Talk:Glenn Danzig/Archive 2

message: Gone. It doesn't improve, and just acts as a flame bait. Contoversy is what we want to avoid on the main page.Enzigel 14:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is no "Debate" section in encyclopedias. If you want flame wars bring it up here in discussion, things agreed upon and backed by facts should be included. This is not fan page, nor space for promoting anonymous bands. Enzigel 20:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy Section

message: I think this article is notably lacking the information regarding him being a founder of ConservativePunk.com.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.195.60 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 3 January 2006
* I don't think he was a founder of ConservativePunk.com.  The web site says "this site boasts conservatives from well-known artist Michale Graves of Gotham Road and former lead singer of the Misfits..."  They are referring to Michale Graves, who sang for The Misfits in the late 1990s, not Glenn Danzig.  I am removing the reference in the article.  Please don't reinsert it without citing a credible source for the claim.  dbtfztalk 07:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservative Punk 

message: New to Wiki, not sure how to do it.
When searching for "Danzig", I got Gdansk (Poland) with no opportunity to correct.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.187.53 (talk • contribs) 08:26, 2 May 2006
Why doesn't "Danzig" direct here? I find it hard to believe more people are looking up a Polish city than the man.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.127.48.96 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 June 2006
*i believe the city of danzig is more widely known of than Glenn danzig Mikethezee 08:23, 22 July 2006
*There is trouble with maintainers of Gdansk (the city) page, apparentlly they consider their town extremely important and Danzig the band extremely obscure.. :) We'll work on it, until then there is disambiguation link on top of the Gdansk page. Enzigel 23:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguate? 

message: Perhaps his voice change should be mentioned as well as the musical shift he did in the mid 90's. I am of course talking about the hoarsness he experienced due do to his use of the "cookie monster" growling screams he belted out live that damaged his vocal chords somewhat. His voice can no longer be described as "crooning" in any way and i think it should be mentioned.
*I think that the whole voice change section makes it sound more significant than it is.  The one thing that I feel definitly needs to be changed is calling Danzig's vocals "cookie monster".  The term "cookie monster vocals" are usually only used to describe death metal vocals (angery, gutteral, and incomphrehendable).  Glenn's are much more smooth and bluesy.  (Nathan Wakefield 20:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice change? 

message: The trivia comment about Danzig's "lifelong interest in art" says that he illustrated many of his bands' album covers. While this may technically be true, it's also exaggerating a little bit to call him an illustrator. The "Misfits skull" from that band's "Horror Business" LP is widely known to be a high-contrast copy of a still from the film serial "The Crimson Ghost." The Samhain/Danzig skull is traced from a cover of a Crystar the Crystal Warrior comic book. The "Evilive" EP cover is taken from the poster of a horror movie called The Undead. These are all more collages than true illustrations; they're no different than what just about every band in existence does for its flyers. Although you often hear references to Glenn's talent as an artist, I've never actually seen anything he's been credited with drawing.
It may also be worth noting that Glenn has a stake in a side business that buys and sells original art by comic book artists. I do not know the name of this business or what Glenn's exact involvement is, whether he is the sole owner and operates it himself or if he has partners. PCM2 20:32, 24 July 2006 
*The cover for November-Coming-Fire and Danzig 4p are both original works of his. He's also drawn a few covers for various limited edition verotik comics. At signings, Glenn is known to frequently sketch drawings for fans and numerous pictures of these drawings are floating around the internet. As for the Samhain/Danzig skull's origins, Glenn has said that in the very early 80's he sent marvel a portfolio of his drawings, as he was seeking to get involved in the comic business as an artist. Glenn says that the Samhain/Danzig skull was included in the portfolio, and although he was ultimately rejected by Marvel, he claims that several of his submitted drawings have found their way to into various Marvel comics, such as the skull on the cover of Crystar the Crystal Warrior. This information comes from one of the many interviews with Glenn that can be found at MisfitsCentral.com Skullord 07:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artwork 

message: Where did this information about a criminal charge "for alleged defecation in public" come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.70.238 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 13 August 2006
* From vandals :) Thanks for spotting that. The article itself has lots of inaccurate info, so keep that in mind while reading, in time it should clear up.Enzigel 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal Charge 

message: Your contributions are belying the nature of true journalism. You are acting like THE moderator of this article. You do not have sole ownership of this article. All steps must be taken to tone down any partiality whatsoever - be it from shameless fanboys like yourself, or the Glenn Danzig haters. This is a biographical article that in the true spirit of proper journalistic values requires a fair and balanced overview of the man. This means that as long as information is factual and relevant then it is appropriate. There is no slander to be involved. There is no false information to be bandied about. Sure, some claims need links, etc, to support the contribution, but you are not behaving in a rational mindset when you go around deleting and editing the article to suit your own subjective views of the subject matter. As a contributor, you should be actually DISCUSSING the flaws you find in the article and seeking other people's help in providing linkable references etc, and not just going around with a huge carrot up your ass like a Nazi bullying contributors around with your overtly one-sided edits and talking down to them.
I am furious with your behavior and the "talk" messages you leave others. You have flagrantly ignored the spirit of truthful journalism. Take a look, for instance, at the GG Allin article. Take note of how impartial and even-handed the whole article is, with everyone finally contributing in the right spirit to avoid false statements but everyone comfortable with truthfully portraying GG Allin in both his negative and positive lights.
You obviously have a deep love, perhaps obsessional, with Glenn Danzig. Never mind, that is your prerogative. He touched your artisitc soul and you feel like painting the man in a good light. Or, just removing any possible negative (whether factual or not). While this is admirable in your day to day life, it is not admirable in an encylopedic forum. There is a time and place for your Glenn Danzig worshipping and butt-kissing, and Wikipedia is not the right place for it.
Desist from your biasm, consult and sincerely discuss with all contributors. Otherwise, the only VANDAL here is you. If you continue to snub your nose at all this, I will take this matter further.
G.g. 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enzigel re: Danzig 

message: * I have taken much into consideration of what your pov is and what you stress. Can you do the same in return? I am very objective and always try my best to contribute well, not poorly, to all articles. My latest edit of the article, therefore, was intended to overall improve the grammar and sentence structure of everything. It also intended to tone down any seemingly biased pro or anti Glenn comments, or the WAY they were worded previously. It also intended to find a more agreeable way for you and for me (and others) to flesh out the man without crossing the lines you and the NPOV's have drawn. I strongly urge you to actually sincerely read my latest edit, taking it on its merits, and finding it to your approval and NPOV approval. If you delete anything in future, please explain clearly and genuinely why in this Discussion topic, because I am going to persist to continue to re-write whatever got deleted in order to qualify it within the NPOV clauses and your attitude. Please do not consider me or my contributions as vandalistic in the process. That would just be untrue. I am TRYING to contribute and flesh out a subject matter within the rules, but also that avoids bias or falseness. Falseness can often come from the Danzig haters, making up or exaggerating stuff. But it also can come from the Danzig-lovers, making up or exaggerating stuff. Therefore, there are certain sentences or paragraphs that I have newly written, which I am sure you MAY or WILL find disagreeable. However, again I strongly urge you to consider that I am not trying to fabricate a false picture of the man, but actually paint a portrait of the actual man, the factual man, the factual life. With the whole Def Leopard/NSK thing, note that I have totally re-written it and removed the links etc. My reasoning was that as part of the "legacy" of Danzig, something has to be said, something can be said, within NPOV, that mentions/discusses the controversial nature or provocative nature of Glenn. Part of any biography on Glenn would have to mention in passing the controversial side, as long as it isn't libel. The way I have handled the whole issue I think achieves this. If you can at least sincerely read those edits in question, taking them on their merit, understanding the gist of what I'm saying, finding no NPOV break-down in them, then hopefully you could accept their right to stay undeleted in the article. As in, a sense of compromize. G.g. 17 August 2006
* I am very grateful you considered resolving this by compromise. You'll notice several changes I made, and some will probably annoy you, but we can resolve it in time. As for NSK incident, you did not only rewrite it nicely, but you went to the other side and made it very "glenn-friendly". The reason I deleted it now is that I don't see any value of it but promoting the NSK. And I certainly don't agree it fits in the Legacy section, more into trivia, like all other fights he's known to be in. In other words, I don't mind this edit at all, but think we should rewrite it a little still. As for my other new edits, they are more of a factual nature, I can substantiate all my edits in time, don't think this is "Glenn Danzig worshipping and butt-kissing" fan rewrite :)Enzigel 22:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enzigel - Latest edit by [[G.g.|G.g.]]

