| Revision as of 16:34, 24 September 2008 editCast (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers13,085 edits →Lying in the Gutters: Response and call for consensus← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 08:12, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,532,770 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 8 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Comics writers.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (132 intermediate revisions by 63 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
|
|
{{British English}} |
|
{{GAR/link|19:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)|page=1|GARpage=1|status= delisted}} |
|
|
|
{{Article history |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1=FAC |
|
|action1date=03:21, 17 Apr 2005 |
|
|action1date=03:21, 17 Apr 2005 |
| Line 27: |
Line 27: |
|
|action5=GAR |
|
|action5=GAR |
|
|action5date=19:03, 22 September 2008 |
|
|action5date=19:03, 22 September 2008 |
|
|
|action5link=Talk:Alan Moore/GA1 |
|
|action5result=delisted |
|
|action5result=delisted |
|
|action5oldid=240197749 |
|
|action5oldid=240197749 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=PR |
|
|
|action6date=19:04, 22 June 2009 |
|
|
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Alan Moore/archive1 |
|
|
|action6result=reviewed |
|
|
|action6oldid=297403936 |
|
|
|
|
|
|topic=literature |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
|gacat=writers |
|
|
|topic=Arts |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Moore, Alan|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBanners |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=Top}} |
|
|1 = {{WPBiography |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Comics|importance=Top|1=|Creators=yes|British=yes|past-collaboration=yes}} |
|
|living=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Northamptonshire|importance=High}} |
|
|class=GA |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject England|importance=High}} |
|
|priority= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Horror|importance=Mid}} |
|
|a&e-work-group=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Neopaganism|importance=low}} |
|
|listas=Moore, Alan |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Occult|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Anarchism}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|2 = {{Comicsproj |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|class=GA |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|importance=Top |
|
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|past-collaboration=30/1/2006-3/3/2006 |
|
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|Creators-work-group=yes |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Alan Moore/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|British-work-group=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archive box|auto=long|search=yes|age=3|units=month|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III|index=/Archive index}} |
|
|3 = {{Philosophy |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|class=GA |
|
|
|
|target=Talk:Alan Moore/Archive index |
|
|importance=low |
|
|
|
|mask=Talk:Alan Moore/Archive <#> |
|
|anarchism=yes |
|
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|indexhere=yes}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
==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 '']'', 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. ] 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 |
|
|
—] 15:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:They are married. It's not an RS, but ] blogged about the wedding in about... October? September? As it's fairly non-controversial, I'll find some coverage and post it. ] (]) 14:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:One: Our own page on her: ]. Two, which cites . Finally, way down the first page 'married earlier this year], article written 2007. ] (]) 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. ] <small>] </small> 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 ] mentions his influence on other artists, but not that he was influenced by artists like ], ] and ], and ]'s article doesn't mention the influence of ] or ], but they should, and if I can find appropriate references they will. --] 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 16:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> |
|
|
|
|
|
==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. ] 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. --] 16:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Gotcha, I lays my head down in defeat. Didn't read the whole article, my bad. ] 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 ] 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 ] soon. ] 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. --] <sup>(], ])</sup> 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 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
==Bits and bobs== |
|
|
|
|
|
Things that might be useful include: |
|
|
* with the '']'' |
|
|
* - his first film |
|
|
Picked them up via Lying in the Gutters and thought they could come in handy. (] 02:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Another - about anarchy. (] 14:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
== V for Vendetta Template == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm removing this template from all its articles: |
|
|
|
|
|
{{V for Vendetta}} |
|
|
|
|
|
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. ] 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. (] 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've reverted my previous edit and requested a template deletion instead, see below. ] 17:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== TfD nomination of ] == |
|
|
] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ]. Thank you.<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> — ] 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
# Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
Although I think the sites above have good content, they could be used as references to imporve the article, but not as an EL. |
|
|
|
|
|
# Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
--] (]) 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. --] (]) 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..? ] (]) 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. |
|
|
--] (]) 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). --] (]) 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.--] (]) 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.] (]) 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.--] (]) 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.) ] (]) 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.--] (]) 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'..? ] (]) 03:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "Since his teenage years Moore has had long hair, and since early adulthood has also had a beard." == |
|
::::::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.) --] (]) 06:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is this serious? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
Alan Moore commentary on: |
|
|
*'''magic, religion, and fundamentalist Christianity''':, on Youtube. |
|
|
*'''anarchism''': , on Infoshop.org |
|
|
*'''anarchism''': , on Youtube |
|
|
*'''literature, art, environmentalism, and fantasy''': , series on Youtube. |
|
|
*'''fantasy''': , on Youtube |
|
|
*'''life transformation''': , on Youtube. |
|
|
*'''art & literature''': , on Youtube |
|
|
*'''Pornography vs. Erotica, and sexuality''': , on Youtube. |
|
|
*'''the role of dystopian fiction, as commentary on the present''': , on Youtube. |
|
|
*'''censorship, freedom of speech, etc.''': |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes. ] (]) 08:33, 30 November 2018 (UTC) |
|
{{Talk:Alan Moore/GA1}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion == |
|
== Lying in the Gutters == |
|
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2020-05-19T23:37:21.045258 | Alan Moore 4.jpg --> |
|
|
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 23:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion == |
|
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. - ] (]) 13:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: |
|
|
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2020-06-25T12:52:10.544653 | الانتقام.jpg --> |
|
|
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 12:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Moore's regrets for encouraging people to vote == |
|
: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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Quote frame|In a later communique, Moore expressed regret for his decision to encourage voting and apologized, claiming that "my call made dozens of anarchists cast their vote for the Labor Party, and precisely at all those polling stations, they have had the worst defeat since the Falkland War".}} |
|
::If its known a a gossip column that precludes it from being a wikipedia reliable source. Thanks, ] 19:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think this should be removed. The article cited is pretty clearly either a parody or a forgery, for reasons including the following: it's in Spanish, Moore writes in English, and no original English version can be found online (although you can find English-language versions with mangled Google Translate grammar). The clearest sign is the last sentence, which cites a number of characters: "Sister Night, Looking Glass, Red Scare" that were created for the Watchmen TV show and are not in the original comic. Anyone who has followed Moore's career knows that he refuses to watch adaptations of his work. He certainly wouldn't be dropping an approving reference to one into an article. |
|
:::Not necessarily. ] is quite clear on the matter of ''exceptions'' for the blanket condemnation of self-published and questionable sources - namely in the following two points: |
|
|
{{blockquote|:::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.}} |
|
|
{{blockquote|:::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. "]," 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 ] 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. ] (]) 21:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Is Hellblazer a notable work? == |
|
I ask anyone weighing in on this (especially Allknowingallseeing ) to set aside their assumptions about LITG and ''read'' , 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). - ] (]) 02:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] has been removed from the "Notable works" section with the rationale that Moore hasn't written it, therefore it isn't notable. I dispute this, as Moore was a ''creator'', so that does make it a notable work, even if he hasn't written for it. |
|
:Quite. "..some of <ins>the points under contention here are exempt ''anyway'', because they are not inherently questionable</ins> - an interview is not inherently questionable; a piece of investigative journalism is not inherently questionable." ] (]) 14:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I invite discussion, but also remind ] of ] - bold, revert, discuss. Once a change is reverted, it should be discussed - not simply re-inserted. |
|
: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). (] (]) 15:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)) |
|
|
::Judging citations of LITG on a case-by-case basis is exactly what I have been arguing for. - ] (]) 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. (] (]) 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?] (]) 05:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
So - Please put forward any arguments as to why it isn't notable? Thanks. ] (]) 07:30, 11 January 2022 (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.--] (]) 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. - ] (]) 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. (] (]) 22:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)) |
|
|
:: Then, Cast, that would mean that SOMETIMES People magazine is a valid source. And it isn't.] (]) 14:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Not ever? I'd appreciate a citation for this. -] (]) 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. <s>I move that the source be used and that any further attempts by Allknowingallseeing to remove it be viewed as an act of disruptive ]. 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. |
|
|
::::</s>--] (]) 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 {{ndash}} really, it should have come by now. --] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 08:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:He created John Constantine as a supporting character in ''Swamp Thing'', but he never wrote the book ''Hellblazer''. Therefore ''Hellblazer'' is not a notable work by Alan Moore, because it is't a work by Alan Moore. This isn't complicated. A character is not the same thing as a series. --] (]) 16:35, 11 January 2022 (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 , 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 ] 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. (] (]) 16:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Also, I did not ''reinsert'' a disputed change, I ''removed'' it. The bold insertion was made by ]. I reverted it. ''You'' reinserted it. By your own words, you're the one in breach of ]. --] (]) 17:42, 11 January 2022 (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. ] (]) 15:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::OK, it's been 24 hours since my last comment, and no response. I'm going to remove it again. --] (]) 19:50, 12 January 2022 (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 {{ndash}} 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? --] (]) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::You know, if you'd pointed that out right at the beginning, this could have all been avoided. Why didn't you? Seems weird. Incidentally, waiting a mere 24 hours and considering discussion to be over after that is pretty poor behaviour. Based on that, I agree, and have reverted - despite your above comment which I highly disagree with. In short - I agree with your assesment, but not how you went about it. |
|
:::::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. --] (]) 17:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::To put forward the argument that Hellblazer is notable is because without Contantine, Hellblazer would not exist. That makes the two linked - Hellblazer = John Constantine, and John Constantine = Hellblazer. ] (]) 20:53, 12 January 2022 (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). - ] (]) 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 Selassie] (]) 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. --] (]) 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. --] (]) 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.--] (]) 07:06, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::::Thank you for coming back. But your argument is like claiming that ''The Force Awakens'' is a notable work by George Lucas because he created the setting and some of the characters. Or, more relevantly, that ''Before Watchmen'' is a notable work by Moore because he created the characters. They're linked, sure, but it's not his work and the article shouldn't claim it is. --] (]) 21:04, 12 January 2022 (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 ("" 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.--] (]) 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. - ] (]) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
:::::Hm, valid points. Fair enough - I agree, and won't contest the inclusion any more. ] (]) 11:08, 13 January 2022 (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.] (]) 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 your chance and am no longer interested in humoring your skepticism, personal insults, and accusations of bad faith. I believe that there is consensus to use this quote, with your own obstinate objection being irrelevant, as you have failed to provide any reason to doubt the validity of the source. Anyone else with me? --] (]) 16:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
I think this should be removed. The article cited is pretty clearly either a parody or a forgery, for reasons including the following: it's in Spanish, Moore writes in English, and no original English version can be found online (although you can find English-language versions with mangled Google Translate grammar). The clearest sign is the last sentence, which cites a number of characters: "Sister Night, Looking Glass, Red Scare" that were created for the Watchmen TV show and are not in the original comic. Anyone who has followed Moore's career knows that he refuses to watch adaptations of his work. He certainly wouldn't be dropping an approving reference to one into an article.
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.png){kind=small}
