Talk:Garth Ennis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Personal Life: Christianity[edit]

There is the bold statement 'Ennis is a devout atheist who has a marked distaste for christianity' Neither the reference provided or the reference it links to seems to provide any evidence of this at all, beyond the author's opinion. A quick google search shows a bunch of links claiming he's atheist, mostly criticizing his work "preacher", but I can't find anything from HIM that says he's atheist, much less anything where he says he dislikes christianity.

I'm not saying that it's wrong. I'm just saying the reference doesn't support the statement, and that I can't find any references that ether validates or refutes the statement.

~ ~ ~ ~

http://www.sequentialtart.com/archive/dec03/tth_1203.shtml

http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Garth_Ennis.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.231.223.14 (talk) 05:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Celebrity Atheist list, he's quoted (from Wizard: The Guide to Comics #62, October 1996, p.56) as saying "I'm an atheist, really. But everyone seems to think I'm some terrible lapsed Catholic who suffered the worst of a Catholic upbringing and had the crap kicked out of him by nuns and monks. In actual fact, I'm not Catholic, and I never had any kind of direct religious upbringing at all, although I was exposed to the inevitable religious influence that growing up in Ireland will give you. And slightly more directly, my school had what was known as the Scripture Union or Christian Union, which young people were very strongly encouraged to join. They weren't too overt about it, but the kind of insidious propaganda that they employed used to, quite frankly, annoy the piss out of me. But I've always been interested in the history of Christianity and its effect on the world, and more generally speaking, in the idea of faith and of someone giving control over his destiny to what he sees as a higher power. These things have always just fascinated me and they're bound to show up in my work again and again. Negatively." --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

Apologies to the writer of the original stub for erasing most of your work - I figured the fact that you thought Ennis was English rather than Irish means you're not that attached to the subject - Joe.

Nationality[edit]

Sure, he's Irish, but he was born in Northern Ireland, so does'nt that make him a subject of the UK? What does his passport say?

No. Since the Good Friday agreement and the Anglo Irish agreement before that, people living in Northern Ireland have the right to choose their nationality and passport (British or Irish or both) perhaps a unique situation in the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.240.141.48 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Northern Ireland isn't a nation. Northern Irish isn't a Nationality, he's either British, Irish or Dual Nationality. Bunnyman78 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Ulsterman2021 (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC) If he was born in Northern Ireland he is Northern Irish. Irish is not an appropriate term unless someone either describes themselves as Irish or they hold an Irish passport. But nobody can make that assumption as it is a personal and sensitive matter and could also cause offence. In the absence of knowing what passport someone holds, Northern Irish best describes a person from Northern Ireland. 'Subject of the UK' is an incorrect and out of date term to use.[reply]


Shouldn't there be a paragraph on how he has revitalized the Punisher and is largely considered to be the character's definitive writer? He has written over 60 appearances of the character; I consider that notable enough to warrant a paragraph. - Gasface

Then Be bold and add it in people can then tweak it. For my own part I was thinking it'd be best to redo the bibliography in chronological order. The same suggestion came up over on the Grant Morrison entry and I've made a start throwing in dates and we'd need to full range of dates here too. (Emperor 01:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Merge?[edit]

I see no reason for an entry Garth Ennis work for 2000 A.D./Judge Dredd and it also makes a chronological sorting of publications impossible. (Emperor 21:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The other entry has now been put up for deletion so anyone looking to thrown in their opinions should do so over there. (Emperor 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I'm sorry; my logic was that it could easily be linked straight from 2000 AD, rather than an indirect link to his page, scrolling around to find the extremely incomplete list that was there ... and because, since it was early and fairly obscure to American audiences, it would be more an interesting bit of info but not neccessarily for everybody. Now I see the conversation going on down below, so obviously people disagree. I hadn't been able to figure out this talk section before. Sorry for causing trouble.

