that Johnston would have made it up, and that it would have gone unchallenged by Moore this long. Similar interviews were used as citations by myself for comments made by Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle for the article on Anarky, which is now listed as being FA quality. --Cast (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

A "fan of Haile Selassie"? The Rastafarian Gambit - a cunning one but we need to break it down so we are clear on what the current consensus is (or my reading of it and how it applies here) as "Johnston is not an encyclopedic source" is not strictly correct:

• Johnston has done a lot of online comic work at various sites and we cannot rule out his other work because he currently happens to write a rumour column.
• The consensus is that we cannot use rumour/gossip columns for sources, of which Lying in the Gutters is just the most high profile examples - no need to IM Rich as this came up over the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit article (now no longer with us) and he said in his column that he agreed (I can find this if required).
• I feel that the switch to a more investigative journalism angle means that this specific page doesn't fall under the definition of being a gossip column (even if LitG usually does) - worth noting that in a Comic Journal survey, Johnston scored the highest of all online column writers for investigative journalism, so when he does it he clearly does it well.
• However, I do think it could be a grey area and if so (and I don't think either side are going to change their opinions any time soon on this) then we'll have to take it to the Comics project talk page and see what the consensus is.

So that is how the land lies, as far as I can tell, I'll see how things go here but if need be we can kick it "upstairs" for a more final decision. (Emperor (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC))