message: * Seriously, no offense, but the edits after my last effort weren't that good. Instead of compromizing you went the other way. Quick run down of my complaints....1) The whole melodic lion-like paragraph and wrongful satanic statement was disgustingly fanboyistic. Putting links in doesn't justify it. You could find a thousand internet articles that claim Glenn is God etc, but that doesn't make it valid. NPOV says unsourced or poorly sourced negative. Where's your NPOV banner for sourced or poorly sourced overly-positive glorification? Disgraceful paragraph.....2) I left out the "stubborn attitude maintaining a steady job" part because I guess it's just useless trivia really. Perhaps if there was a good source for it it would actually contribute better to the article BECAUSE it would give some background on the whole Danzig persona, the clashes etc.....3) The "in 1983" bit about the disbanding of Misfits and the "in 1987" bit about Samhain/Danzig. Why would you consistently keep reverting my "two albums" to your "two FULL albums"? How is an album unfull as opposed to a full album? Reverting stuff like this is just childish. Also, it is true that Glenn sought to disband Misfits, but were legally allowed to continue performing, and that this was the reason why Samhain changed to 'Danzig', in order to prevent a recurrence, now that a major label could make them bigger. It's also true that the band members were contractually aware they had no legal rights to the songs etc. If you insist on ME giving YOU time to source all your Danzig-glorification edits, that is just laughable that you would delete true factual info that also has sources that can be referenced. Disgraceful deletion it was.....4) Same with the "devoted his FULL attention to another band project" paragraph. Again, childish edit reversions by you. Literally childish. My edit is a grammatical improvement of your edit, yours is just a revert for the sake of it as you don't actually try to improve it when reverting it. As though no one but you can write it better or dare touch it. Disgraceful.......5) Same again with your reversions about "Mother". Danzig the band reached the height of its popularity. Instead you insist on MORE glorification of the man. No difference to say Danzig the band reached the height of their fame with Mother. But you reverting it shows the same thing as point 3 and point 4.......6) I leftout the whole NSK etc thing, both to compromize and I guess it's sensationalistic. However, something should be mentioned about his abrasive macho image that clashes with others, that he does flirt with the satanic in his imagery lyrics etc and the controversies of that have followed his career. It is not an attempt at slander, it's not even negative. It's just matter of fact fleshing out.........7) COMPROMIZE? HA! You allowed some stuff, appreciative of the effort I did, but then you went ballistic with your one-sided edits etc. Do you cheat everyone you 'compromize' with? G.g.   17 August 2006
* Check out this link  for the kind of article that Wikipedia's biography should more resemble. The depth, scope and balance of it. Fleshing the man out, providing both sides of the subject matter within good journalism. This Wikipedia article is a shambles compared to it. It's skeletal and deprived of even-handedness due to rail-roading edits and pro-Glenn biases that only undermine the article's integrity. G.g. 17 August 2006
**Yeah, voice section sounds glorifying, but it is NOT POURLY SOURCED. It is a thing written about Glenn, like it or not. And no, I didn't give links to internet articles the way you do, but to prominent music paper magazines. And I will continue to insist, not just because it's true (and almost all relevant reviews of Danzig WILL glorify his singing), but because of your silly edit of "borrows from blah blah" phrase that is not just false but unsourced too. About misfits/samhain section, your imdb cite and the link from answers com, it just proves that you don't know much about things that you're trying to contribute and are in fact more of a "google editor". Glenn DID DISBAND MISFITS. Period. They were HIS band, and HIS trademark, and ALL the songs were HIS. It was after the success of Danzig, Jerry came to beg for a trademark in a hope of leaving his knife-sharpening business and become a rock star. Court was another thing where Jerry was trying to get cut in loyalties after Danzig rising and Metallica covers boosted (until then inexistent) Misfits record sales. And Glenn said, ok you'll get trademark, but won't get any loyalties. That's why ALL the money from ALL the original misfits records go to Glenn, and why Misfits are not allowed to rerecord old stuff, just to play them live, like every regular cover band. And it was settled of the court, so there is no legal force involved at all. As for Samhain, it DID grow from Glenns side project so don't ask me WHY I revert stuff that you don't know nothing about.As for NSK thing I couldn't find it, did you post your edit?Enzigel 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Reversions by Enzigel

message: The article as it stands as of right now looks good.  I went back and looked a quite a few diffs and it looked like some stuff was added, reverted, put back, repeat, repeat, repeat.  But as it stands right now, this looks good.  
Now, what exactly was the issue that needed to be mediated? Short, sweet and to the point, please? CQJ 18:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outside comment/question