Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Requests for comment/Articles/Vertigo (DC Comics)

Initial request for cool-down week off

CC from Talk:Vertigo (DC Comics)

I think it would be best if we both took a week off and let other editors comment here or edit the site. I'm finding it very hard to follow your posts. Please don't be offended, but I'm finding them not only lengthy, but also convoluted and sometimes very unclear. I'm also, I'm afraid to say, finding it difficult to collaborate when someone takes exception to even single words of his being edited by another. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that Sci Fi Channel itself calls Taken a minisers [1], as does DVD Talk webzine [2] and probably most officially, the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences [3], which gave it an Emmy for "miniseries," not "maxiseries." --71.167.226.59 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the counter-argument. :o) The first two certainly lean towards being potentially more accurate sources on this semi-offshoot of a barely-important side-issue, but the third (Emmy) is largely irrelevant - it's the category the program slots into rather than a specific description: it's not "miniseries vs. maxiseries"; it's "miniseries vs. series".

In any case, the issue is whether or not COMICS series of a certain length are called mini- or maxi-series'. The front cover to Camelot 3000, any discussion of Watchmen, and, of course, The Filth, which was the issue. Whereas "longer miniseries" is not just inaccurate, it's an oxymoron - although I realise it follows on quite nicely from the previous mentions of his miniseries'. The Sci-Fi channel may call Taken a mini, and Vertigo call The Filth a "maxiseries"...

I take no exception to words being edited - so long as there's good reason. And (more importantly) an inaccurate description isn't pasted on top of a (more) correct one. (Oh, and that's not meant to sound rude or argumentative - it's been a long few days...) ntnon (talk) 21:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Holy cow! How defensive! I've only skimmed this huge conversation, but ntnon doesn't seem to want a single word of his prose being edited. This seems a little obsessive. It's definitely a case of WP:OWN. --Skippu (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"You might very well think that... I couldn't possibly comment..." in any more depth, at least. :o) This was initially a discussion about appropriate sources, which was very illuminating and interesting (if only ever about a minor side-issue). It only drifted into comments and criticisms about wider editing after a couple of inaccurate and/or ostensibly-strange edits. I don't quite grasp why citing The Filth as a maxiseries is so controversial, or wondering about that change constitues being obsessive - surely the page being as right as possible is the thing...?

If there are blatantly obvious reasons for changes - great. If not, but there is nonetheless a sound rationale underlying them - also great. Otherwise, it seems reasonable to query them. On which note..!

• Does the US/UK spelling kick in on this occasion, which after all was talking about first publication..? Wouldn't "serialised in Warrior" be more accurate, since V for V was initially in a UK publication;only later maxiseries-ed/serialized by Vertigo..? Or is spelling simply supposed to be standard over the whole page..? ntnon (talk) 02:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

92-word statement by Tenebrae

Sections such as Notable Vertigo Writers are soapbox essays rather than encyclopedic sections, written in a fannish, insidery way that assumes much "accepted wisdom" on the part of the reader. They are overlong, since these writers, artists, etc. have their own Wiki articles. They contain boosterish marketing jargon. Worst of all, they are filled with unreliable sourcing that any first-year journalism student would know not to use — particularly, using quotes from a comic-book distributor's catalog in which one writer's non-disinterested editor, whose books the distributor is selling, waxes grandly about that writer. Plus, WP:OWN --Tenebrae (talk) 04:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Ai! I just went to that article. What a mess. Every single ounce of text should be cut. Those writers have their own articles. Only the links should be listed. Ford MF (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

92 reply

I'm not sure you haven't lost sight of the purpose of Wikipedia (at least, I suppose, "as I see/use it"): as a reference guide/encyclopedia for users to refer to, and to answer queries and learn about various topics from. I went to the Vertigo page initially with an armful of questions I wanted answers to; not finding the answers, I located them elsewhere, and thought I'd save anyone else with similar questions hassle, by centralising that data. What questions might someone want answered/what information might they wish to learn/what information should be imparted?
Surely: Launch titles (and authors). Background on how it came to be. Key behind-the-scenes people. Key in-front-of-the-scenes people. Subimprints. Formats. Myth-busting facts. Comments, criticism and its wider position in the comics field (to be worked on).

You (and, clearly, at least one other) don't like the brief rundown of important/notable Vertigo people. Fair enough. However, there is surely more valid (and less baiting) criticism to be made. In any case, to try and suggest some reasoning:

• Compare, for example, listings in books such as The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction for why I disagree strongly that these sections aren't Encyclopedic content. And certainly not "essays."
• I felt the sections on notable authors/editors/artists were important, because that was what I wanted to know - how much (if anything) did Moore write for Vertigo? (Nothing) How much did Gaiman write for Vertigo? (Very little) Who else launched the imprint, and did they do much more for it? Are there any artists who might be said to epitomise a Vertigo style, and how much have they worked on? Do artists work on one - lengthy - series and nothing else, or do they work on many?
• What about those parts is "fannish," "insidery" or requires any "accepted wisdom"..? It's a quick rundown of Vertigo works by key Vertigo people... what do you need to already know to comprehend/refer to that section? What could an outsider not grasp? They should have been - and would have been - thoroughly linked to all titles' individual pages for ease of navigation, and thus allow swift access to a writers' works.
• I don't see how they can be "overlong", since they are little more than a list - but since Wikipedia doesn't like lists, they've been integrated into paragraphs. Whatever you see as "boosterish marketing jargon," isn't apparent to me.
  • If again, that's a statement made about one minor side-issue, then... The Filth is a maxiseries, which word has risen above what you term as its "marketing jargon" roots to become widely used. (And again your logic escapes me - most, or at least many of the terms used to refer to comics are conceivably definable as "marketing jargon". Including - but not limited to - "comic book," "miniseries" and "limited series.") I don't understand your hang-up over this incredibly minor issue about simply refering to one series using the correct term.
  • Perhaps you object to phrases such as (paraphrasing) "Shelly Bond has edited the most titles and is the best known (after Berger) Vertigo editor." How does that serve as a marketing phrase, and what about it is inaccurate?
  • A quarter of the initial titles were written by Gaiman. As Moore has never worked for Vertigo (and probably even if he had), Gaiman is easily the best-known writer/creator to have worked for Vertigo, (and has acchieved fame outside of comics,) thanks in large part - although this is only implied in-page - to Sandman, which was the primary reason for Vertigo's creation, and continues through spin-offs to be a major moneymaker and integral part of the line-up.
  • Ennis and Delano are Vertigo alumni. (And Ennis would likely not have been offered Punisher without his work on Preacher finding so large an audience, etc.). Ennis and Delano are the pre-eminent and longest-serving Hellblazer authors.
  • Reiber has written almost everything he's written for Vertigo; Carey being allowed to write Lucifer gave him the name he now has. Similarly, Vaughan, Brubaker and Willingham found much - if not all - of their early success through Vertigo.
• In any case, yes, most of the people listed have their own pages - quite rightly. But... Shelly Bond does not (yet), Tom Peyer and Art Young do not (yet). All should. Alex Alonso's is barren; Brian K. Vaughan's is similarly devoid of anything more than a bibliography. Nancy A. Collins' all-but ignores her comics work (because, admittedly - as you edited out - she hasn't written much more than her couple of Vertigo works). Willingham's ignores that his first "DC" work was for Vertigo, except in the bibliography, etc.
  • However, the purpose of the - brief - rundown on the centralised Vertigo page is primarily to bring together these individuals' Vertigo works for ease of navigation. Attempting to follow the needs of someone who might refer to the page. For example, Milligan's own page rightly takes a chronological approach, making it somewhat difficult to sort out his Vertigo works from his other works.
  • If you want to know which artists have produced considerable amounts of work for Vertigo, then the brief overviews serve that purpose. If you don't, you can skip over them and find out about the films and TV series.
  • Ford MF wants "Only the links," which suggests that there is a purpose, but only the format is at issue. I thought lists of links were frowned upon, and took special effort revising this section into paragraphs...
• You probably have several valid points about purported "unreliable sourcing." Unfortunately, you continue to cloud those points by harping on about this alleged quote from "one writer's non-disinterested editor, whose books the distributor is selling, wax[ing] grandly about that writer." Which is utterly inaccurate, albeit a confusion caused by my mis-footnoting it. I'm reasonably confident that you haven't referred to the copy of Advance Comics before ripping into it, judging by your repeated comments in that regard. Which ignore my clarifications. It's also referring to a quote that's been gone since you cut it out at the beginning of all this...
  

Yes, yes, yes. Far too many words. Again. No offence intended or implied, etc. ntnon (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

N., man ... I just have to say, look, we're all colleagues here. We all have the same noble goal of making this free, global encyclopedia the best that we can. Please, and this is coming from someone who genuinely admires your intentions and respects your intellect: You're not helping your case by these long, defensive responses to everyone who shows any criticism of your work.

Wiki admins and mediators and arbitrators are much more willing to read concise, to-the-point responses, and much more willing to see someone's point if that person shows an ability to take constructive criticism, and to reasonably compromise or even agree with other editors.

Please believe what I'm saying. It comes from long and occasionally hard-fought experience here. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know we're all singing from the same songsheet, but we only (to torture the analogy) have the lyrics, and they'll fit to a dozen tunes of greater or lesser musicality... With all due respect - you're putting me on the defensive by going on the offensive! If someone criticizes me/my thinking/my writing: fine. But surely then my explaining why I chose to do what I did allows the discussion to have at least one side laid out plainly.

Point to some "constructive criticism," and I'll be happy to try and adapt within its frame. I haven't seen (m)any attempts to be constructively critical... and I can only recall/find one attempt at compromise: "limited" instead "maxi." The next nearest "compromise"s are deferring to your opinion/edits - which I did on the inital Advance Comics quote.

I have no doubt that you're trying to help, but as a declared journalist/editor can you point to where you offered helpful advice rather than out-and-out criticism of something I'd written, please? I honestly can't see the constructive approach in evidence. ntnon (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

sOme Hundred word statement by ntnon

(Tenebrae requested a 100-word summary of this kerfuffle. Now read on....)

The limiting of words may aid readability, but often not help with full clarity of understanding (which is always ever my intention when I up creating a textual bombardment. Although my lengthier explanations sometimes hinder rather than help, unfortunately).

SEPARATE SUMMARY, rather than response to the above:

“ I added to the Vertigo article, and Tenebrae questioned an aside sourced - he felt - dubiously. Removing it, he accidentally introduced an (Ennis) error, which I fixed while trying to compromise our slight differences in layout aesthetic.

Criticised (in, I feel inaccurate and hypocritical terms) for this edit, we entered into civil - if non-specific - debate over my text being "fannish."

Slightly stung by this criticism, and attempting to head off (potential) specific critiques by full, wordy, explanations and defenses of my reasoning, clarity was - perhaps - swamped.

Declared an "impasse," Tenebrae then took issue (and I with the taking) over the word "maxiseries."

”

Damn. 102... I was close!

(Oh, and my bemusement over the logic behind a couple of edits - and in particular the word "maxiseries" being revised to "longer miniseries" for what I still think bizarre and spurious reasoning - led to a more general allegation that I don't want any of "my" text changed. Plus, as per this mediation thingummy, it seems that the "notable Vertigo-ans" - which I see as being a concise way of providing links to many and various Vertigo articles, a distinctly helpful service to the casual and interested reader alike - section is not well liked. And/or "peacock-y," "essay-y" or "fancruft".)

Well, 200 in total then. Still... Naturally I may not have the distance to see the accuracy of some criticisms/comments/disagreements (although I consider my disagreements with disagreements to be valid rather than mere rhetoric), but it's hard to argue about specifics, when such side-issues or non-issues keep rearing their heads..!

Having Tenebrae now clarify better which parts he takes issue with should help move things forward. I'll comment on the 92 words soon/later. ntnon (talk) 05:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And again, I'm finding that your seeming refusal to compromise or work with other editors — even to the extent of something as simple as acceding to jc37's request for short summaries of our positions — is a troubling trait. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should overly penalise for verbosity (if we did, I'd be penalised daily : )

And the above is far more "summary", than the current state of the article's talk page. (Though Tenebrae's point is well taken. I will tell you from my own experience that he is correct, there are those who will not read through lengthy posts.)

That said, I have 2 questions.

1.) While I'm leaning towards 5 days, did either of you have a preference for how long this RfC should stay open? (And either of you are welcome to link to this page at the comics noticeboard, if you wish.)

2.) I believe ntnon mentioned that there was a sourcing issue that concerned Tenebrae. What was it, and further was action did Tenebrae take that prompted ntnon to feel that an error was made?

Also, thanks for the effort so far. For the most part (though I'm noting a few comments...) you've both been cordial, courteous and civil. And that's a welcome sight : ) - jc37 04:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I speak for ntnon when I say thank you for you kind words about our comportment overall!

The RfC was posted on the WikiProject Comics Noticeboard at 22:50, 29 June 2008. So let's say June 30. It's been 12 days.

To answer your other question: Here's the verbatim paragraph from Talk:Vertigo (DC Comics)/Archives/2012#Quoting from a distributor's catalog:

Cap City's Advance Comics is not by any means a disinterested third-party, journalistic source — it's a solicitation catalog who text is solely designed to promote and sell its comics products. While an interview in it, such as Karen Berger's, may provide some factual information, we cannot use any opinions taken from there. If Berger is quoted as say, "John Doe may be the greatest new writer of his generation," or "Jane Doe is the most lauded horror writer today," such material is unusable — it's not being vetted for objectivity, and appears in a source that does not operate under journalistic or academic-research standards, but is a promotional catalog designed to move merchandise. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

--Tenebrae (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. What I find ironic is that there are so many other, more journalistically viable available that could support many of the points ntnon makes. Given that, his insistence on his way or no way strikes me, to use a word he often uses, as bizarre. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was meaning 5 days from the creation of this page. Which would make (going by your numbers) the total length to be 16 days. I think that that's a fair amount of time. (Though I will say that if good, positive, productive discussion is ongoing at that point, we may give an extension. Such discussion can be a good thing : )

As a suggestion, I would suggest that you both start looking for references. For example, while I personally know that publishers are somewhat not consistant with terminology (what something is called often varies from publication to publication) ), see what you can find in how the actual comics with the Vertigo label were described by the publisher and possibly others (words such as "xseries" (x= mini, maxi, extended, ongoing, 12-issue, or whatever you find).

As I think ntnon, at least, knows from previous discussions we've been part of, verifiable reliable sources typically will "trump" an editor's personal opinion, and especially wil overturn Original research. And I would entreat you both to (re-)read all three of those pages. I know that (for example) not adding "original research" would seem to be a "no-brainer", especially amongst two fairly seasoned editors, but there's quite a bit of information there that I think even the best of us could use a review of. Especially concerning types of sources.

So anyway, I look forward to seeing what references are discovered : ) - jc37 05:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer to jc37

Two brief clarifications - I've made no such insistence over "my way or no way," and in fact left alone Tenebrae's editing out of the ONE quote he felt was not applicable from Advance Comics. However, to clarify, the above paragraph is an inaccurate summation of the issue - because, I admit, I mis-footnoted it in the first place, leaving Tenebrae with an inaccurate assumption of who said what.

To answer jc37's query more accurately - it's THIS EDIT that set things in motion. An on-the-spot at-the-time quote from the PREAMBLE TO A GAIMAN INTERVIEW in Advance Comics - not the Berger interview - that described Gaiman as already being "popular" and "sought after" PRE-Vertigo. Which I wanted to stress, since it's a commonly-thought notion that he only acchieved success with Vertigo.

Tenebrae removed it as not being accurate reportage (Capital City wishing to sell products), but as well as other minor (to my eyes in equal parts helpful, confusing and nitpicky) edits note that on line three there's an interpolated "Ennis."

I revised it: removing "Ennis," Anglicising the serilisation of a title in a UK publication, correcting "maxiseries," correcting two dates and a spelling, rewording some parts for (in my mind) clarity of reading and adding that Doom Patrol went back to DC later on and that Pollack wrote very few other comics.

Tenebrae REVERTED "rvt to last SmackBot" these edits (reinserting Ennis as writing The Invisibles) and criticised/warned me - "Do not revert blindly, please" - over changing it. Admittedly, this critique/warning was over perceived "POV" (broadly a condemnation of noting Morrison's Invisibles as his "signature" series; noting Gaiman is better known and - perhaps - noting that Doom Patrol left for DC some years later) and "fancruft." ntnon (talk) 18:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Answer, too

Terminology isn't the issue, it's Tenebrae's insistence that "marketing jargon" not be used that's at issue. The Filth is - as I've stated several times - a "maxiseries". jc37 asks for:

"what you can find in how the actual comics with the Vertigo label were described by the publisher and possibly others"

Well. See above. Camelot 3000 #1 is described on the front cover as a "maxiseries." Watchmen is often described as a "maxiseries." The Filth - the issue here - is described by it's publisher as "a 13-issue maxiseries." Independent reviews from such sources are probably not journalistically sound, but a Comixfan columnist talks about "maxiseries" in relation to The Filth. In fairness, the Continuity Pages and ComicBookDb say "mini," as does (currently) some parts of Wikipedia. The bibliography at enjolrasworld.com says "maxi," "Arthur" magazine reviews a "maxi," and the Grand Comics Database has "maxi," as do Forbidden Planet and other shops.

Reliability and Original Research, etc. is reasonably clear that sources "which are promotional in nature" are "questionable." To stretch a point - even though the questionable quote is gone, and remains so - the questionable nature of a promotional source is in whether or not it can be verified. If it can be verified, then it is no longer questionable. I feel there's a flaw in the advice as stated with regards all blogs, zines, etc. that I tried to highlight here, and I feel that it bleeds into "promotional sources" also. Hype can be problematic (although not when attributed - "Gregory Hugenot thinks that Mein Kampf is the greatest book ever written" is surely acceptable as a quote, even if it's validity is highly dubious), but noting that the major seller of comics thought Gaiman a bankable commodity PRE-Vertigo doesn't seem to be in major conflict with the spirit of a reliable source, even if Tenebrae is probably correct that it violates the actual letter of it. Note, though that blogs and zines and all those sources "are largely not acceptable", meaning that common sense can arbitrate times that they ARE acceptable. ntnon (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

If,as you suggest, a questionable source can be verified by a reputable source, then just use the reputable source.

Just because a publisher calls something a maxiseries doesn't mean anything. Publishers have called 20-page superhero stories "a full-length novel!!!" on the cover.

It call comes down to clear communication. To the general-audience reader for which Wikipedia specifies we must write, "miniseries" has a meaning. "Maxiseries" is meaningless. And I again offer a compromise that is the clearest way of saying it so that any lay-reader will understand: "a 12-issue limited series."

RE: "it's a commonly-thought notion that he [Gaiman] only acchieved [sic] success with Vertigo." Commonly thought by whom? Comics fans, perhaps, but not the general-audience reader who doesn't think one way or the other about it. This is an example of what I mean by the use here "accepted wisdom" and "what everybody knows." Additionally, saying this notion is "commonly thought" is POV. You may think it's commonly thought and in need of refutation (which would be WP:SOAPBOX, while someone else would say that to the vast general public, The Sandman is exactly where most people first heard of Gaiman, in mainstream articles about the series — which is not the same as saying they "commonly thought" that he was nobody before, but just that this is where they first heard of him.

Enough, please, with the Ennis thing. I said forthrightly when you first brought it up that I had erred. But y'know, it was a simply a mistyping — I meant to write "Morrison" and I wrote "Ennis" since I'd just been reading about Ennis. Big deal — it was one word that, being in an entire paragraph specifically about Morrison, any editor would have noticed and fixed it quickly enough.

But all these specifics are not the important thing. The tone of these sections is that of a fansite. ntnon can't see it, and so it must not be there. He is essaying, he is synthesizing in order to "prove" his arguments — read: his POV — and just look at his responses to other editors who've offered a single line or two of constructive criticism: He bludgeons them with diatribes. No wonder they haven't come back ... and that is what I'm talking about when I say ntnon is arguing "my way or no way." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds to me that the issue concerning "Ennis" has been resolved, so it would seem there is no positive purpose to continue along that line of discussion. - jc37 23:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To Tenebrae:

Sources: My point is both about primary and secondary sources and about qualified quotes. Look:

"(in an interview held to discuss Vertigo-launch title Death: The High Cost of Living, Gaiman is described as "perhaps one of the most popular writers in comics today" whose "work is also among the most sought after... because it is synonymous with quality and high sales")"

That's not soapboxing or trying to push a personal opinion. It's clearly a quote, clearly contextualised and sourced to a particular publication. It doesn't violate WP:NPOV, since it's a quoted opinion, not MY opinion. Indeed, the NPOV page says:

"..it is important indeed to note how some artist or some work has been received by the general public or by prominent experts... Public and scholarly critique of an artist or work, when well-researched and verifiable, helps to put the work into context.."

CONTEXT and OPINIONS.

You suggest - with some accuracy - that Capital City has a vested interest in pushing his popularity, to sell more comics. You would therefore say that this quote doesn't tick the boxes of being "well-researched and verifiable." Now, to be verifiable, it has to be said elsewhere - in your words that might allow for a quote from "a questionable source [which] can be verified by a reputable source" if there's a reason to chose one over the other. That choice would have many factors, among them whether it is "well-researched" and accurate, and how biased (or not) it may be.

Firstly, CC wanted to sell ANY comics, so they don't have to lie about a certain author's standing (and although in an interview preamble they're unlikely to denigrate him, but they could easily describe such a subject as "under-appreciated" if need be) - there's no reason to doubt it's accuracy, although we may disagree on the level of bias likely or definite. Secondly, they are in the perfect position to KNOW whose work is sought after and which have "high sales," so they are a good source in that regard. Even as a throwaway remark, it's clearly well-researched.

Moreover it is not MY opinion, but is clearly qualified as an opinion linked to the premiere of a comic. It's journalistically sound to quote and qualify opinions if they add CONTEXT.

The context is noting that the majority of his "Vertigo-esque" work was done pre-Vertigo... and this FACT is still in evidence on the page, because it's worth mentioning. The quote you cut merely acts as a source for noting that he "came to prominence four years pre-Vertigo with the launch of The Sandman for DC Comics."

The purpose of using Advance Comics rather than another "more reputable source" is because it is a PRIMARY source. Admittedly, Wikipedia tends to favor secondary sources for the (purported) added fact checking they imply. But secondary sources rely on primary source material. Fact checking a secondary source often entails little more than making sure that it agrees with the primary source... hence, in most academic circumstances, it is primary sources therefore that are desired as footnotes. Hence also the benefit of a source writing in early 1993 about this matter. A later regurgitation of that fact adds nothing, and actually takes away a lot, since it loses the context and knowledgable source.

And you think that this is an example of required "accepted wisdom"? I think you're now arguing for the sake of it. There's no requirement for a reader to hold an inaccurate opinion to be told something more accurate. It makes no difference if NO-ONE thinks he rose to prominence solely through Vertigo to read that he did not. But, as you say, many people will have first heard of him through Sandman. So it's useful knowledge to read that comics fans nonetheless bought large numbers of his comics pre-Vertigo.

Example: "Superman was the first superhero."

If someone reads that knowing it - no problem.

If someone reads that not knowing it and not caring - no problem.

If someone reads that having thought something different - it's useful.

It isn't "soapboxing," since the sentence isn't advancing the opinion that people will not think Superman was the first superhero (in any case an odd double negative), it merely states it as a sourced opinion, with the added benefit of clarifying the fact for anyone who may think otherwise. It's not un-neutral (it's a sourced quote), it's not promoting the point of view that people won't already know that - it's merely taking that into account. Some people might not know, and therefore is worthwhile information to include for all readers. ntnon (talk) 00:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Shorter

“ But all these specifics are not the important thing. The tone of these sections is that of a fansite. ntnon can't see it, and so it must not be there. He is essaying, he is synthesizing in order to "prove" his arguments — read: his POV — and just look at his responses to other editors who've offered a single line or two of constructive criticism: He bludgeons them with diatribes. No wonder they haven't come back ... and that is what I'm talking about when I say ntnon is arguing "my way or no way." --Tenebrae (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC) ”

For ease of reply, and since I realise that the above was lengthy, I offer a far shorter response, and some hopefully quick-to-respond to points:

1. Please, if you see the "tone" as that of a fansite, explain why and what is at issue. It's clearly not a question of "if I can't see it, it's not there," at best it's "if I can't see it, I may need someone to show me it." If someone can't see something from your point of view, you don't complain at them - you try to show them through description and examples.

2. What argument(s) do you think I was trying to "prove" on the Vertigo article page?

("Diatribes" confusion and disagreement covered below.)

It is my hope that this will be a more succinct and helpful mini-reply for Tenebrae (or, perhaps, others) to respond to. :o) ntnon (talk) 02:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Lord, yes. Much easier! Thank you.

It's funny — if anybody were to go to the trouble of tracking all the conversations between us on various pages, they'd see two editors getting along like old buddies, genuinely working together, giving compliments and credit where it's due ... and then there's here!   :-)

Let me start with this: I apologize for using the phrase "slightly fawning fansite essay." What I intended as succinctness came out in a way that, clearly, created both hurt feelings and a perfectly understandable defense response. I could have been more diplomatic and positive, and I should have been. I think we've conversed together enough now elsewhere over the last couple of weeks that you've got a feel my postings and my editing, so I'm hoping you know this is meant sincerely.

Given that the RfC only garnered a handful of responses, and that it's looking like the wise and honorable jc37 (whose recusing himself shows great class and a commitment to fairness) wants us to to try and work things out ourselves, why don't we start with this:

I'll 1) copy over each writer's or artist's section here and give my specifics one-by-one. (The whole house is so big it's too daunting to do all at once.) And 2) I myself will seek out journalistic citations to support the same points that now use distributor-catalog quotes to support. Does that sound fair? --Tenebrae (talk) 02:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Success! I do accept most of your - and others' - criticisms of my wordiness (and no, I'm not Brian Michael Bendis, either), so I hoped this might be a slightly more succinct alternative. And your apology is equal parts gratefully received, accepted and unnecessary (in that order), thank you. I'll take the opportunity then issue a more generalised apology in return. :o)

I'm similarly disappointed/saddened by the lack of wider comments. Conceivably that could partly be due to daunting walls of type; maybe no-one feels there's much to add, but I also tend to think that the RfC page may not be the most visited or noticed. It'd be helpful to have some additional comments. Whether supportive either of us/our reasoning; critical of either or both, or even just "I see no problem" - since we have no easy way of knowing if some people simply see no real issues to comment on. But, yes: all due praise to jc37 for wading in and helping out.

Point-by-points on the various sections should be a great help, yes, thanks. That's really all I've been hoping for - specifics. That way I can explain generally to anyone who cares my underlying logic, and - hopefully! - then allow us to pull my reasoning and your criticisms together into a handy - and better - amalgam. (Which someone will then likely delete/change in a month's time, of course...)

Which other Advance Comics quotes are problematic, though? Do you at least see/take/agree with my point that a primary source is of CONSIDERABLE benefit in getting the on-the-spot initial comments..? Retrospective memories have their place, but early views and suchlike are surely of vital importance. (And if not, I'm of course interested in the "why".) ntnon (talk) 03:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I think I'm losing hope here. No I;m not — I'm just tired. We're making progress.

Hear me out. The baseline thing is, a distributor's catalog is not journalistically vetted, or peer-reviewed. And it's promotional in nature.

Essentially, it's a press release on glossy paper.

Of course, we can take data from press releases, or quotes about quantifiable facts, such as circulation. But never opinion quotes. I swear on my mother's cancer, this is a basic, basic tenet of journalism (and I would hope that without the constraints of daily-deadline publication that an encyclopedia has even higher standards).

Also, to clear up any semantic problems: I take primary source to mean, in , say, a Neil Gaiman biography, information that comes directly from my (hypothetical) interview with Gaiman — which I could not use here (WP:NOR), but which I could use in a newspaper/magazine article.

A secondary source would be information gotten from a published Neil Gaiman interview. This is what Wikipedia prefers.

But if that interview appears in a promotional vehicle — like movie press kits, or a press release, or a sales catalog — then it is tainted and no reputable journalist would use it.

Ask yourself: Would The New York Times or The London Times use it? A reputable paper would seek to interview Gaiman and others with knowledge of him, and also use information taken from reputable news sources. I swear to you, they would not take Gaiman quotes from a sales catalog.

I hope you can empathize with my plight: This is basic journalism, and I guess it's second nature to me and seems obvious to me after all this time and experience and training, etc., so I — and this is a common failing, for me and others — assume it's equally clear to others. And I can see why it might not be, and that it's the responsibility of whatever professionals are here to be helpful and explanatory in a kind and non-patronizing way. Which is hard given the non-face-to-face communication and subsequent potential for misunderstandings.

God, now I'm overwriting! Does what I say make sense? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. No rush to reply -- it's after midnight. See ya tomorrow, buddy. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So just to get this straight - do you dislike the vehicle entirely, or just for "opinions"..? You intially concurred that there's value in facts derived from AC - "an interview in it... may provide some factual information" - does that still stand?

I think we are - interestingly - almost entirely in agreement on the major points here. Perhaps one of my bigger bones of contention is that other sources are automatically better - because they aren't. Which doesn't excuse or deny this being a 'lesser' source, and may therefore be a completely separate side issue. Broadly speaking, though any interviews pre-Vertigo and in 1993 will be "promotional in nature," as will most articles talking about the up-coming publisher. So I don't see that, say, a concurrent piece in The Comics Journal will be any better or say anything different - indeed, it will in all probability say much less, since (clearly) Berger, Gaiman and Capital City want people to buy Vertigo comics, and will therefore put forward a better case! (Even Diamond's Dateline for the same period has almost nothing on Vertigo; neither does DC's own Coming Comics - if you think, presumably only from my excerpts? - that the AC pieces were essentially press release regurgitation, I can only assume you've also not seen Coming Comics, which is basically the commercially available press release, and is far sparser. Likewise the early "On the Ledge" pieces.)

I am more than well aware that facts trump opinions. But you can cite CREDITED and QUALIFIED opinions of SPECIFIC, NAMED people, though, surely. Wikipedia Opinion Policy clearly states: "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given." Hence my asking for you to point me to examples left on the Vertigo page that defy this suggestion.

Absolutely, a personal, tailored and current interview is the best kind of primary source. An at-the-time on-the-spot interview is a more appropriate primary source for something that has already happened, however, and as you say novel interviews are not acceptable. Only quotes from extant ones. And again - it's somewhat rare to find an on-the-spot interview that isn't even tangentially promotional in nature: that's usually why people are interviewed..! A retrospective, such as the lengthy interviews conductied by TCJ is usually one of the rare cases. But those will either only briefly touch on some areas or will rely on the subjects' memory of past events - a 2001 interview in which Berger recalls her thoughts on the start of Vertigo is useful. A 1993 interview in which she STATES her thoughts AT the start of Vertigo is far, far better.

Come on, though... Press releases and press kits frequently form the basis of articles, particularly contemporary ones. That's why you'll sometimes see the same errors threaded through multiples reports; and more tellingly, yes, the same quotes from the same people..! Whatever you might think, the AC interview is not a press release. Perhaps, even when qualified as being written by the agent of a company privy to sales details and market trends, a statement about Gaiman's selling-power might fall under "press hype." I still don't fully agree, after all the caveats noted, but that quote is gone anyway.

The NYT or the Times may not use AC, it's true, not least because they'd be unlikely to write about this precise issue. If the NYT decided to write about Gaiman having early selling power, however, where might they draw that anecdotal evidence from? They might ask Gaiman (a biased, and possibly unknowing source, although he may be able to guesstimate based on royalty checks), they might ask Berger (an even better source), individual retailers (could only speak for themselves and guess market trends), or - yes - they might well ask the number one comics distributor of the time...

You're certainly making sense, I just suspect that you've got all this a little too ingrained to consider the possibility that this may not be a hard-and-fast rule, but a flexible guideline. Absolutely, outrightly promotional and biased materials should be treated very, very carefully. But I challenge both the blanket label that the perceived reliability of the vehicle outweighs the specific perceived reliability of the information it contains. (e.g. The Daily Mail in the UK is regularly cited as being xenophobic and horribly right-wing - should that proclude quoting from an article therein if it has important reportage? The TCJ editors regularly have an axe to grind and slant their reporting very much to one side - does that deny the magazine's usefulness as a source?) Does that make counter-sense...!? ntnon (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Abstracted

Again, an easier-to-reply to summation, with less reaoning and specifics than the above. Consider this an abstract of the above reasoning..!

A Primary source is not the same as 'from the horse's mouth,' it's: "a document, recording or other source of information that was created at roughly the time being studied, by an authoritative source, usually one with direct personal knowledge of the events being described." Such sources should be seen to be broadly acceptable regardless of specific venue - assuming that, as per a logical extrapolation of WP:BLP "there is no reasonable doubt [as to the veracity of the subject providing information]." And provided the specific originator of said opinion/fact - Berger, say - is noted clearly.

Opinions/facts STATED at the time far outweigh any given in retrospect, or even uncredited: if the NYT writes "Gaiman sold x-hundred-thousand copies of Black Orchid" it would be an acceptable source - even though we'd have no idea what their REAL source was...! We know/can reasonably assume that a similar statement made by DC/Vertigo, (Diamond) or Capital City would be sourced to them directly, and thus more accurate in that type of case.

Consider that, just as not everything that makes it into the NYT, Times and TCJ, or onto CNN, the BBC or Al Jazeera is entirely accurate - and indeed, often biased, skewed, designed to promote a particular slant or opinion and/or may be contradicted the next day - so, too, not everything written in a PR pamphlet, on Wizard's website or in AC is automatically biased, inaccurate or sloppily reported. That's a 'baby and bathwater' situation to my mind, and shows a misrepesentation of GUIDELINES as LAWS. ntnon (talk) 17:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

T. response

Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater is a sensible truism.

Something your wrote in the long version, though, I found ... I'm not even sure of the word, since I'd need to know more context of where it's coming from.

"Press releases and press kits frequently form the basis of articles, particularly contemporary ones. That's why you'll sometimes see the same errors threaded through multiples reports; and more tellingly, yes, the same quotes from the same people."

Please believe me: That is only true of hack websites, amateur journalism, and sometimes student newspapers. None of the magazines or newspapers for which I right would ever -- ever -- use quotes from a movie press kit. They would never use quotes from a press release unless it's an article whose very point is to dissect claims made in a press release. (This is distinct from official statements, such as a government official or a CEO might release during breaking news.)

All newspapers, even multiple Pulitzer winners, sometimes print inaccuracies and run corrections, so I'm not sure how that equates The New York Times with a promotional catalog. You do hit on something trenchant, though: The Times (London or NY!) would absolutely look to a comics distributor for sales figures ... as well as ask companies and, if the publisher's magazines are audited by the ABC (Audit Bureau of Circulation), they would consult those figures as well. That's an excellent example of taking facts from a distributor.

A 2008 interview with Gaiman isn't less valuable than a 1993 interview, if the 1993 interview was made in a catalog where a) statements are not fact-checked, b) there is no journalistic vetting for objectivity, and c) the purpose is puffery for sales reasons — whereas, years later, when someone isn't beholden to a distributor and isn't trying to push product, he can let his hair down and say what he really thinks.

Please forgive me, but I have to ask: Are you yourself a journalist (professional and not a "citizen journalist") or an academic writer for peer-reviewed journals? The things I'm taking from your statements — I'm honestly having trouble wrapping my mind around them. Clarly, you're very intelligent and I find myself respecting your intellect (and, separately, your passion for what you believe is right) even when we disagree.

Give me some context, please, so I can try to put myself in your shoes, in your head, and empathize. I really, really want to try and see things through your eyes, because there's such a dissonance here (especially when I see the masterful job you did creating the Whitney Ellsworth page. It's like finding a kindred soul!) --Tenebrae (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

My reply

Press kits: I own several press kits and press packs for a number of films, and I'm really I suppose talking about cases where the press pack contains interviews with cast & crew. I have seen the same quotes attributed to cast/crew in several (respectable) newspapers which I have later read in a press kit. Perhaps I placed undue weight on that, though - it's not often (it seems fairly rare that a press kit will be more than a synopsis and summary - although those 'facts' are naturally parroted, sometimes verbatim, in multiple sources).

Sources: I'm certainly not trying to equate sources, merely try to put some thought into assessing the CONTENT, not (automatically) the publication. (If that makes sense.) Simply put, a "good" interview can be printed in a "bad" source, and vice versa. While the nature of the medium/publication naturally tends to suggest that it's content is of greater or lesser value (it is usually fair to attribute a greater degree of accuracy to an article in the NYT than to, say, the London Metro - and then more to the Metro than to a literate blog; more to the blog than a well-run fansite, etc.) that shouldn't be the ultimate arbiter.

[Similarly, I see a flaw in the reasoning behind procluding outright certain sources. If a writer writes in their fanzine an article on War comics, say, and then adapts that same article for serialisation in a pro-zine (Alter Ego, say) and then condenses that article for publication in a special insert in The Times - which is an appropriately quotable/referencable source? I say (with some caveats): all three. The fanzine article is lengthier, and contains information cut - for space - from the other two; the A/E article is subject to the input of other fans and editors and is more accurate and up-to-date; the Times version is published in the more reputable medium. The hierarchy of 'accuracy' based on editorial scrutiny holds sway in many cases, but surely shouldn't be the only point - nor even (always) the most important.]

Interviews &c.: A 2008 interview is also of value for opinions and thoughts. In certain respects more, because it has the value of hindsight. In other respects, though, it's clearly lesser. Can you remember your thought-processes and motivations for an event 15 years ago with crystal clarity...?! I'm talking specifically about individuals' memories of their own reasoning and their own actions. How do you fact-check what someone thought - aside from asking them..? Note that I'm talking generally about interviews, and not specifically about the AC comment on Gaiman's saleability. Likwise, yes, from a distance one can be objective and less beholden to company/product. One can also be asked leading questions at any point.

N.B. I do think in many cases here we're talking at cross purposes! Sometimes I aim to discuss a single specific and you go for a generalised reply; here I suspect I'm talking theoretical and you're - maybe - working from the assumption that I'm still discussing only this precise issue. And I realise I'm not always helping things by switching tracks..!

"Citizen journalist" is something of an oxymoron, I feel. The news' recent insistence on asking anybody and everybody what they "think" about the issue of the day is undermining the very integrity of the sources which are currently higher up the list in these debates...! Your context is that I (am/try to) approach these issues from the context of an historian first and foremost. Hence my many points about primary sources. Knowledge and understanding, historical context and the preservation of both - particularly within the comics field where so much has been lost, and so little is known, reported or preserved (and shockingly so in microcosm here at Wikipedia, where the gaps seem wider every day) - are my key tenets. It might also be fair to say that I tend towards scepticism of (some aspects of) the journalistic/editorial/peer-review processes - particularly in the forum of preserved interviews with notable figures, which often survive - and exist at all - through the dedication of the amateur rather than the professional.

It's the theories being played out in reality that I'm in - slight - disagreement with here. If a journalist claims X and an editor allows it to see print, I don't fully subscribe to that X being "more true" than if anyone else were to claim X. Particularly when presented as a claim rather than a fact. On the contrary, if something appears in the NYT, it may graduate from opinion to "fact"; appearing in AC keeps it well in the range of "reported opinion" - allowing a reader to judge it on its own merits, rather than being told it to be 'True'. (Did that make sense..?! Everything's a bit frantic here, I'm afraid, so I'm putting this together in short bursts, and clarity may suffer - more than usual - accordingly, I'm afraid.)

Oh, and I much appreciate your comments about what I did with the entry on Mr Ellsworth. :o) One of the - many - scandalous "missing" entries here. ntnon (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes! Exactly! Can you believe the omissions? Have you seen, on my user page, the list of comics-creator bios I had to initiate? Guys like George Tuska, Syd Shores and Joe-freaking-Maneely had no entries! Wayne Boring &madash; one of the main Superman artists!

Sorry to hear things are frantic. I've flown in to help tend to my mother, who has stage-three cancer. Which probably explains why I've been staying up so late Wiki'ing, to help numb my mind.

I'm glad we agree on "citizen journalist." I wouldn't say oxymoron (I'm a citizen myself), but I would say it's a euphemism for "amateur with a small recording device" who may or may not be knowledgeable and objective, who may or may not know how to conduct an interview with skepticism, follow-up questions, asking same question different ways, engaging the subject's trust and getting the subject to speak freely, and putting it all in a framework and context of significance. People think because they can ask questions that they can professionally interview. That's like me saying I can swing a bat, so I can professionally play baseball. In both cases, the good ones makes it look easy — and after 29 years and over half-a-dozen books, I still marvel at how good some of my peers are, how they get people to talk and say something new. But I digress...

On the ... unusual ... hypothetical article you suggest that's first published in a fanzine, is adapted for Alter Ego and somehow is adapted again for The London Times ... what? I'm not sure I get the point. But ... a fanzine doesn't have fact-checkers or experienced editors who can frame and shape an article and point out missing pieces (I love Alter Ego, but the sometimes-clumsy, stumbling, full-of-holes interviews make me crazy. Vague or muddled statements often don't get follow-up questions, certain answers bring up natural, obvious questions that don't get asked, claims may not get scrutinized ... I'm sorry, I'm rambling). The point is, it wouldn't be the same article when it got the Times because even if (unlikely) most of the words stayed the same, the article will have been vetted, examined, scrutinized and questioned in a way it would not have been before. That's what makes the difference.

I gather you're not a professional journalist or academic, and that's cool -- we're all peers here and the egalitarian outreach of Wikipedia, the culling of amateur historians and hobbyists with specialized knowledge, is part of what makes it not just special, but revolutionary and groundbreaking. Yet seeing basic standards of ... I don't want to say "journalistic integrity," since I do not doubt your integrity for one second, and don't want that familiar phrase to get conflated with any other possible meaning. Let's say, "seeing basic journalistic standards become flexible." Because encyclopedia research and writing, which is not "the first draft of history," should be at an even higher standard than that.

This is a fascinating exchange with you, touching as it does on watershed changes in the nature of information dissemination ... worrisome changes (and may I recommend a flawed but brilliant movie called Idiocracy that I think will make you howl at its satire of where we are and may be headed). And we are so far afield from working on parts of a comic-book article.

Are you beginning to get the feeling we're overcomplicating this? I wish we had more voices here.

I think taking it one writer at a time, as I was suggesting, would be good. I'll copy-paste something here tomorrow and annotate it. We're both macro thinkers — we need to rein ourselves in to nuts and bolts.

I'm gonna go do some touch-ups on other articles for awhile. I'll see you tomorrow, pal. What does "N.B." mean, by the way? --Tenebrae (talk) 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Summary by jc37

So the concerns seem to be:

1.) Usage of the term "maxi-series" in this instance, and (possibly) in general.

2.) The writer/artist/etc. summary sections.

3.) The question of ntnon's writing style, and whether it meets WP:NPOV.

I've developed an opinion about the first two instances, based on my interpretation of current Wikipedia policy/guidelines/style guides. So I think I'm going to "recuse" myself as a "mediator" in those two instances. Recusing because this was, as I recall, a request for mediation. And from what I can tell, mediators aren't supposed to resolve the issues for you, they're supposed to help guide you to resolve the issues yourselves, merely providing a way to help foster a forum for communication.

Now if you (plural) would like to hear my opinion, I'll be happy to give it as "just another editor" : )

As for the third, I think that if Tenebrae wishes to pursue it, that it's something that should be brought in a separate RfC, as that would probably require quite a few diffs in order to show overall tendencies, rather than just isolated edits. And that would, I think, require an RfC, rather than mediation, because I think you both would prefer to hear actual comment from other editors regarding each's interpretation.

The above aside, I welcome other input concerning this, and I would presume both of you do as well. - jc37 23:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To jc37 (and to refute some new/expanded criticisms):

(with apologies for fouling up the indenting again.. which can hinder readability even further, sadly)

Clearly the only reason I even brought up "Ennis" again was because you/Tenebrae asked for a summary. Naturally it was a simple mistake on T's part. (As are typos, for example.) In any case, it was the later revert's associated editing comment that made that minor mistake any kind of an issue - not the initial mistake itself.

You seem mostly right: The concerns clearly are "maxi-series" and - apparently - the entirety of the 'summary sections', (which were only tangentially mentioned as an issue on the Vertigo talkpage itself, and with no obvious "constructive criticism") which are presumably what he was referring to by making that early perjorative comment: "This section, and much of this article, is written as a slightly fawning fansite essay."

I haven't however received the impression that he thinks my writing violates NPOV per se, but some of what I've written. My impression is that he thinks my writing in general to be un-journalistic, and "essay"-like. I suppose the "fawning fan" 'critique' might also imply a general lack of neutrality, however. Clearly there were SPECIFIC objection to comments about The Invisibles (repeated - and sourced - at Grant Morrison); to an aside about Gaiman being better-known than Peter Milligan (which I didn't feel required a footnote; but simply provided a segue to produce an overview of Gaiman before Milligan, allowing the progression to read Moore, Morrison, Gaiman). Those comments having already been removed, however, leads me to assume that there is another reason beyond WP:NPOV violation that Tenebrae takes issue with.

My major concern would be the apparent denigration and veiled insults. And just as importantly, the lack of "constructive criticism" - it's impossible to take it if it isn't offered, leaving me in an unhappy catch-22 situation. Blithely dismissing everything I write as unjournalistic, fansite-y and essaylike is not constructive, and nor does it even show what the perceived problems are. I take issue also with the suggestion that I am asking for "my way or no way," since it's Tenebrae's opinions and theories that are holding sway and winning out, albeit under protest. And now I read that "all these specifics are not the important thing"... Surely it's only the specifics that can be addressed? It's therefore the specifics that need to be discussed. The logic and reasoning behind his allegation that I'm writing essays not articles needs to be laid out, surely? How else can I learn...? :o)

I would very much invite your - jc37's - opinion on any or all of this. I also welcome other opinions - although naturally I may wish to defend myself in some circumstances. I certainly don't believe, however, that I have "bludgeon[ed other editors] with diatribes." I find it very insulting to criticise my - albeit wordy - attempts to fully reply in that way. The length comes from my perception of the need to lay out my entire reasoning in the face of vague criticism - especially so when specifics aren't addressed. In any case, when did 7/8 lines become a "diatribe"? When an editor noted three examples to counter my countering of/aside to Tenebrae's attempt to prove that "maxiseries" the term didn't exist in any meaningful sense (I feel that I showed that it did, AND that it had been used with respect to Tenebrae's key "not-a-maxiseries" example), all I wrote in those handful of lines (above) is that whether Taken is or is not a miniseries or maxiseries was never actually the (side)issue. BUT that clearly it has been called both.

Or even just six lines (to Skippu) - is that a "diatribe"..? Skippu - noting that the length of the discussion meant that (above) wrote that "I've only skimmed this huge conversation" - but nonetheless supported Tenebrae's allegation of WP:OWN. Surely, having not read through either side, this support of Ownership against me was simply because Tenebrae had made the allegation, rather than an independent opinion..? (Perhaps Skippu does think that, however. Or perhaps because I had bothered to find examples showing the use of "maxiseries," that may be seen as "obsessive" rather than "aiding in debate." Which is aurely what the Talk Page is for - to disagree politely, and then argue over SPECIFICS using facts and references, not insults and rhetoric.) I'm not reverting the article. I'm not stopping or threatening anyone else from editing it (conversely, I feel threatened and under constant attack).

Indeed - look at WP:OWN#Comments. Seven examples of comments denoting undue ownership: Tenebrae continually implies the first, uses several variants of #3 (only with editing in general rather than Vertigo in particular) and a considerable over-abundance of #4... Purported "Ownership" issues come in different forms, according to that page.

(In fact, re-reading the Vertigo Talk page, aside from an over-swift call for an impasse and what seemed even at the time to be a side-stepping of specifics in lieu of broad, generalised criticisms, it only really started to go downhill when I challenged Tenebrae's disagreement with "maxiseries," with examples. Which was only ever a very, very minor point. Shame. N.B. "Maxiseries," the term remains removed from the article.) ntnon (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Another editor

I found my way here after wanting to make some edits to the Vertigo article, and checking the Talk page first to what's being allowed and what's not, and couldn't believe these two both just stopped on July 11. I went to one of their "contribs" and found this.

Didn't anybody figure that maybe no one else is here because no one else can find it? Maybe I should put a link to this from the vertigo talk page.

• First of all, how is anybody supposed to follow all this? Wouldn't it be more effective if each just made bullet-points that the rest of us could follow easily?

• Second, I can't speak for anyone else, but yes, I was put off by posting more after contributing a line or two and getting this huge defensive response in return. I wish other editors were allowed to speak without having to get a faceful of paragraphs.

• Finally, this whole thing has good on too long. Three or four editors have written not agreeing with portions of ntnon, two of them saying the "Notable Creators" section should either be cut down or rewritten or even removed, and I for one don't believe we should have to ask ntnon for permission to edit this article!

Can't we get an administrator in here? Tenebrae and ntnon are going around in circles.

I think this is the gist, which i can say in 2 sentences One of them says never use interviews from promo catalogs, the other says it's OK. Anybody with sense knows the answer is in between -- you don't use them unless there is absolutely, absolutely no other choice, and you SAY it's from a promo catalog when you qutoe from it! Two big geniuses couldn't figure that out.

One more thing -- Tenebrae can be highfalutin but ntnon is acting like a little snot. I don't know if he's really a professional journalist or not, who knows here, but ntnon is not a professional writer, so maybe he should listen more.

I don't want either of those two yelling at me. If another editor or an administrator wants to take me to task or whatever, do it. But am I the only one who's tired of these two? --Skippu (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

First - My apologies for not linking this page to that talk page. I'll fix that immediately.

Second, while I've personally recused myself as "mediator" on two specific points, I'm still an admin, and for everything else, still a WP:3PO, and am still am an observer to this.

And finally, I don't think that they're "talking in circles". I think that there was a bit more at issue here than just this article, and I think that they (slowly) are working that out. Which, in my estimation, is a very good thing. - jc37 22:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

To Skippu (& jc37)

1. Firstly, yes, I did think this was a difficult page to find (as is - I believe - the RfC page, which could go some ways to explaining the lack of other input). Mind you, I also thought that this page was designed primarily/totally for Tenebrae and myself to bat back and forth ideas, differences of opinion and logical reasoning... In all probability the whole section from the Vertigo Talk page should be shuffled here, and these parts of this page (where other people's opinions are added) should be at the Vertigo page. (Although that would likely need a clear separation, so it may not work too well..!)
2. To that end, I would much prefer a shorter precis of this on the Vertigo Talk Page, while we (..I..) continue to verbalise in greater detail here. Ideally perhaps it should be easily followable to all and sundry, but frankly I think this is not much more than a semi-private discussion/debate/argument being held in a public forum. Tenebrae has said he has problems following some of my lengthier missives, but otherwise what we two write is followable to us (hopefully), since it's basically our debate.
   1. (Incidentally - I bullet-pointed the main issues as I saw them twice on the Vertigo Talk Page. Those should be easy to find, comment upon and/or challenge. But still seemed to be passed over...)
3. That doesn't preclude other input; that doesn't preclude other edits to the Vertigo page (although either or both of us may eventually disagree all over again with any new edits, as is generally encouraged by the 'open to all' Wikipedia policy).
4. I'm sorry you felt "put off" by my response. I'm sorry you felt 4-6 lines was a "huge" response. I'm sorrier you felt it defensive that I deigned to query your accusation... in any case: sorry. :o)
5. Some people do disagree with me; some of them even agree with each other. No-one - but Tenebrae - has expanded on the why of their disagreement. We're finally getting to that point here, which will another interesting debate, I suspect.
6. You - or anyone - doesn't have to ask my permission to edit the article. As a reader and editor I may naturally have something to say in response to over-zealous/controversial edits, however. Is that unreasonable..? It's what happened TO me, after all...
7. We're not going round in circles; we're - at worst - in ever-decreasing circles, moving towards agreement or acceptance. (Thanks for the vote of confidence, jc37.) At best we may even be engaging in a discussion that could positively influence a wide range of articles.
8. Your summary is very, very interesting. Your statement on Tenebrae's position is what I think his is, too. Your statement on mine is wrong. Your suggestion on the "answer" - "you don't use them unless there is absolutely, absolutely no other choice, and you SAY it's from a promo catalog when you qutoe from it!" - is, and always has been, my position. So thanks for that, somewhat wayward, support...!

Oh, and speaking for myself, there was nothing more at issue between Tenebrae and myself other than this article. However, there are other issue(s) under consideration for me, but they're regarding policy and standards, the only relevance of which being that some of them seem to be being supported by Tenebrae, and challenged by myself. Applicable/appropriate/usable sources being the main one. As skippu now (interestingly) adds: there are shades of gray involved. Wikipedia sometimes sees only black/white (although it also allows for gray in some cases), Tenebrae has strongly implied that he also sees it as black/white: I disagree in general. ntnon (talk) 01:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

And yet another editor

Outsider jumping in, probably over his head.

• (1) The term "maxiseries" doesn't seem to have a clear meaning to a lot of people. On that basis, I personally think a more clear cut term, like X-issue series, would probably be preferable. It's somewhat like the short story/novelette/novella/novel problem; people in the industry and some really committed fans know the specific meanings of each, but the differentiation often causes a "wtf?" reaction from most people not so up on the minutiae.
• (2) I get the impression several people have been having bad days lately, and that can account for some of the short tempers. We're all human (granted, the jury's still kinda out on me), and people get testy once in awhile.
• (3) Regarding Gaiman being a "sought after writer" and the Vertigo summary sections, and nton's writing style. Evidently, from what I remember, Gaiman was a sought-after British writer, so he would qualify as "sought-after", probably as nton said only after Moore and Morrison. So the inclusion makes a bit of sense, even if the sources for some info can be questioned. However, I myself know that some books in the field, like some encyclopediae of science fiction and other works which use the word "encyclopedia" in their titles, aren't necessarily really "encyclopedias", at least in terms of phrasing, but rather alphabetized overviews of material. There are some similar works in the field of religion. For these purposes, I think "encyclopedic tone" and the like is referring to things like "Encyclopedia Brittanica", which has been occasionally said to have a rather parched tone. That I think is what we're aiming for in general with wikipedia as well, as many items in other works which have a bit of a fannish tone or are written for adherents are in fact fairly clearly POV, despite the titles.
• Anyway, just a few ideas. John Carter (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• If the consensus goes against "maxiseries": fine. I used the word because it was - and remains ("in my opinion") the right one: it's the specific description used for The Filth by Vertigo; it has - I thought, at least - been the accepted term for a "limited series" longer than 6-8 issues, and specifically those of 12-issues (Camelot 3000, Watchmen, Crisis, etc.), particularly within the comics field, but also - to a perhaps much lesser degree - outside of it.
  • This was blown up out of all proportion - I only persued it initially because it seemed an unnecessarily vindictive change (N.B. I no longer believe that to be the case). It was persued primarily (by me) for a number of reasons, among them : (a) Tenebrae's apparent decision - rightly or wrongly - to amplify it's significance in an attempt to prove his point about WP:OWN; (b) Tenebrae's assertion - implicitly, arguable explicitly made - that the word did not even exist; (c) Tenebrae's deliberately chosen example to prove said non-existence being fatally flawed by cases where "maxi" was applied to his non-maxi example...
  • A link to Limited series can easily explain the term - many pages use potentially confusing words, so they link to a definition/page. Limited series (albeit without - thus far - a link) clearly defines the different lengths of Mini and Maxi, and I think that most people could work it out, if need be (and maybe they shouldn't have to) from the skirts, if not the Latin.
• But, again, if other comics-reading (or, I suppose, non-comics-reading) editors/readers challenge it's use: fine. :o) I'll add, however, that jc37 asked (above) "see what you can find in how the actual comics with the Vertigo label were described by the publisher and possibly others" (emphasis added). That's here: "Grant Morrison's 13-issue maxiseries."
• (I wonder about the implications of John Carter's new analogy in this matter, but chose not to comment, for - ... - the purposes of brevity.)
• There certainly seems to be something in the water lately - I've been elsewise busy and then consumed by this, so I've only just noticed the Juggernaut, um, behemoth.
• Your last comments are also well appreciated, thanks. You're not wrong that there is a vast gulf between "niche" (pseudo-?)Encyclopedias and Britannica. I agree Wikipedia should lean towards the latter, but - for me - one of the best 'plus'es of this website is the effectively limitless space, which allows a depth of cross-referencing unparalleled in other Encyclopedias. My intention with the "summaries" was to provide just that - a cross-referencing section of the major players and they major/complete Vertigo works. I felt - and feel - that this is useful, even if it may need revising to some degree. ntnon (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ntnon is still behaving so immaturely it makes me ashamed to be even a small, occasional part of Wikipedia. His line-in-the-sand about maxiseries is amazing. He'll allow the change only if X happens. How many editors make a consensus? I think there's four who don't want it and two who do.

Somebody up there said something about comics that call themsevles "full length novels." So that makes them novels? Some marketing person says "How do we make this miniseries sound more exciting? Ah, we'll call it a maxiseries!" Hell, go back and call those other comics "full length novels" then.

The article is written so far from an Encyclopedia Brit. tone or even a World Book tone it's not even funny. Can no one really see this? You guys read

If space is so unlimited, why are there "This article is 36K or more and should be broken up" templates all over the place?

All I can say is, the music fans are even worse than the comics fans. I won't waste any more of my life here, but don't pretend this is an encyclopedia article. Because no one outside comics geeks knows what "maxiseries" is and no one cares who's more famous at Vertigo, Morrison or Gaiman or whoever. This is the pseudo-intellectual equivalent of who's stronger, Thor or the Hulk. -- Skippu (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Skippu. Hi. Please comment on the edits, not the editor. Words like "immature" are inappropriate, and any editor may immediately remove such comments from this discussion per WP:TALK. Continued egregious usage may result in further restriction, such as by being blocked. Please consider this a warning. - jc37 00:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Had couple days away to think. Compromise suggestion

Hi, guys. OK, Skippu was ... blunt ... but he's right — we're having an interesting philosophical discussion about the soul of Wikipedia, and not addressing practical solutions.

Let me suggest a compromise on two issues; we can deal with others later.

• First: I advocate "miniseries," ntnon advocates "maxiseries." Can we compromise on "X-issue limited series"?

• Second — and I do this with serious trepidation that I'm helping to create a precedent that will help worsen Wikipedia's already shaky credibility — but if we're going to include qualitative quotes from a biased source, that we 1) ID the source, "quoted in a comics-distributor catalog," in the text where we give the quote, and 2) we use them only when absolutely no other source provides the equivalent information. Right now, we have 14 cites attributed to that source. Is every single one of them critically necessary to any encyclopedia article about Vertigo. If that interview had never been published, is there crucial information that would have been lost otherwise? Is there really no way we couldn't cut down our citations from that catalog to, let's say, five?

(Unrelated to this: Forum postings are disallowed as references sources under Wikipedia policy. I've just removed two that I noticed while looking at that page.)

Can we agree to this compromise? The mediation committee declined to take up the case since ntnon did not agree to mediation within seven days. If we cannot compromise, the only alternative I can see is Arbitration.

Take a couple of days to think. We don't need to do anything this minute, or tomorrow, or whenever. I have grave misgivings about this compromise, but I'm willing to try, in the spirit of collegial collaboration. My thanks to jc37 for his informal mediation and his generous giving of time and energy. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

After two aborted replies... Skippu (and everyone else) seems to have ignored the two attempts at bullet pointed 'bringing it back to the specifics' attempts I made at the Vertigo Talk page - maybe they got lost in the text (although they were bulletted deliberately to stand out), but they summarized the points. And went largely unaddressed. And as I put above, Skippu's sensible answer AND now Tenebrae's half-heartedly projected compromise are what I've argued all along (in keeping with policies): identify the source of the opinion. But in both cases, it is a projected solution to an issue that effectively no longer exists, since it refers not to the AC interview (since interviews are automatically said/known to be the opinions/memories of their subjects, and clearly allowed as sources, on the sole assumption that they are genuine and accurately reflect the words quoted), but to the Capital City Gaiman preamble, which was removed prior to these debates, and remains gone.

So Tenebrae's semi-solution on this point - fine. :o) Identify the source. "Karen Berger, interviewed about the formation of Vertigo by Capital City Distribution's Advance Comics catalog, said.." is clumsy, but fair enough. But then either the interview is allowable, or it isn't. The purportedly high number of citations is largely the result of the doctrine that every single quote must be individually cited (rather than, say, allowing multi-sentence footnotes, or the obvious to go unnoted). The six(!) references in the style section might not seem necessary (although the information IS important factual information), because it is "reasonably obvious" - the trade dress was designed to help the titles stand out; DC advertised and promoted the imprint; price concerns kept the art and format cheaper. Nonetheless, those are also precisely the kind of comments that some people see the need to {{fact}}-tag or brand WP:OR and complain about if merely stated; hence the citations.

For "maxiseries," I am getting more and more offended at the way this is being summarized by and to everybody:

Let's be clear - I am "advocating" nothing in regards to the terminology used -- I am merely the conduit: The Filth specifically - and it's 12-issue + forebears more generally - is/are described in any number of places by the term "maxiseries". I'm not ultimately that bothered (...) which term is used. It merely seems wise to use the correct term - rather than a vague one - wikilinked if it is seen as confusing. (Certainly the earlier example about novel/novella/short story/etc. was both well-made as it pertains to readability; and ill-made for accuracy. c.f. Of Mice and Men and Heart of Darkness - novellas, both. Described as such, then linked for clarity.)

Understanding clearly does seem to be an issue in the one or two cases that someone has commented directly, rather than tangentially, however: John Carter says it "doesn't seem to have a clear meaning to a lot of people," which leads me to wonder if I'm alone in having heard it before..?! I know the Lygas included it in their guide for Libraries, so it's a known term, as well as it being Vertigo's own description for this specific work. But I did assume that it was even MORE well-known within comics circles. Should we not be mildly concerned about it not having a clear meaning than that is used? "Graphic novel" is unclear, but still used - particularly when it's use is accurate.

Could someone who isn't Tenebrae or myself perhaps pose a genuine two-or-so-part question on the main comics noticeboard to the effect of "who has heard of the term "maxiseries"?" (to gauge how widespread it is, not to acchieve specific consensus) and "Are the descriptions: 'x-issue miniseries' (for 6-ish and fewer issues) and 'X-issue maxiseries' (for 12-ish and higher issues) better, worse, or identical to 'x-issue limited series'?" (Particularly when "limited" has connotations of variants and individual print runs, rather than deliberately-truncated lengths of series.) Maybe a centralized, single, reasonably short question will invite more opinions... ntnon (talk) 01:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

N.B. (Was the earlier query over "N.B." genuine or sarcastic, by the way...? It was hard to tell whether you genuinely wanted a reply to that aside...) If Tenebrae does, in fact, disagree with the acceptability of the Advanced Comics publication as a source for an interview, then I have some comments on that, which I will save in case they aren't needed. ntnon (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish Ntnon would write more clearly and much, much more concisely. Good writing is direct and to the point. I can see why he says people misinterpret him.

I have stayed out of this, but what I see now is Tenebrae trying to compromise, even though he's right -- no sales-brochure interview should be used. Any journalist knows that.

Ntnon is using well-known debate tactics to say that he just wants to use the "accurate" term, and that only his term is accurate. I agree with those who say that what The Filth or anything else calls itself is irrelevant. Comics are not "full-length novels" either, no matter what some call themselves.

Ntnon has shown no evidence of listening to the many people who disagree with him. He mentioned that he didn't "bludgeon" one editor, that he only wrote 4 or 5 lines. He doesn't seem to understand that the tone, timing and defensiveness of an answer matter just as much as the length.

Since Ntnon appears to keep restating the same points over and over, does not want to compromise, and attacks anyone who disagrees with him, I agree that an administrator needs to step in and mediate formally. Ntnon is effectively keeping the page (or the sections he wrote) hostage.

I guess I should stand ready for his 1,000-word labyrinthine reply. --Farpointer (talk) 21:48, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess this is headed for Arbitration. I need a day or two to take a deep breath beforehand. I'm stunned such basic and even single-word considerations have gone this far.

To answer a question: I was not being sarcastic. "N.B." can stand for the Latin "take note," or "no brainer," or possibly other things. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Tenebrae: "I'm stunned such basic and even single-word considerations have gone this far."

Likewise.

I was after Nota Bene - I apologise for never having heard of alternate uses, and thereby misconstruing your query..! ntnon (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Interviews, terminology and descriptions, etc.

In part, responding to Farpointer: Interviews from Wizard, fanzines, prozines and convention program(me)s (and a few catalog(ue)s) are sometimes the only records dealing with certain people and aspects of the comics field. Moreover, The Comics Journal has been regularly criticised for bias and controversial editing of interviews (particularly a Kirby one when he claimed that Stan Lee had done nothing, ever).

Unless an "interview" is utterly faked, why dismiss it solely because of its source? WP:V even allows websites, forums and self-published materials (that are not unduly self-serving; a somewhat open-to-interpretation sliding measure) so long as the writer is not in doubt. And surely that corresponds - arguably applies more so - to an interview subject?

While interviews are certainly edited for clarity, brevity and sometimes innacuracies, ultimately they document a subjects words/thoughts, making "good editorial practices" less important than plain accuracy. When cited as such (so-and-so thinks/says/recalls) the absolute source pales into insignificance. A more professional interviewer may bring a better set of questions, follow-ups and challenges. But even a bad interviewer can get at the facts and recollections. Did the New York Times interview Karen Berger on the formation of Vertigo...?

Hyperbole over "full length novels" seems to permeate this tangent-discussion, and are hard to comment on without examples. It Rhymes With Lust by Arnold Drake described itself as a "full-length novel," and at 128-pages, was to all extents and purposes (as one of the first "graphic" novels). All Star Comics #7 descibes itself as containing "complete book-length adventure." (Wherein the adventure takes up the full LENGTH of the comic BOOK..). Are there more pertinent examples, since those two seem either accurate, the clear result of shifting or confused terminology, or to be an apples & oranges situation regarding Vertigo's "13-issue maxiseries". And "Maxiseries" is not my term. That point is surely at least clear..?!

If repeating arguments that go unaddressed implies faulty reasoning, fair enough. If reporting (not originating) certain terms cannot be comprehended, that's a great shame. When this is a two/multi-way discussion, it is useful and helpful. So I'm not going to actively withdraw myself, or indefinitely extend the agreed-upon/self-imposed (compromise) decision not to edit the Vertigo page (although I likely won't). But since there continues to be some bloody-minded faux-confusion, anyone can edit the Vertigo page, just as anyone can comment and enter the arguments here, there or anywhere. The injured pride of suggesting otherwise is a pointless straw man argument: there's no hostage-situation here. The only revert since any of this began was by Tenebrae; I haven't touched the page for a month. Because issues were (are?) being discussed, for - in theory - the benefit of all.

Many apologies to anyone who cannot understand or follow these (or previous) sentences, finds an abundance of defensiveness within, etc. ntnon (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, forums are not acceptable

See WP:SPS. "newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable," with the exceptions being print newspaper/magazine online columns that call themselves blogs. --71.167.226.59 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

News blogs are almost-automatically excepted. But the whole point (as I read it) of the "largely not acceptable" wording is because the sources you quote are lumped in the same category as self-published books. And right under the part you quote is:

"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."

That's all I was mentioning (above). May.

Admittedly, on the Vertigo page, I stretched the allowability of forum postings beyond the guidelines by assuming that a complimentary quote placed in a footnote rather than the regular text would be more acceptable. But, of course, the fatal flaw was that "more acceptable than not acceptable" in this specific case still turned out to be "not acceptable."

Point still stands, though, that personal websites, newsletters, blogs and even some forum postings can be acceptable, depending on the writer, their specific expertise and whether the desired quotes are contentious, self-serving or vague claims, and with the assumption that such sources are not the ONLY sources. ntnon (talk) 04:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's not actually what the policy says. Self-published sources are only allowed when they're by established experts who have been published by reliable third-party publications. That virtually always excludes forums, on which it's almost impossible to confirm that a posting was actually posted by whomever it purports to be from.

I'm not sure, given Wikipedia's bent toward established publications and Web sites and other strong, reliable sources that arguing in favor of forum postings, based on an extremely narrow exception, is a hill worth dying on. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Yet again, it's another minor aside now being blown up out of all proportion. 'There are exceptions' is all I wanted said. The key (potential) sources that are worth defending are the others listed in the same list: self-published books, newsletters, personal websites and blogs. Saying forums are "always" unacceptable is to cross-apply that logic to them. And ignoring all of them all of the time would at the very least cut out Mark Evanier (elsewhere published expert)'s website - a major source of information, particularly when a notable comics individual dies. And yes, I recognize (and quoted) the "established expert" and 'previously published' qualifiers, and also stressed the importance of confirming identities.

(This is a GENERAL comment, (as was the initial one a month ago about AC, not designed to be seen as specifically defending a single source. I realize specifically that you felt the forum quote I actually used was not acceptable. Indeed, I ultimately agree with your letter-of-the-law interpretation of the guidelines. Hence I quoted it only in a footnote, and only to elaborate on a better-sourced statement. I am not defending THAT forum posting, just the minority of hypothetical posts as part of defending the wider 'similar-sources': websites, blogs, newsletters and fanzines.)

It's not that difficult to confirm some identities - forum postings can be referenced on an individual's personal website/blog; except in rare (and swiftly reported) cases, usernames stay the same on those referenced websites, etc. (e.g. Chuck Dixon's clarifications of his leaving DC were made through forum posts. Should there be any need to expand upon a simple mention of this fact, those would be the only/most useful sources - since they formed the basis of the secondary reports on the more-acceptable websites such as Newsarama, Comicbookresources, etc.) Places like MillarWorld and Warren Ellis' forums have a high number of verified professionals posting there, even if much that they say would not be useful information, it IS verifiable as deriving from them.

Naturally the point also made at WP:SPS - that: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so" - is a well made one, and generally accurate. But, I'll stress again, not as accurate when applied to the OTHER sources - self-published books (which could be easily said to include fanzines, Steranko's History of Comics, etc.), newsletters, personal websites and blogs. Often important - or vital - sources, not infrequently containing information unreported elsewhere. Those are worth defending. ntnon (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is, "Yep, we both agree the policy allows forum-post information in very rare instances on a case-by-case basis." Simple! One sentence!   :-)

Also, I've just seen someone's done what looks like a very solid and, yes, simple but copiously cited couple of grafs on Vertigo's founding. Here's hoping it doesn't open a can of worms. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You clearly have a way with words..! That is basically it in the proverbial nutshell. (I felt a comics example to be very necessary, and then...)

Farpointer seems to be stepping in, yes, and - surprise, surprise! - with an NYT article no less... I still have minor concerns about the value of a 2003 interview looking back briefly as opposed to a 1993 one dealing with the intentions on the spot, but that can be worked with. I wonder if there's a bit too much Berger-background as it now stands for a Vertigo article, but that's a very minor point, borne out of Karen Berger being in need of considerable expansion.

(Vested interest aside) I feel too much is lost without these points & quotes:

"(1)Vertigo evolved from the desire to consolidate DC's mature/horror books into an integrated line, visually distinguishable and accessible to the growing readership of cutting edge comics." Citing the "distinct sensibility" of such stories, but (2) noting that 'Horror' "is too casual a phrase," Berger cited Alan Moore's work on Saga of the Swamp Thing and Jamie Delano's on Hellblazer as epitomising the use of horror as (3)"a back-drop to explore real life situations." Having experienced some success (both critically and commercially) with the dual-introductions (throughout the 1980s) of (4) the so-called "British invasion" and the "Mature Readers" label, by the end of 1992 DC had shown (not least with the "strong readership" of Neil Gaiman's The Sandman) that, in Berger's words (5) "[t]here [was] a market for innovative, literary comics with good modern visuals."

• Quote (1) qualifies the Levitz/Kahn/Giordano point from Berger's p.o.v.
• Point (2) and quote (3) makes it clear that "horror" was never the be-all and end-all, which is an important clarification
• The last sentence as was would duplicate Farpointer's edits regarding the (4) "British Invasion" (which ought to be linked) and "Mature Readers" label, and the final (5) quote may be superfluous but also acts as a good summary of the intention behind Vertigo's line. ntnon (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a way with words. Thank you. It's how I've been making a living for 30 years.   :-)

Not sure why "surprise, surprise" re: The New York Times. Human glitches aside, it's widely considered one of the world's most authoritative newspapers.

My take on "Vertigo evolved from the desire to consolidate DC's mature/horror books into an integrated line, visually distinguishable and accessible to the growing readership of cutting edge comics": The first phrase is self-evident, and just says DC wanted to do what it ended up doing; The second phrase is non-notable, since publishing imprints are specifically created to be distinguishable from the parent. And the last part, well, it's self-serving to say, "Hey, we're the cutting edge!" You create what you create, and let the audience decide if it's cutting-edge or not.

Any good story — horror, comedy, science fiction, whatever — is supposed to "explore real life situations". That's not really saying anything.

The run-on sentence that begins "Having experienced," and which contains three parenthetical phrases and a mix of tenses, is, please don't be offended, bad, bad, bad writing. And the quote is also self-serving: "Hey, we're literary and innovative!"

I agree with you that the new paragraphs "agitate the gravel" (as we journos say) in getting started, and like you I deduce it's because the Berger article is still thin and the reader needs a sense of who she is. Otherwise, I think the new grafs are fine — very solid and well-researched. If sales-catalog quotes aren't needed unless they're absolutely critical to the understanding of the subject, well, I genuinely believe that's the case here.

I respect your intellect, I've seen you do great, great work, and your time and effort and passion are nothing to sneeze at. But maybe it's worth considering — being genuine in stepping back and asking yourself — if perhaps you love Vertigo so much that it's possible you've got some blinders on. We all do at times. I know I do, and I step back and agree to go along with other people's version of things. Sometimes it's important to acknowledge that maybe other people have a point, and move on. Honestly, it's not just me.... --Tenebrae (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ironic 'surprise' because, the NYT being such a bastion of good journalism, it's been the hypothetical good source called for (particularly by me) to edge out Advance Comics. So it was amusing - and pleasing - to see that article found.

I think it's notable, particularly as now described, that Vertigo was the next step on from "Mature readers" label - which were already distinguishable from DC by those words - so evolved rather than originated makes sense. That there was already an audience for these titles, and the Vertigo sensibility is evident in the AC quote, but missed under the current [Vertigo would] "do something different in comics and help the medium 'grow up'". She's not calling Vertigo cutting edge, just saying that readers OF cutting edge comics will hopefully find something to like at Vertigo. That's reasonable enough - it's stating which audience they were courting.

Be fair - comics are often slammed for not being "real worldy" enough, and the sub-point is clear: surface horror/fantasy/intrigue with something underneath, rather than just surface. Bear in mind that Image was not too old at this point, and epitomises the all-surface stream of comics. Indeed, Vertigo basically brought the writer to the fore by virtue of telling stories, rather than 'just' making comics. And Ms Berger's note about the pseudo-horror rather than straight-horror nature is surely well made - the page now calls Swamp Thing (just) a horror title, which does it something of a disservice.

Moore needs a mention, otherwise you have Gaiman, Milligan and/or Morrison writing Swamp Thing. That is a terrible sentence, but the gist is important. She's saying that DC had had success with the British writers and "mature readers" comics, and were looking for the next logical hook to sell an easily-identifiable range of titles to readers by bringing in a new brand (and branding). The Pulse quote (2003) is no less self-serving - in fact it's more - and, again, the at-the-time intentions are surely more accurate than a retrospective memory of the same... There's room for both (and more sources can only add to the article).

I like Vertigo well enough. I like comics as a medium a whole lot more. I merely found some on-the-spot interviews and noticed that the Vertigo article here was rather sparse... A thought struck me, &c. Be that as it may, the various points/knee-jerk accusations made over the past month by a very, very small number of people may indeed have some validity. That should cut all ways, too, I assume. I regret that this has dragged on so long, particularly since we seem to now be coming out of it all in much the same state we began with: Don't we basically now agree that an interview is a perfectly reasonable and citeable source, providing it adds something, even if it derives from a publication that may not be held in particularly high general regard...? And that we can also use opinions from such sources - so long as they are properly attributed and stated to be opinions...? Or am I misreading again..?! ntnon (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my understanding was that quotes from the sales catalog would be limited to only where consensus deemed then critically necessary. We have (I'm going by memory here since I'm tired....) like a dozen cites from that catalog. I don't know that every single one of them is critically needed.

A sales catalog is basically press-release material, and while we can quote company-supplied quantitative facts from a press release, no good journalist uses qualitative quotes from a press release except in the narrowest, most exceptional circumstances. Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you saw that point (as all but I think one other person in this discussion has). Again, that's basic journalism:

You don't quote a person's press-release opinion about their own work!

I agree with you that I wouldn't have used the "grow up" quote, but since Berger did indicate by the single-quote phrasing that she didn't mean the term to be taken at face value, I'm personally not taking issue with Farpointer on it, since it's important in general that we give other editors some leeway and see how other, additional editors feel.

I also agree with you that Moore needs a mention, and have taken the liberty of adding it since it certainly doesn't seem controversial. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

An interview is not a press release

The sticking ground then seems again to be that I see a clear differentiation between "an interview within" a sales catalog and "a sales catalog," while you continue to (seem to) see them as synonymous. They aren't. If an interview held around the time of a launch is seen as synonymous with a "press release," then that would surely destroy most interviews' usefulness. After all, interviews are generally sought when something is happening, particularly at launches. The text of a sales catalog is generally - not "always", but usually - going to be based in large part (or entireity) on press releases. Absolutely. And while press releases have their part to play in articles, your points on that issue are pretty much well made and accurate.

But an INTERVIEW (or even, perhaps, an article) that merely happens* to be published within a sales catalog is a whole different beast.

The NYT source quotes Berger's qualitative opinion of the British writers - "refreshingly different, edgier and smarter" - and seems not to be challenged. Are you suggesting that is she had said the same words in Advance Comics, they would suddenly be inadmissable for quotation..? That would be several different kinds of bizarre.

The number of citations, as I mentioned before, should (I feel) play no part in the equation over its worthiness as a source. The number is tied to the policy to be rigorous with citations - "when in doubt, cite again" (or however you like to phrase it) - not the degree of reliance placed upon it. ntnon (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

*I realise, of course, that its rarely not a coincidence that a certain interview/article would appear at a certain time. My point is simply that in most - or all - cases, the SAME interview or article could just as easily appear elsewhere, in the same form. It would continue to be the opinions (albeit informed in part by the questions asked) of the person being interviewed, and does not reflect the editorial policy of the publication-in-which-it-appears in anything like the way you seem to be implying. ntnon (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the crucial question: Is the interview in the sales catalog vetted by professional, journalistic editors to ensure standards of accuracy, balance and professional ethics, such as no conflict of interest? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

To which the answer may well be vague. But - again - would you mind explaining HOW "standards of accuracy, balance and professional ethics" are regularly brought to bear on interviews, which by their nature are reporting someone's thoughts and memories.

The only case I can really think of that follows that line of thought actually contradicts it..! Gary Groth (think it was him) OKed for publication an interview with Kirby in which Kirby said Stan Lee did nothing. Ever. Mrs Kirby was particularly upset by the publication, because (as I remember) she tended to do a post-interview edit to remove some level of controversy and hyperbole. She did - not the Comics Journal, which in any case allowed this interview to run.

So my bewilderment comes from the implicit suggestion that an Interview in a comics publication must be 'seen to be' editorially vetted as much as a high importance New Yorker article. Entertainment Weekly's recent interview with Alan Moore featured an inset comment by Paul Levitz to allow some modicum of balance - is that what you think required? Where does a "conflict of interest" start and end - someone talking about their latest project has an inbuilt duty to make it appealing, whichever publication they talk to.

Many people (particularly comics fans) do not see the role of an editor in any work to be an important one. That's absurd and deeply unfair. Likewise, even a top-class journalist requires an editor to vet their articles for publication, even if certain individuals may get by with a cursory clearance rather than a full edit. But, really - interviews are surely rarely edited except for space, stuttering and filler, aren't they? In some cases controversial statements will be delved into further, or queried with external sources, or caveated as controversial. But if Person X tells Person Y that they created character/series/company C for a certain reason... what can the editor do to edit that? Nobody knows better than Person X. If Karen Berger tells an interviewer that they came up with a uniform look for Vertigo titles, why is that a more citeable statement if told to the New York Times than Advance Comics...? It will, I suppose, be easier to check that the quotation here is accurately written (is that the underlying concern - that someone might misrepresent a source?) if it's in a more widely circulated source, but it's not actually more accurate. ntnon (talk) 00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

You ask good questions; as always, I'm impressed with and admire your intellectual capabilities, while at the same time a bit gobstopped that you're asking that the entire role of journalism and research standards be justified to you. I'm not sure, particularly when I've paid to do this, over the course of three hours, that I can do justice to giving a journalism tutorial in this space.

First, a quick note re: Gary Groth — I have to recuse myself. That said, I'm not sure that pointing out the failings of, honestly, an extremely minor magazine is license for us to have equally low standards.

I agree that an editor serves a legitimate function, obviously. An editor will say, "Go back and ask this," or "Clarity exactly what he meant by that." (A good professional journalist generally doesn't need to be told these things, and will automatically zero in on vague, self-serving, etc., comments; at the pro level, editors' requests are more nuanced.) I'm sure the person doing the interview didn't shape the discussion, go after contradictions, or dig into self-serving comments. This is all just so basic, I swear on the ghost of Ed Murrow.

But there is conflict of interest when an interviewer has a vested interest in an interview promoting a particular point of view. Anything negative or self-doubting or brutally honest that Berger may have said would not have made it into a sales-catalog "interview."

Quantitative information is fine, to a point: If the head of some indie comics company says he got a half-million-copy advance order for his comic by two unknowns, I think any good journalist would dig deeper — but a sales-catalog "interviewer" wouldn't question that.

You seem to suggest there is no difference between an interview conducted by a journalist, to established professional standards and vetted by an editor, and an interview conducted by some marketing guy who's going to use it to sell product.

In my gut, I don't believe you really believe that. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Much more friendly, I'm glad I read this afterwards. :o) I appreciate very much you acknowledging that I am - at least! - trying to ask (some of) the right questions, even if sometimes it's not entirely clear. I'm not really requiring yourself (or anyone) to justify things to me alone, or to provide an in-depth explanation or rationale of journalistic practices. I am, however, hoping to stimulate a mild reappraisal or questioning of the logic behind some of the points raised. It's one thing to say "we do this because..." and another (clearly) to say "we do this because." Moreover, there are very few cases where that one rule fits everything.

Again, by citing examples, I'm not attempting to suggest that everyone lower their standards according to lower standards elsewhere. Although varying standards might suggest that differing interpretations are paramount. Partly I'm being bloody-minded and playing devil's advocate. If TCJ does not (or at least "has not on at least one occasion") me(e)t your standards of a "good source" (and by "your," I mean "those which you are echoing" rather than them being novel), then surely it should be frowned upon generally...? If Fox news can be shown to be pursuing a particular agenda, can it ever be cited as an impartial source? I wouldn't expect that to occur, but if you can express concern over Alter Ego, and - perhaps - acknowledge that TCJ can be lax, then surely you're already admitting that there's a sliding scale or gray areas in what can be deemed an acceptable source. And then you're moving towards "context" and "content" rather than a hard-and-fast "this source is always unacceptable."

You've set things out well there, I have to say, thank you:

"I agree that an editor serves a legitimate function, obviously. An editor will say, "Go back and ask this," or "Clarity exactly what he meant by that." (A good professional journalist generally doesn't need to be told these things, and will automatically zero in on vague, self-serving, etc., comments; at the pro level, editors' requests are more nuanced.) I'm sure the person doing the interview didn't shape the discussion, go after contradictions, or dig into self-serving comments. This is all just so basic, I swear on the ghost of Ed Murrow.

But there is conflict of interest when an interviewer has a vested interest in an interview promoting a particular point of view. Anything negative or self-doubting or brutally honest that Berger may have said would not have made it into a sales-catalog "interview." "

Not sure I'll comment on whether a particular interviewer shapes discussion or not, I would have thought it generally fifty/fifty - initial questions will push in one direction; answers may pull in another. Some interviews will pursue potential contradictions at the time, some will only do so after the fact (arguably unhelpful, if sadly common), some will not feel that any discrepancies fall within their scope. Certainly experience will play a part in which method is followed, as will context and purpose.

I still don't think that the potential "conflict of interest" you cite is valid here. Why would Berger make negative, doubting or "brutally honest" (i.e. negative or doubting) comments in an interview SHE wants to advertise her line...? Capital City's interests are surely much further down the ladder than those of DC/Vertigo/Berger. Would it be a better and more useful interview - would it say more about the foundation of Vertigo - if she had said 'of course, we don't know how any of these will sell'..? If she said 'we're glad Writer A is not involved, because I don't enjoy his work'/'Writer B was picked against my better judgement'? On the formation of Vertigo, which is what the interview was about, the thrust should be: how it came about, why it came about and what the launch titles are, surely.

(If the head of some indie comics company says he got a half-million-copy advance order for his comic, a sales-catalog absolutely WOULD question that - the sales catalog would be in the perfect position to know it to be false...! Or true, as the case may be.)

I merely suggest that an interview contains information provided by the interviewee, although revealed (shaped) by the interviewer, and that the interviewee may well be the only person privy to said information. As such, that a high degree of editorial process may not play much of a part in what gets printed, and then should not be the ONLY deciding factor in deciding whether an INTERVIEW is acceptable. I see the (article-)journalist as distinct from the interviewer(-journalist) (even though the two may be synonymous), since their output has different roots, and serves in many cases a different purpose. I see the content of a paper/magazine/journal/website as (potentially) worthy of consideration independent of it's source. Naturally, and rightly, the quality of the source will shape such discussions, and may even be a deciding factor - but it should not be the only one.

Consider an example: Bill Finger was interviewed infrequently. Perhaps most notably, he was interviewed by Jim Steranko for his History of the Comics. Which was self-published and self-edited (presumably - neither are credited). Hardly journalistic. Certainly can be labelled as self-serving in part or in whole. And yet, this is seen as an acceptable citation for serious reference books, secondary materials and Wikipedia. Because of its content, irregardless of its self-published source. Alter Ego you've cast doubt on editorially; TCJ is - self-stated to be - horribly biased against superheroes. Both are acceptably quotable materials (for the most part).

Of course there is a difference between "an interview conducted by a journalist, to established professional standards and vetted by an editor, and an interview conducted by some marketing guy who's going to use it to sell product." Of course. But - and I hope you'll take this in a spirit of sarcasm, sadness and humor - in many cases, the major difference is that the former interview doesn't exist..! Consideration of the content is all I'm trying to impress upon this debate. With all the caveats you rightly mention, but not the outright dismissal. That people were interviewed in a benefit. That people were interviewed by sources that - perhaps - are editorially less sound in some respects: that's unfortunate. But the interview is - in some cases - the more important point. ntnon (talk) 19:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)