Getting something listed here as FA is FE (fairly easy) and thus meaningless. My comment was not an insult unless you take it that way- I was suggesting you do something else rather than argue that Johnston is authoritative when he himself (go ahead and IM him- it is Twistrich and he lists it on his column) says nothing he says should be taken as fact! Find a girlfriend means just that- find something else to do rather than continue an argument that you have defacto lost. I have read articles in People Magazine with direct quotes of Jamie Lynn Spears who then says she didn't say that. Hence direct quotes are meaningless depending on the source. Johnston is also on the outs with Moore (like most of the world) and thus his "quotes" are arguable. We must have strong, provable citations under BLP or we will fall under our own weight. NOTHING is more important that BLP here and thus any "gossip site" quotes MUST be deleted upon sight- DO NO HARM. Allknowingallseeing (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The ease or lack thereof with which one attains an FA status for an article is beside the point and is not meaningless. If you can use quotes from columns in an FA article, it is because it is can be trusted for these uncontroversial statements. But again about People, I insist a source can be used on some occasions. In the case of People, it can be used for non-controversial information that informs its notability – if that looks like staff listings, than that's it. It can be used once, and you shouldn't be writing "never". If it can't be trusted for quotes, don't use it for that purpose, except in reference to any notable controversy that such a quote might stir. And again, stop insisting I should stop addressing this issue. As the editor making the assertion that this source cannot be trusted, it falls to you to prove your point. I've merely tried to hold you to this standard. Trying to drive me away so that the discussion is quickly concluded in your favor is not in line with your desire to "do no harm". Now, for other editors here with a desire to continue discussing this matter for the benefit of this article's improvement: is there any reason to believe that these quotes by Moore have not been altered? Allknowingallseeing finally addressed whether or not Alan Moore's quotes can be trusted (and it only took days, be faster next time) by stating Moore is in disagreement with the writer, so I feel there is plausible doubt. Do we have statements by other interviewees that their quotes were ever changed? --Cast (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I just realized, was Alan Moore "on the outs" with Johnston when this interview took place? That would cast doubt on the assertion that these quotes cannot be trusted if the two are fighting. Would the interview have even taken place if that were the case? I doubt it. --Cast (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Some source for the assertion that Johnston is "on the outs with" Moore would be appreciated as well. If so, would this necessarily render a columnist's work uncitable? After all, such a standard would be rather easy for a subject to abuse (e.g. a president who didn't like the coverage of his administration in a newspaper could declare them an "enemy" and thereby render their reports about him off-limits in Misplaced Pages). - JasonAQuest (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You see the problem with this discusion with Cast and the less illuminated JasonAQuest is that they WANT to figure out a why to "get this information in there" and if one questions their fanatical behavior one is accused of personal attacks. I know neither of them personally so I am not attacking their persons. I am attacking their desire to jam self important tidbits of information into an article under BLP. I do not think enough people realize that BLO is actually more important that the entire project- if we hurt one reputation we should close down. So unless the "fact" is citable from a reputable source it does NOT belong in a BLP- ever ever ever. If Rich himself says that he sometimes doesn't do the necessary digging and he doesn't tell us when where or who, then he should not be citable in an encyclopedia. This is HIGHLY Truthful if not Haile SelassieAllknowingallseeing (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on the rights or wrongs of including or deleting this material. However, whichever way you cut it "get a girl" is an insult intended to disparage someone's personal life, so the fact you don't know the person in question is irrelevant. It's a personal attack. Worse, when called on it you tried to justify it, rather than withdraw it and apologise, as would have been the decent thing to do. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Fanatical"? Really? Okay, you can stop claiming your not trying to be personal. Insults can be personal even if you don't know us personally. That just makes them more likely to be wrong. Anyway, the users who are defending this citation have repeatedly given their reason to express why they feel it is legitimate, and each time you have expressed why it is not, they have provided explanation which counters your assertions. You, however, have yet to make a point that cannot be countered given the context of this quote. Now I did feel sympathetic when you expressed that the author and quoted personality do not get along, but when asked for a citation and explanation for how this effects the quote, you ignore the question and refer to myself and another user as "fanatics". "Fanatics" of what, pray tell? Critical thinking and discussion? If nothing else, can you at least stay focused on the topic at hand and stop trying to tangent into personal insults. This is a talk page for improving the article. Not a forum for your outrage. --Cast (talk) 06:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, who's reputation are you protecting? The quoted text doesn't disparage anyone. And your own text highlights the issue we're addressing. "If Rich himself says that he sometimes doesn't do the necessary digging and he doesn't tell us when where or who, then he should not be citable in an encyclopedia." This would be true enough, but there was no "digging" to be done, and we know the when/where/who of this information. Sometimes his column cannot be trusted. We must always question him on a case-by-case basis to determine when such a situation arises, which you seem to be unwilling to do. You've compared this to Weekly World News or People Magazine, but this interview is not farcicle. We should consider it more closely than that.--Cast (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Since this little issue was raised, I couldn't help but feel that I'd read Alan's quote about plot holes elsewhere. A quick Google search revealed that the quote pulled from this interview ("...it had plot holes you couldn't have got away with...") was used in an article ("V for... Villany Guy on Film" by Graeme Virtue, 10/30/2005) on BNET, a business news website published by CNET Networks, Inc., and owned by the CBS corporation. If their editorial staff considers this interview a verifiable source, that's good enough for me. Or we could just quote directly from this article instead. It can't possibly be confused for a "gossip column", after all.--Cast (talk) 07:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources are preferable to secondary sources. But BNET's acceptance of the LITG interview supports its usage here. The cited column pretty clearly differentiates its contents from gossip. - JasonAQuest (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Look a fanatic is somebody stuck on a point, whether it be Kim Kardashian's butt, Harry Potter or Iraq. In this case, rather than realizing that there is NO VERIFIED source for the quote and that the article does not suffer for the lack of information you two are fanatically trying to justify (oh look, CBS used the quote! Well Scientologists use Misplaced Pages for citations and they shouldn't because of fanatics who edit it)inserting information. Of course I am going to juistify my comments because they are true- watch tv, go outside, ride a horse if you don't like girls- do anything except try to justify a quote from a gossip column whose author says even her doesn't trust everything he writes. This is not the NY Times. This is an online site that notes it is full of "gossip and rumors". He should be read for fun not cited in an encyclopedia.Allknowingallseeing (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We've been down this road with you. We've held your hand every step of the way. This author publishes a gossip column, but in the preface to this article, he states that it, and several articles following it for a period of several weeks, would be written in the style of investigative journalism. This author has received praise for his investigative journalism, which is highly credible when he attempts it. This author made comments that his gossip column could not be trusted, but this was not a gossip column as he wrote it. This is a verified source. What is being cited is a uncontroversial, direct quote, which does not threaten to disparage Alan Moore's reputation. Moore has not made any comments elsewhere about being falsely quoted during the interview. The author has not retroactively edited it. It has been used as a primary source for an article posted on a corporate news website. Step-by-step we have provided this information, and still you cling to the assertion that because the author writes a gossip column, this work cannot be trusted. I have given you the chance I said I would, and am no longer interested in humoring your skepticism, personal insults, and accusations of bad faith.

To all other editors concerned with this issue, I believe that there is consensus to use this quote, with Allknowingallseeing's obstinate objection being irrelevant, as the user has failed to provide any reason to doubt the validity of the source. --Cast (talk) 16:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Addendum Alternatively, we could take it to the WikiProject Comics talk page, as Emporer advised above. If everyone feels there is still reason to pursue this discussion, that is probably the place to do it now.--Cast (talk) 16:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't really see the need to prolong the discussion - Mr A.K.A.S makes some valid and impassioned points. They are however, in this case, slightly misdirected.

He writes: "I am attacking their desire to jam self important tidbits of information into an article under BLP." In fact, the titbits of information are supportive/indicative of the wider picture of Mr Moore's dissatisfaction with the adaptations of his comics into films. Which, clearly, he (on some level) allowed to go ahead. And which are statements made out-of-hand about films he has stated that he hasn't seen... nevertheless they are qualified as his stated opinions. They are sourced directly to him, by a safe and believeable quantum of proof/preponderance of evidence.

A.K.A.S. continues: "I do not think enough people realize that BLP is actually more important that the entire project- if we hurt one reputation we should close down." This is a very valid point. I can only begin to imagine how furious one would be in such a circumstance. It should not have to occur; it should not have to be dealt with, but unfortunately there are people who derive pleasure from vandalism and pointless, libellous comments. But to tar a whole project and every editor with the same brush as the few - and they are few - idiots and time-wasters is both deeply unfair and highly inaccurate. It must also be very distressing/damaging when libelous or inaccurate comments can be edited in at whim, and (potentially) remain at large for a considerable period of time.

However, surely the logical reaction against such happenings should not be to simply try (and fail) to quash them - and such attempts will likely fail in large part because the Internet is vast. The logical reaction therefore should be the counter-attack - the meeting and beating of inaccuracy and falsehoods with truth and accuracy. It should be to assist in improving articles; to assist in sourcing and improve accuracy. If, for example, 'celebrities' and people in positions with the wherewithall to confirm, refute, source and comment on inaccuracies - and accuracies, even if those accuracies may not be particularly agreeable to everyone, particularly when criticism is involved - were to lend their considerable weight to helping improve the BLP articles, that would be considerable more help than attempting to squash the whole encyclopedia project, or parts thereof.

An inaccurate article is an unhelpful aberration. No article is, however, even more unhelpful, because it leads to precisely the sort of speculation, rumor-mongering and slander that is at the core of this debate. An accurate, sourced article is always the best way to quash rumors and inaccuracies. Similarly, comments/events edited out or glossed over will lead to speculation, while refutation will ultimately lead to acceptance. Mr Moore doesn't want his works turned into films, and thinks that the films were likely not any good. So? Let him think that. He's MORE than entitled to hold that opinion. Some of us are able to enjoy From Hell, V for Vendetta and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen as comics AND films, but can also respect (if not wholly agree) with the Moorean criticisms.

A.K.A.S. continues: "So unless the "fact" is citable from a reputable source it does NOT belong in a BLP- ever ever ever. If Rich himself says that he sometimes doesn't do the necessary digging and he doesn't tell us when where or who, then he should not be citable in an encyclopedia." That's a logical fallacy, and an untenable position to hold, really. Essentially, it's trying to suggest that if Rich does not dig far enough once, that renders everything he writes as inaccurate as that hypothetical inaccuracy. Or, if a person misspeaks, misquotes, lies or is simply wrong, everything they say or do is likewise. That's clear nonsense. Moreover, you clearly say that a "fact" must be "citable" - but what citations would you theoretically approve..? Any publication can be wrong. Any person can be wrong - even about themselves, in some cases (deliberately or otherwise)! Generally speaking, however, first-hand information is irrefutable. But, since we all have different experiences, we rely on second-hand information, which can be inaccurate, but generally is not. Healthy skepticism should nor defer to unhealthy disbelief and disregard of everything.

I do understand where you are coming from - I suspect most people here do, broadly. But you are advocating the wrong course of action. Absolutely "facts" should be double-checked. Definitely citations should be the best they can be. Misplaced Pages even goes so far as to say - and I think that this is too far, but it's hard to come up with an alternative - that "truth" should play second fiddle to "provability." This means some truth does not get told. This means some 'proveable', but untrue "facts" are eminently citable, until torn apart. This means that particular sources and fonts of information may be acceptable for one "fact," but unacceptable for another. It is palpably clear that DC withdrew and pulped League of Extraordinary Gentlemen Vol. 1 #5 because of the "Marvel" advertisement - I've seen both, many people have read the flippant asides and references in LoEG and Top Ten. Many people have read informed and ill-informed speculation. But, as you pointed out the other day, a proveable source for this "fact" is elusive. The source for Mr Moore being deeply unhappy or annoyed - and possibly, in many cases, wholly unjustified in his complaints - can only be Mr Moore himself. And to cite that, he has to be filtered through journalism, interview or tape recorder. Either of those can be cited. Johnston did the first two in his non-Gutters Gutters.

Raising concerns and queries is very helpful; offering alternate views or opinions is also helpful. Offering sources is exceptionally helpful. Some statements should definitely be removed. Others, particularly those which are stated personal opinions, and not contentious or slanderous (which these here were not) need merely to be cited, and citations for those come in many more varieties than the New York Times. ntnon (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• GA-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles