Talk:Keith Giffen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.

	comics Portal This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
More information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article has been marked as requiring an image. Please add one in accordance with guidance. Related work groups (general): Comics creators work group

Contents 1 What dispute of neutrality? 2 Edit Summary Correction 3 Controversy section removed 4 POV TAG

[edit] What dispute of neutrality?

On the article's page, there is a statement that this article's neutrality is disputed, followed by a link to a talk page discussion on that point. Said link leads here, but there is no such discussion. Has the dispute been satisfactorily resolved and the discussion consequently removed? If so, that note should be removed as well. If it hasn't been resolved, where is the discussion? Ted Watson 19:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The concern seems to be that the "Controversy" and "Writing" sections display a bias against Giffen and his work, although I don't why there hasn't been a discussion already. --Redeagle688 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight--that was supposed to be an invitation to begin a discussion of an allegation that the article is lacking neutrality? It really doesn't say that at all. Ted Watson 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, it says that someone finds the article non-neutral and that this talk page is the place to comment on the matter. I guess no one feels strongly enough about the matter (which is after all largely subjective) to actually jump in and start a point. Luis Dantas 18:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It says, "Please see the discussion on the talk page." That definitely indicates that there is a discussion already in place. But, until I came along, there wasn't one, about that or anything else. Ted Watson 19:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For an example of such a note which does not indicate a discussion is already going on, see The Green Hornet. Ted Watson 20:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the one that started the Controversy section and pointed out the article in Comics Journal that nearly cost Giffen's career. Apparently one fanboy had a lot of difficulty with that and kept editing, removing, and finding every which way to try and downplay Giffen's swiping. I think after many months we've come to some sort of consensus as he was forced to research and cite every point he was trying to make even though many of them are dubious, such as the claim that Giffen is in fact Munoz. I am not biased against Mr. Giffen and find his work an extreme breath of fresh air. He's one of the few artists and writers that break the fourth wall and don't pretend that they are not just creating comics. However, this was an important point in his career and I felt no article on him could be complete or unbiased without mentioning it. If you look at many bios of Mr Giffen around they rarely mention it, if only out of politeness or the sort of hype eschewed on young readers in order to sell funny papers (ie. such as Stan Lee taking credit for creating Captain America). It was no coincidence IMO that one of the top selling artists at DC suddenly stopped drawing after this incident. This would be like Paramount Pictures taking Eddie Murphy off the big screen in the mid-80's. I don't hate Keith Giffen, he is in fact one of my favourites. After the relative few changes in this articles since I and 207.236.161.42 went back and forth on it this particular reasoning for a lack of neutrality citation has probably ended. We seem to have reached a consensus on this section. Is anyone for removing it then? --75.6.138.88 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Currently, there are three tags: Neutrality, Tone, and Unreferenced. I can't see any need for either of them, so I second your suggestion. I assume the Unreferenced tag was added by a bot that wasn't set to see references to off-line resources (such as the printed edition of Comics Journal). A ref in the form of a URL would prevent that happening again. MeteorMaker 06:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Summary Correction

I made a slight mistake in a previous edit summary, where I mentioned removing a paragraph. However, even though he was working with Wally Woods at the time, a decision by the former belongs in the Wally Woods article, not under the Controversies section of the Giffen article. -- g026r 21:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• are we sure it was entirely the late Mr Wood's doing? I have a hard time believing that Mr Giffen wouldn't be a part of something like this. --75.6.138.88 02:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy section removed

This was all uncited and needed to be removed because of WP's policies on living persons. It didn't seem very important anyway, although I have never been much of a comic book fan and have never heard of Mr. Giffen before today. Steve Dufour 05:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources are clearly given, and Keith Giffen is best known for this blatant rip-off of another artist's very distinctive style anyway. I have restored the section, minus the irrelevant part about Wallace Wood. MeteorMaker 17:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV TAG

I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.Jjdon (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That's my pasted statement - as I see that this topic has a consensus that none of the tags belong, they're history, too.Jjdon (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)