Concise vs comprehensive bibliographies[edit]

It came up on the VfD discussion for the above merge and I thought it best to continue it hre rather than bog down the deletion discussion. To reiterate my viewpoint: I think the bibliography needs to be as comprehensive as possible as all the work from someone notable like Garth Ennis, Grant Morrison and Alan Moore is notable. While I don't see the length of the bibliographies being too much of an issue at the moment it has been an issue I have pondered. If it did become an issue I'd favour a "concise bibliography" in the entry and a separate "comprehensive bibliography" link through form there. At the moment I think the main issue at the moment is other entries that are largely just bibliography. This isn't a problem with the bibliography just that a longer biography is required but as this is all a work in progress it is handy to have the bibliography to help create the biography. The three entries I linked to above are good examples of "mature" entries that have grown to be (partly due to the popularity of the authors involved). So as things stand I am more in favour of adding more to the biographies rather than taking things out of bibliogrpahies (which, as I've said, is a judgement call and very difficult to get a consensus on and impossible to properly police). It also partly reflects the moderate problem of expanding UK writers and artists entries unless they have crossed over to the American mainstream (but then again there are a lot of entries for US writers and artists that need similar work). (Emperor 14:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

To summarise the opposing view: Listing every single 5 page Dredd story from someone like John Wagner would create a very long list, but uit wouldn;t necessarily be particualrly interesting or informative. Add a listing for every single reprint of those stories and you end up with a very long list of very little interest whatsoever, undiferentiated data rather than useful information. --Artw 17:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. An encyclopedia article should be a readable guide to the general reader, not a checklist for obsessives. --Nicknack009 17:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways and means to cope with what might start to become an overwhelming list in this case listing the actual reprints seems a reasonable compromise if this is really thought to be a problem (and I'm not yet convinced it will be in this case). (Emperor 13:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
As, I suppose, one of the people making the contributions in question, I'll explain the logic as I saw it. I thought this was meant to be a source of information, and, as such, it seemed like the information should be as complete as possible. It seemed, reading through the articles about Moore or Ennis (for instance) as if the biography section already gave a decent "readable guide", an overview bibliography explaining what the general important ones are and linking to extensively detailed information about the issues and the series, making the bibliography as written seem largely redundant. When I saw the Ennis page (for instance), it was inconsistently arranged (some things referred to by story name, some by the title, some collected under a character name). To say that it was a guide to the "important" works would be quite a judgement call; it was missing all of his Dredd work but the most recent one, but had an entry for "Chopper" with both obscure stories. It included "Flinch" #3 but not The Demon ... and "Star Wars Tales" but not "Dicks". I can see the logic in arranging the information so that it would go from "general interest" [maxi-series] to "more obscure" [one-offs and short stories], but it seems to me like it's editorializing to try to determine what is "imporant" in the career of a writer. (Just as a for instance, one of the four short stories from 'Crisis' is about John Wayne and the "F*** Communism" lighters, which eventually factored in heavily with 'Preacher' (I concede, that information isn't in the entry at present, but that does tend to make that an interesting story to be aware of.)) If you opt not to include a definitive bibliography, or even form a seperate page for a specifically definitive one, I would then suggest offering a clear link to another site which does include it.
ThatGuamGuy 04:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Sean (TGG)[reply]
Yes, it is supposed to be a source of information, but a long list of undifferentiated facts is not really information. My own inclination is not to bother with bibliographies, but to mention his most significant work in the body of the article, and describe what made it significant, its themes etc. And yes, that is a judgement call. If you're going to write a helpful encyclopedia article you need to exercise judgement, otherwise you end up with an article that's so full of trivia that someone looking to find out who Garth Ennis is and what's significant about him will leave overwhelmed and none the wiser. This is a reference work which needs to be accessible to the general reader. It needs to make sense to someone who has no idea who Garth Ennis is. A link to a comprehensive biography, if one exists elsewhere on the web, is an excellent idea, but it's not necessary or desirable, in my opinion, to include one here. --Nicknack009 09:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It my view, just based on the appearances of the page, the bibliography is a supplement to the article. I do agree with you that people don't read a bibliography in order to understand themes and reasons that specific works are the most significant in his body of work -- that's what they read the article for. It seems as if you're saying there shouldn't be bibliographies at all; that's certainly a valid opinion, and I'd like to hear what other people think on that subject, and I would go so far as to half-sgree: I don't see the point of bibliographies if they're going to be haphazard and incomplete (which it was before I contributed) and, at best, just duplicating the information in the article. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, though; is there a reason to have a bibliography section which just lists the specific stuff which is mentioned in the biography? Because that seems really redundant to me, especially when the individual titles generally have their own pages.
It seems to me like the interesting thing about a bibliography on this website would be having it be extensive, because then you can really get into the inter-connectedness, which I thought was part of the point of wikipedia. (I don't actually know, I'm clearly new here, but that seemed to be one of the big appeals.)
One other thing I don't understand... if I go to the X-Men page (for instance), there's a nice long article, and a list of current members, and notable former members... and then there's another wikipedia entry directly linked which lists every single person who has ever been a member of the X-Men, or any X-Men related team. It lists the issue they joined, their full name, and a full paragragh describing them. And, of course, it links to their own page, which they all have, and which has all that info. Why is a complete bibliography of a major comic book writer less accessible to a general reader than that? I can see the logic in "Click here to view a full bibliography", but it seems as if the information should be here somewhere for those who do want it.
ThatGuamGuy 23:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)[reply]
However, looking at the initial post in here (sorry, I don't know what "VfD" means), I would agree with Nicknack that an extensive bibliography is counter-productive in a situation, as described by Emperor, where the biography section is short or non-existent. If the bibliography is the primary source of information about what the person wrote, that's a different situation. I guess all the writers I like are too mainstream, because I haven't seen that yet. :)

ThatGuamGuy 23:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)[reply]

Basically I think bibliographies just overwhelm articles, ending up with a map that's as big as the territory depicted and thus useless as a map. I suppose a bibliography probably serves a useful function by providing somewhere for completeness-obsessives to cram more information in without unbalancing the article itself. --Nicknack009 23:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point, to which I'd add: the problem with a democratic thing like wikipedia depending on judgement calls is that every story will be somebody's favorite, so somebody will miss if it there's no mention at all.
I certainly don't want the bibliography to overshadow the biography (and can totally see how that could happen with too much info), especially with regard to Garth Ennis, as I think the bio is quite good and a *great* career overview (other than agreeing with the guy above that The Punisher should be elaborated upon, which I didn't want to do myself before all this back-and-forth was resolved).
I'd go with the idea of taking detailed bibliographies (where they exist) and moving them to a seperate entry. ThatGuamGuy 00:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)sean[reply]
I can't see the article becoming unbalanced. The biography is a good lengthy one touching on the big works and themes and the bibliography is tagged on then end with a more detailled overview of what he has done (if it was above the bibliography and people had to go through it to get to the bibliography then that would be an issue). It is also a useful way of presenting the information. I find that once I've read the bibliography an entries us is for quick reference and the like and I skip the opening section and go straight to the bibliography or the external links section. The web is a different medium to print and large blocks of text don't make for great reading online and sometimes a stripped down list is a more usable way of getting the information. Bottom line is that as people can skip sections of the page (thanks to the handy menu) if they don't want to have anything to do with one part of the page then they don't have to. (Emperor 13:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Although I personally haven't been adding them, I don't understand why they could be a problem with comprehensive bibliographies. All Wikipedia creator biographies - literary or otherwise - follow the same pattern, with biographical details at the top, career details second, other issues third, and finally a list of achievements, accomplishments, and/or published works. Wikipedia is not paper, and these pages so far are not breaking even the recommended page sizes. It's more useful for this information to be gathered in one place than scattered here and there over the interweb.
  • Merging the two pages together results in a page substantially below the recommended 30kb limit. However, the guidelines on size state that even this limit should not be taken too seriously for lists. Vizjim 09:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Auto peer review[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
  • Consider removing links that add little to the article or that have been repeated in close proximity to other links to the same article, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and WP:CONTEXT.[?]
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
  • See if possible if there is a free use image that can go on the top right corner of this article.[?]
  • If this article is about a person, please add {{persondata|PLEASE SEE [[WP:PDATA]]!}} along with the required parameters to the article - see Wikipedia:Persondata for more information.[?]
  • This article is a bit too short, and therefore may not be as comprehensive as WP:WIAFA critera 1(b) is looking for. Please see if anything can be expanded upon.[?]
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • apparently
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
  • This article needs footnotes, preferably in the cite.php format recommended by WP:WIAFA. Simply, enclose inline citations, with WP:CITE or WP:CITE/ES information, with <ref>THE FOOTNOTE</ref>. At the bottom of the article, in a section named “References” or “Footnotes”, add <div class="references-small"><references/></div>.[?]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Mal 10:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Garthe.jpeg[edit]

Image:Garthe.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. For starters it is missing a photo but there is also a need for quite a few more references. I'll return to this and flag the points but in the meantime you can't go wrong sourcing any claims you find. (Emperor (talk) 01:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Misogyny[edit]

I'm actually something of a fan of Garth's work and have read almost all of it. But he's come under fire for being misogynistic. I can probably troll out sources from CBR (Comic book resources) and reviews, but really it's as self evident as his "interest in male friendships." I'm not trying to just smear the guy, but it's a theme in his work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.22.148 (talk) 05:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ennis has explicitly addressed issues of misogyny in his work, as opposed to the vast majority of comic books creators who simply perpetuate misogynistic norms without, it would seem, much reflection. Ennis is obviously interested in masculinity, and his treatment of women is from masculine perspectives, but you can't really say that his portrayals of women are characterized by contempt and hatred for their gender, which is what "misogyny" entails. Also, by flat-out stating that his work is characterized by rampant misogyny, you're passing your own judgement on it - the very least you could do is fit some clause in there like, "Ennis has drawn allegations of misogyny throughout his career," or whatever. Your edit seems fairly out of order - I'm changing it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.8.108 (talk) 09:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is room for analysis - "X has said this about this" just try and keep thingss balanced and fair. Without sources it is original research (and would be violating WP:BLP too). (Emperor (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Probably worth giving WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE a certain amount of thought when addressing this as well. Artw (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping BLP in mind should be top priority for any real-living-person article. Lots42 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I see we've had another round of edits on Ennis hot button topics being made and rolled back[1]. TBH I think we *should* have something about Ennis's choice of "edgy" subject matter, accusations of sexism, homophobia, and all that goes with it. But we need to do a proper job of it, it needs to be very carefully balanced, and we need to source the hell out of it with proper sources that meet WP:RS - something that's easier said than done with all the google hits on messageboards and blog postings that don't really cut it. If I turn up anything that looks usable I'll post it here. Artw (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The darkness


just perused the article and i see little regarding garths run on the drakness comic. most importantly the first arc or two

i'dd add some detials my self. but cant fact check anything as at work and this limts my web searching abilitys

just thought i'd ,mention it ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.38.130 (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tag[edit]

I've removed the cleanup tag, which seemed old and out of date. As far as I can tell none of the old issues mentioned there apply to the article, with particularly good work being done to add references and move citations inline. I hope everyone is okay with that assessment. Artw (talk) 17:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Garth Ennis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Garth Ennis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garth Ennis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Garth Ennis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020 sourcing issues[edit]

It was claimed that I added uncited information when writing about the book being withdrawn due to controversy, although I did take the time to cite it down to the very page number, here is the scan: https://postimg.cc/dZZFLbkT

In terms of the villain in True Faith being a militant atheist rather than a militant maltheist, I can't scan the entire book, but here's just one of many instances where he says his goal is to literally kill God because he hates him: https://postimg.cc/XGJLc3gX

To be clear, the HERO is an atheist, but the villain is a believer, albeit a believer who hates God. Even if you haven't read Truth Faith Nightscream, don't you think that's more likely that the villain being a militant atheist, given Ennis' stated beliefs and depictions of believers versus atheists in his better known material? Lynchenberg (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While a lot of the information removed from the article after I edited it for organization was uncited, having read/watched a substantial amount of Ennis interviews, I know most of that information can be confirmed. Given time, I will find the sources for all or most of it. I won't add it to the article until/if I do, but going forward, please add a citation needed while we look for the source. The sources for most of this stuff are out there, they just need to be found.

In case I am not believed (I've been accused of original research instead of merely organizing what was already there), here's a link to the state of the article before I started editing it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Garth_Ennis&oldid=969621563

You'll note all all my so-called "original research" is already there, Nightscream. You had been editing the article long before me at that point, yet just now, you suddenly have a problem with this so-called "original research" and you try to blame it on me. All I did was try to make the article easier to read. Lynchenberg (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have long-monitored articles for uncited material, poorly cited material, and/or original research. There is nothing "sudden" about it. I pointed out, for example, that you cannot support a claim like a book being withdrawn due to complaints over its content to the book itself, and even linked to the guideline in question, yet you reverted it anyway, with no counterargument to this, much as you did to all or most of my edits. I have restored my edits, this time doing it piecemeal, so I could cite each policy or guideline in each edit summary. If you dispute my citation of those policies, then let's talk about it here. If necessary, we can invite other editors to join the discussion to gain a consensus.
Aside from that, thank you for shoring up the article with material and proper citations, where applicable. :-) Nightscream (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being grumpy.Lynchenberg (talk) 08:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that it's perfectly permissible to cite the withdrawal of one edition of a book to the introduction to another edition of the book from a different publisher. That's a secondary source. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but it is not. Since the book is still property of its owner, who has the last word on its content, including extras that go into different editions, whether it's character sketches, pages of the script, epilogues, afterwords or introductions, etc., then the source is still him/the book. As WP:PSTS makes clear, a secondary source is one that is removed from the event in question. Information on the work's impact is precisely the sort of thing that you cannot source to the people responsible for its publication, and is exactly the sort of thing for which you need a source independent of those who produced the book. If such an event occurred and received coverage, then you should be able to find secondary sources for it. Nightscream (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quick google search brings up these sources. Any of them suitable to use?
https://www.dynamite.com/htmlfiles/infoDB.html?show=NS07100988644
https://www.comicsreview.co.uk/nowreadthis/2009/12/18/true-faith-%E2%80%93-a-crisis-graphic-novel/
https://www.dynamicforces.com/htmlfiles/infodatabase.html?showInfodatabase=NS03220777161 Lynchenberg (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really didn't notice that the Dynamite and Dynamic Forces articles are both copies of the Wikipedia article? Even though one of them explicitly mentions this?

As for the Comics Review site, I'm not familiar with it. At first I thought it looked like a fan's blog, but then on the About page, I noticed that he says he's paid to write books about comics. Doing a curosory search, I found this book by him, and verified that the publisher, Quality Books, is not a vanity press, but a legit publisher with this Publishers Weekly article, so yeah, I think Wiacek would pass WP:IRS. What does anyone else think? Nightscream (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the similarities, but assumed that if anything, the Wikipedia article was copied from these articles, considering Dynamite Entertainment is a legitimate comic book publisher that has published much of Ennis' material, including The Boys and Dynamic Forces is an official distributor. It would be pretty unprofessional for them to copy from Wikipedia, but looking at the bottom of the Dynamic Forces page, it seems you're right, at least in the case of Dynamic Forces. I think I can be forgiven for not seeing that though, as it comes after the written portion of the article, at the very bottom, following a very long bibliography that just lists various Ennis credits on various comics. I didn't read through that, as a bibliography didn't seem relevant to citing the protests regarding True Faith. I just read through the article portion. I hope this isn't going to turn into us trying to each make the other look stupid because we made some conflicting edits and I got upset. I already apologized. Lynchenberg (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to come off so snarky. I'm a somewhat sarcastic person at times. I apologize. Thanks for making a good faith attempt at finding sources. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found an article in The Comics Journal in 1991 that provides a good source for the withdrawal of True Faith. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just so everyone knows, I am going to be updating Ennis personal life and influences. There will be some stuff the I will have a note for pending citations, but I promise, there are sources out there, I know I've seen them. Either I'll find them eventually or someone else will, please wait on removing them.Lynchenberg (talk) 08:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Just so you know, websites w/ user-generated info like imdb, other wikis, Patch Media, or YouTube videos by anonymous or individuals that do not have a reputation for editorial control are not considered reliable under WP:USERG, which is part of Wikipedia's policy on source reliability. Diamond and Previews, however, is certainly reliable, so I think their YouTube videos are perfectly fine. So are those by other legit sources, like SyFy Wire, IGN, etc. Always make sure that any info you add to articles comes directly from those sources, per WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH. Nightscream (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even videos with Garth Ennis actually talking in them and was interviewed by the person uploading the video? A lot of the interviews you removed aren't even with random fans, but just smaller companies than a Previews of SyFy Wire. That seems a bit spurious. So the fact that it's Ennis giving the information isn't what matters, it's platform he's on that matters? In either case, can we reinstate the information I added if not the sources, and just add citation needed? This is common stuff Ennis says in multiple interviews, so even if it's not what Ennis says that matters but who he says it to, I guarantee I can find interviews where he says it to someone representing a big corporation rather than someone with a YouTube channel or who represents a smaller corporation. As an aside, this seems like an odd standard. If you had video footage of Ennis robbing a bank, he'd go to jail whether FOX News reported it or Tom Smith reported the video footage. I don't see why it matters if he tells a fan he liked reading Battle as a kid or if he told a spokesperson for Marvel. I don't know how much more reliable you can get than video footage of the actual man talking. But if that's how Wikipedia rolls, that's how Wikipedia rolls.Lynchenberg (talk) 18:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just another note. If you want to reinstate what I wrote and word it so it is more general and not gleaned from those specific videos, that would be fine. Like I said, I guarantee I or somebody else can find other sources where Ennis says this stuff that Wikipedia considers more "reliable" and it would just be worded slightly differently, so we can solve it by making what I wrote less specific to those sources. I think we can all agree between ourselves that video footage of Ennis is pretty reliable right, even if Wikipedia doesn't? I imagine this rule was meant to originally apply to videos that could be deleted off YouTube because they were owned by third-parties and illegally uploaded, not because video of someone speaking isn't reliable unless it's the New York Times or something. But all the videos I referenced looked to be uploaded by the rights holders, some were just smaller organizations and some were fans, but it's nothing that was swiped from a DVD by a fan and would get copyright claimed in a week; they'd been a decade or more. Like, I would get this if I was citing a fan site made by some guy because you can write whatever you want and say Ennis said it, I understand needing a more reputable website for citing text articles. But how do you fake video footage of Garth Ennis at a comic book convention with an entire auditorium of witnesses?Lynchenberg (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the relevant policies and guidelines are clear. It's not a question of whether the interview is "faked", but whether the source has a general reputation for editorial control, reliability, etc.

And if he gives this information "in multiple interviews", then interested editors should be able to find those published by those aforementioned sources. I'm sorry that you did all that work and saw so much of it removed (it it makes any difference, I've had that happen to me too), but much of it was indeed kept, as the Previews videos should pass muster, and I added the publication info to it too. I hope this doesn't discourage you from continuing to edit. If you ever need further help or tips on collaborating, I'm here for you, for what it's worth. Nightscream (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to contest this, if it's how Wikipedia rolls, it's how Wikipedia rolls. But what is the reasoning? Why does the source need to have a general reputation for reliability when it's something that cannot reasonably be contested like a video interview or filmed convention? I would get it if it was an an article on a website where anyone can claim anything, but why not video? To me this is like if I filmed a person getting mugged on my camera phone and the police said "Sorry, you're not reliable," and then if I gave the same footage to CNN and they broadcast it, suddenly the police took it seriously and arrested the mugger.Lynchenberg (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to this from the edit history: "No, you're not "leaving it as citation needed." You don't put an uncited passage in an article and then fact-tag it yourself. You accompany it with a citation that supports it, or doesn't go in the article, period.; Again, an anonymous person's YouTube channel w/ 42 subscribers does NOT pass WP:IRS; adding missing cite publication info to SyFy Wire video cite; etc."

First off, I didn't cite that video when I made the edit, I just said we needed the citation. You were okay with that until we found a Wikipedia-approved source for Troubled Souls being withdrawn from sale. I thought you'd be okay with this too. I said I was going to do that earlier on this talk page and you were okay with it. Second, you make it sound like I originally cited some guy on YouTube with 42 subscribers saying this, and I never did. Maybe I'm misinterpreting your tone, but you now sound angry and seem to be trying to skew things to make it sound like I'm pulling this out of nowhere or citing some guy alone in his basement, presenting his own "History of Garth Ennis" video into his webcam. Even before, I never did that. I cited Garth Ennis himself saying this in a YouTube interview with The Comic Collective, who actually have 878 subscribers, not many by any means, but it's an important distinction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ifrWA2JPcM

Again, I also have to ask this because I never received an answer. In your revert, you didn't address this and instead made it sound like I was citing some random YouTuber and linked an article on rules that seem to be referring more to self-published blogs than video interviews. So once again, I'll ask, what is the reasoning behind this? Let's say this exact same video was mirrored on Previews.Org, would it suddenly become reliable because Previews.Org is a well-known brand with more subscribers? Or take this video which you do say is reliable: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f23Br_pVRuc&t This channel just seems to be some guy interviewing Garth Ennis in a video call, a much less professional presentation than The Comic Collective. As far as I can tell, the only difference is that this channel has 89.4K subscribers. Is it considered more reliable simply because this guy successfully gained a following and The Comic Collective didn't? Is the fact that this is Garth Ennis himself, on video, giving the information irrelevant? If so, why? Is it some kind of status thing? Is the Wikipedia attitude, "We don't care about what's true, we don't care about what can be verified, we care about status?" If that's it, so be it, but if that's the case I think I deserve the real explanation instead of you painting it like I'm just citing some random fan.

If we can't use The Comic Collective source, okay. I don't really get why, but it's Wikipedia's house, so I'll respect that. I'll accept that on Wikipedia, what Ennis says doesn't matter, the platform he says it on matters. But given what we all can objectively see, can I at least change it from "Ennis' first American work appeared in 1991 when he took over the horror series Hellblazer, from DC Comics' Vertigo imprint" to "In 1991, Ennis took over the horror series Hellblazer, from DC Comics' Vertigo imprint," so we're just stating confirmed facts and not untruths? I didn't re-add other information that isn't important in the article, like small details about Garth Ennis saying his run on the Punisher was influenced by Chuck Dixon or that Battle was the specific war comic he read growing up. My issue isn't that trivia was removed, my issue is that a verified falsehood is consistently returned to the article.

I don't think we should have verified falsehoods in the article. If you don't consider this a falsehood (which given your frustrated tone, you might), I have to ask, is this beyond just having to follow the rules? Are you saying it's accurate to call Hellblazer Ennis' first American work? Are you saying Ennis cannot be trusted? Are you saying he needs a YouTuber with enough status around to make sure he's telling the truth? If this interview appeared on ComicPop and the interviewer called Ennis out and said, "No Ennis, you're wrong, neither Goddess or Hellblazer were your first American work, Preacher was," would we be trusting that interviewer over Ennis and calling Preacher his first American work? I am asking this separately from what the specific rules on Wikipedia are. We're using Wikipedia so the rules are what they are and we have to abide by them. I am asking you personally. In your personal view, am I the one promoting objective falsehoods by considering Garth Ennis himself a reliable source on the career of Garth Ennis? That is what you seem to be implying.Lynchenberg (talk) 14:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"First off, I didn't cite that video when I made the edit, I just said we needed the citation."
You seem to be conflating two separate parts of your edits. Your comment about fact-tagging was made in the edit summary of this edit, which mentioned delays in publishing. That edit did not concern a video. Apart from that, I don't have any issue with including the correct title by him to be first published in the U.S., though if this is a contentious issue (since cover dates are not exactly the same thing as release dates), then this is all the more reason why citing secondary sources are important.
My comment about YouTube subscriptions was made in reference to this edit, in which you cited [this video], which is on the YouTube channel of some person calling themself Thomas ODonnell, which indeed has 42 subscribers. Ultimately, though, that comment, though an embellishment, was not to be interpreted as the crux of the WP:IRS policy.
As I stated above --- which included explicitly naming the related policies/guidelines in question, complete with wikilink --- the criteria that govern Wikipedia's Reliable Sources policy is a reputation for reliability and editorial control, and not number of subscribers, nor the question of whether a video was "faked", so when I see you again adding more of the same, and asking me what the policies are, after I just did so above, it leads me to wonder if you're ignoring what I'm trying to tell you. If I came across as impatient or irritated as a result, I apologize. I strongly urge you to familiarize yourself with that policy. You're obviously capable of understanding that policy and citing sources that are easily reliable, like Previews and SyFy Wire, and thus, I think you can make a valuable addition to the editing community here. If I missed any other questions, of if you have any others, just shoot 'em my way. :-) Nightscream (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critics of Religions.[edit]

Someone just added the Critics of Religions category. While Ennis is critical of religion, does that in fact make him a Critic of Religion in the sense in which that category is applied? He is a comic book writer, he doesn't write books or essays attempting to discredit or deconstruct religion. Even his comics that have a blasphemous or antireligious tone aren't truly critiques of religion but are just Ennis' own feelings coming out through his work. The overall goal of these comics seem to be to entertain the reader not to critique religion. Surprisingly little religious content is actually in comics like Preacher or Chronicles of Wormwood beyond just a general irreverence but no real argument is made or even attempted.Lynchenberg (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awards[edit]

I suppose it's possible Ennis didn't win anything between 2001 and 2021, but I doubt it. There are probably just some missing. Richard75 (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography discussion: Fleetway and Rebellion[edit]

Would there be any objection to modifying this so the Rebellion 2000 AD material is under the Fleetway stuff and not buried in the "other publishers" section? 2600:1700:96F1:550:DDE3:B7AD:2931:B429 (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Garth_Ennis&oldid=1207118873"