The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which version of this article more closely follows Wikipedia policies and guidelines: A) [1] or B) [2]? -Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A — An editor with a fairly small number of edits (c. 300) has been consistently reverting without consensus to insert his preferred version (B). Appearing to operate under a number of anon-IP aliases, he is adding some material that may be relevant but the totality of which violates several policies and guidelines, as well as MOS. The contentious section ("Literary Themes") is largely a POV WP:SYNTH essay on the comics, relying to a great extent on a personal blog. That blogger is not turning up in Google searches as a comics authority, and the claim "Isn't RS Martin an alias for a rather famous comics insider" is remarkable on many levels and certainly doesn't make the blog WP:RS. Overall, (B) seems like fannish soapboxing.

In addition to other issues, take, for example, the lead of (B):

American Flagg! is the revolutionary American comic book series created by writer-artist Howard Chaykin, published by First Comics from 1983 to 1989. It was largely responsible for legitamizing and kicking off the adult independent comic book business of the 1980's, and was credited as the template for later works like the Watchmen, the Sandman and Frank Miller's The Dark Night

...none of which is cited in the article itself. The misuse of apparent multiple anon IPs is also troubling.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Yes, this language is definitely promotional and not neutral. It's not strictly speaking impossible that this is true but if so, you really need to prove it with citations: "According to [x], American Flagg! is responsible for starting a boom in..." or somesuch. The editor who is inserting this language may not understand this. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Style of A is of course the more proper one for Wikipedia. Some of the claims from B in terms of critical response and impact our pretty much the revived wisdom on the book though, and should be incorporated in less peacocky fashion with proper sources. Artw (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having a "Reception" section with contemporary responses and impcact over time might help here a lot. Seems a bit of an odd omission. Artw (talk) 21:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think there are too many changes between the two to pick just one. The lead in B is obviously inappropriate, but the restructuring in Later Development and Direction (para beginning "As the series progressed, Chaykin took less ...") is worth keeping. RSMWriter's blog is cited in this book from University Press of Mississippi. Seems legit to me. I'm also not sure User:Mrbrklyn is purposely IP hopping. If he's accessing from a library or other hotspot, he has no control over that. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine he could still register from a hotspot, and failing that, clearly identify himself — especially on a talk page, where it seems like multiple commenters.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is problematic not just because there are virtually no Google hits for the blogger, but because someone above claims it's a pseudonym for some anonymous "comics insider." All due respect to the writer of that UofM book, but an anonymous insider whose pseudonym's few Google hits don't show authoritativeness doesn't seem RS at all.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Argento Surfer on this one, but I also agree that an anonymous "comics insider" is not WP:RS. -- stoshmaster (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shooter endorsed the blog for the interview cited in the book, for what that's worth. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shooter ... hmm - imagine that. He has never used aliases to publish before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.38.97 (talk) 23:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Shooter's blog posting a link to a fawning apologia blog is hardly surprising, nor does it make the blogger a recognized authority in the field. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Jim Shooters quote and support of this professionally written blog does suppport its reliability. In fact, everything points to the fact that the RS Martin is a known expert in this field. It is quoted in other research. It is supported by one of the leading experts and developers in the field of comics, in Jim Shooter, and there is NO SUPPORT that it is a personal blog. In almost 15 years of well written and researched comic book criticism and observation of that author, much better written that this article, BTW, and better researched, that auhtor has never been questions within the field accept here. It has been consistently a rock solid source of information, well quoted within the industry, and has been pointed out here, trusted. --

166.84.1.2 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then why doesn't R.S. Martin show up on virtually any Google hits? Why is he or she pseudonymous? There's no such things as a shadowy, pseudonymous authority in a field. I suspect, in fact, by your vociferousness that you are this person. And what seems to be multiple IP addresses of the same person, especially in the context of a discussion among presumably different people, is sockpuppeting. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note this - http://www.tripwiremagazine.co.uk/interview/howard-chaykin-speaks-2/ -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.52.38.97 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 January 2018‎

Before we continue, you need to apologize for the personal attacks. First of all 300 edits are not a small number of edits. Similarly, reversal of edits is a normal part of the Wikipedia experience, something you are quite aware of. Finally, I am one of the most known entities on the internet. I've had the Mrbrklyn handle since the late 1990's, and your accusation that I am a sock puppet is frankly troubling and shows a lack of basic decency on your part.

The article, as I found it, is not only not accurate and not adequately sourced, but it is written poorly. Failure to recognize the significance of American Flagg! is a fundemental failure of its description, and is supported with MULTIPLE references in the new text, which you have chosen to ignore. If I went in there and removed everything that was not referenced correctly, you would look at that as vandalism, and there would be nothing left of the article.

There is no one in the industry that doesn't recognize that American Flagg! marked a huge change in the market....only you can mark somewhere else where characters get blow jobs on the road, and one 7 eagle awards.

Not only that, but you have not approached this conflict in an ethical manner. I asked you to not blow the entire thing away and to help improve it. Instead, based on your personal and blizzard objection to RS Martins extensively authoritative writing on this topic, has been used as an excuse to remove dozens of other sources were added, and the additional sections which address the unique framing that Chaykin became famous for, and his story telling technique... all of which was anotated. You decided to just blow the entire thing away. Instead of participating in a helpful fashion, you chose to be obstuctive and confrontational.

This latest tactic is just another effort on your part to be obstructive to prevent the impovement of an article which is not only below standard, but is NOT REFERENCED at all, and written like a 5th grade book report.

Really, we have ENDLESS numbers of references to Rolling Stones top 500 song list, but RS Martin, who actually DEMONSTRATED FOR A DECADE deep and detailed knowledge as non-reputable, Jim Shooter and and multiple quotes in scholoarly works be damned.

One more things, you have framed your point very narrowly. What you failed to point out is that the current article is SERVERALY below standard and as it stands, it is not a viable article for wikipedea and a collaboration is needed to fix this article instead of wasting everyone's time with a personal vendetta.

You also placed your call for opinions in the WRONG SECTION. It should have been placed in the Media, the arts, and architecture. THis seems to be another tactic on your part to be obstructive. --Mrbrklyn (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"there is NO SUPPORT that it is a personal blog." - uh... being hosted by BlogSpot is a good indicator. Unless the page has clearly defined editorial oversight, it's a personal blog. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article is sub-standard! e.g. Plot synopsis and Characters are both very long section without a single citation. Those sections should be marked as requiring citations and perhaps deleted if none are added by a certain date.

This is the type of topic that does not lend itself to coverage by the major news media or books; in that case, a blog type of article may be the only available source. (Those who complained about that: Did you find better sources yourself?) If the article is not deleted in its entirety, for being below Wikipedia standards, then, at the very least, it needs citations to blog sources.

Peter K Burian (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you're familiar with comics journalism, but there are numerous magazines such as Alter Ego, Back Issue!, The Comics Journal and, historically, Comic Book Artist, along with others, as well as websites such as CBR, and heaven knows many, many books and newspaper articles about comics. There is no reason to violate Wikipedia WP:RS policy and cite someone non-notable personal blog. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for Mrbrklyn's major addition to the article, I present it below. Aside from the obvious MOS, grammatical and spelling errors, it contains fannish WP:PUFFERY like "breakthrough" and "revolutionary" — those particular claims apparently cited to Chaykin himself. The widely overreaching claims about current politics is cited to the non-WP:RS and apparently pseudonymous personal blog noted above. And the WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims of firsts and how American Flagg! singlehandedly changed comics is cited with enormous, impermissible vagueness. There may be room for a section on the series' themes and style, but this WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH screed is not it.

--Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who was making the contentious edits, Mrbrklyn, has been blocked for one month for repeated sock-puppetry (see here), as well as for posting disturbed-seeming screeds on his talk page. That needs to be taken into consideration.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is why the editor involved in this dispute can't focus on the content? Why do you always need to make :these things personal? Has it occurred to anyone that maybe you are inflaming this situation. When you gag most adults, they :usually respond with resistance. What a waste of time. I suggest you and Mrbrklyn and focus on ironing things out.

Panix comics (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand: sock-puppetry is a clear, bright-line violation. It's one of the worst things a Wikipedia editor can do. That's why he was blocked for a month. I think you're letting your personal antipathy toward me color your view that Mrbrklyn not only committed a grave violation, but then he attempted to do it again after admins caught him.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And incidentally, I not only am focusing on content, but I've even put Mrbrklyn's own proposed edit right here (click "Show," above), for anyone and everyone to see. Claiming I am not focusing on content is a falsehood.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TBH I am pretty sure that there is plenty of room for the article to be expanded within the bounds of normal Wikipedia style and process, including adding someone of the praise the comic has received and influence it has had, so long as it is properly cited and we get beyond the obsession with this one blog. Artw (talk) 23:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not B Invited by the bot and I just reviewed this for about 5 minutes so I don't have in-depth knowledge of the backstory and sources. "B" in the lead has many many problems. Top two is that it isn't in the article (and lead should summarize the article). Next far-reaching statements about the impact and importance of the items would not only need sourcing, they would need particularly strong sourcing. This also goes for such statements in the proposed addition to the body of he article. Most likely such strong sourcing for such far-reaching statements does not exist in which case they are peacock/ fandom/ puffery. That proposed addition (below) to the body might be good if wikified and thinned out. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.