Talk:Keith Giffen

message: On the article's page, there is a statement that this article's neutrality is disputed, followed by a link to a talk page discussion on that point. Said link leads here, but there is no such discussion. Has the dispute been satisfactorily resolved and the discussion consequently removed? If so, that note should be removed as well. If it hasn't been resolved, where is the discussion? Ted Watson 19:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The concern seems to be that the "Controversy" and "Writing" sections display a bias against Giffen and his work, although I don't why there hasn't been a discussion already. --Redeagle688 20:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me get this straight--that was supposed to be an invitation to begin a discussion of an allegation that the article is lacking neutrality? It really doesn't say that at all. Ted Watson 20:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, it says that someone finds the article non-neutral and that this talk page is the place to comment on the matter.  I guess no one feels strongly enough about the matter (which is after all largely subjective) to actually jump in and start a point. Luis Dantas 18:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says, "Please see the discussion on the talk page." That definitely indicates that there is a discussion already in place. But, until I came along, there wasn't one, about that or anything else. Ted Watson 19:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I was the one that started the Controversy section and pointed out the article in Comics Journal that nearly cost Giffen's career.  Apparently one fanboy had a lot of difficulty with that and kept editing, removing, and finding every which way to try and downplay Giffen's swiping.  I think after many months we've come to some sort of consensus as he was forced to research and cite every point he was trying to make even though many of them are dubious, such as the claim that Giffen is in fact Munoz.  I am not biased against Mr. Giffen and find his work an extreme breath of fresh air.  He's one of the few artists and writers that break the fourth wall and don't pretend that they are not just creating comics.  However, this was an important point in his career and I felt no article on him could be complete or unbiased without mentioning it.  If you look at many bios of Mr Giffen around they rarely mention it, if only out of politeness or the sort of hype eschewed on young readers in order to sell funny papers (ie. such as Stan Lee taking credit for creating Captain America).  It was no coincidence IMO that one of the top selling artists at DC suddenly stopped drawing after this incident.  This would be like Paramount Pictures taking Eddie Murphy off the big screen in the mid-80's.  I don't hate Keith Giffen, he is in fact one of my favourites.  After the relative few changes in this articles since I and 207.236.161.42 went back and forth on it this particular reasoning for a lack of neutrality citation has probably ended.  We seem to have reached a consensus on this section.  Is anyone for removing it then? --75.6.138.88 02:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Currently, there are three tags: Neutrality, Tone, and Unreferenced. I can't see any need for either of them, so I second your suggestion. I assume the Unreferenced tag was added by a bot that wasn't set to see references to off-line resources (such as the printed edition of Comics Journal). A ref in the form of a URL would prevent that happening again. MeteorMaker 06:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What dispute of neutrality? 

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

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

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

message: Restored the reference to his JLI run as one of the works for which he is best known. Have no idea why someone would have removed that.
Also, pulled unnecessary and extraneous commentary out of the Controversy section without, I think, hurting the factual reporting of what happened and the effect it had on Giffen's reputation. The previous wording felt awfully biased, as if the writer had an axe to grind.  Grandpallama (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bit of Clean-Up 

message: (which itself doesn't have a wiki entry for some reason. Notable as a Boom! comic and as an in-development movie.
142.129.56.146 (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  N.B. He also is credited with plotting/writing in [[Jeremiah Harm]]. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Keith Giffen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbgxtra.com/knowledge-base/for-your-reference/comics-industry-birthdays
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/the-rise-of-guardians-of-the-galaxys-rocket-raccoon-20140729
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newsarama.com/18137-giffen-dematteis-spill-on-justice-league-3000-answer-legion-connection.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140407234024/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dc-readies-weekly-series-futures-end-spring to http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dc-readies-weekly-series-futures-end-spring
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140312043258/http://comicsalliance.com/infinity-man-forever-people-giffen-didio-new-gods-fourth-world-video-jack-kirby/ to http://comicsalliance.com/infinity-man-forever-people-giffen-didio-new-gods-fourth-world-video-jack-kirby/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://comicbook.com/blog/2011/10/16/dan-of-steel-dan-jurgens-on-joining-team-superman/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified