Talk:Garth Ennis

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

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?

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))

Merge?

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))

• Agreed. Rudá 21:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

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))

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

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))

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)

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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))

• 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)

Auto peer review

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Garthe.jpeg

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)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

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)

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))

Misogyny

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)

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)

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))

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)

Keeping BLP in mind should be top priority for any real-living-person article. Lots42 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 ````