Jump to content

Talk:Blazing Combat

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

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) 15:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-Class rated for Comics Project

[edit]

As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality issue

[edit]

Wiki MOS cautions against using loaded phrasing, such as the plethora of "allegedly"s inserted by an anon IP. "Warren said" is neutral phrasing. Deleted soapboxing and POV characterization of a Warren quote — just give the quote, pls. Also, the anon IP's description of the cover is OR — we can run an image of the cover itself, but a description can be slanted in a number of ways. On a more prosaic note, WPC MOS calls for blockquotes not callout quotes, and no blockquotes for short quotes, generally fewer than four lines.-- Tenebrae (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edits have been reverted, as substantial content was deleted. If the problems with the piece are style-related, then edit them for style. The content in question was intended as a corrective to Warren's speculative and increasingly exaggerated claims that sales for the book were sabotaged at the distributor level. Ideally, Warren's claims would be deleted altogether. Unfortunately, they have become so much a part of the reputation of the book that they cannot reasonably go unacknowledged in the article. As such, it should be highlighted that his statements at various times are contradictory. His charges should also be properly contextualized as allegations. If you eliminate this material altogether, you're effectively running interference for a fish story..-- User:76.226.45.246 —Preceding undated comment added 11:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

As you yourself say, your edits have a agenda, a "corrective to Warren's speculative and increasingly exaggerated claims." But you need to present evidence and documentation; otherwise, it's simply your POV that these claims are speculative and exaggerated -- "a fish story," as you put it. Why do you say that? Where are you getting your information?
That's the important question: Where are you getting your information? :Is it from published reliable sources? Or is it your own original research?
The article as it stood simply reports that Warren said these things, which is neutral and factual. If you feel Warren's claims are untrue or if the article is slanted, then the way Wikipedia works is that you must find reliable-source quotes and reportage to the contrary. The material you inserted has no documentation, and it also violates Wikipedia's guidelines on "Words that may introduce bias", which specifically preclude "so-called, supposed, purported [and] alleged," that last of which you inserted numerous times into the article. -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rd person look-see... Well... looking at 76.226.45.246's (For the time being I'll use "76" to denote this editor here...) edits from March 16-18 [1] and 21 [2] and Tenebrae's from March 20 [3] and 21 [4]. And working from the earliest forward...

  • Peppering text with "alleged" does slant the article and implies an editorial POV from Wikipedia. This is a no-no, period. We don't spin things. And we, as individual editors, do not get to write and present out own personal bias.
  • Changing something close to or based on a cited source (1st ¶ of "Landscape" controversy) is dicey at best. If the information in the article diverges from the cite, it should be corrected to the cite. This should be don in a distinct edit with an edit summary that clearly explains the change.
  • The added ¶ are nice since they provide references for others to check the validity of the quoted material and the paraphrased content. But... the ellipsis and editor corrected noted - the stuff in braces - becomes suspect. More so when the full set of edits are reviewed and the POV push is seen.
  • Tenebrae's edit did clear up the POV push while retaining most of the additional content.
  • The responding edit to that, some 8 1/2 later, does have a glaring problem in the edit summary - "Reverted unexplained edits to the article". Bluntly - the changes were explained, all be it on the talk page. Tenebrae noted this and provided an explanation here within 5 minutes of his edit, well before the revert. Bottom line: if an editor makes a change with the edit summary of "See talk", check the talk page and address the points raised there.
  • 76's second set of edits extends the POV push by minimizing what had been in the article while retaining and emphasizing they earlier edits. There is also a concern that they are shifting the tense from the past to the present. The article deals with historical events - those of the magazines publication - and as such should be using the past tense.

In the discussion above Tenebrae doe bring up a number of important points to remember:

Add to that:

  • Wikipedia is not a soapbox
  • Considering James Warren is still alive, material dealing with him falls under WP:BLP. The upshot there is that attacks on him or his character without supporting documentation can be pulled from articles without discussion.
  • Most editors do operate under the method of "Bold, Revert, Discuss". In this case the bold edits were 76's. When part of those were reverted, it should have moved to a talk page discussion.
  • The reason most editors operate this way is to avoid edit warring, a disruptive practice that can see some or all of the participating editors blocked from editing.

- J Greb (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About all I can really say is, that if you have two separate sets of claims (say, from the publisher, and counter-claims from a detractor who is close to the situation or has some sort of significant, reliable information) then reliable sources need to be provided in all cases. In fact, it's best to have reliable sources to back up as many statements in an article as is possible, ideally everything, so that it is verifiable. Also, there are other routes which are preferrable to edit warring, such as RFC. BOZ (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


"76" here. It doesn't seem to have occured to anyone that Warren is smearing the American Legion and PX buyers, has it?

Point of fact: Warren told the COPYRIGHT HOLDER OF THE MATERIAL--this would be Michael Catron--that his allegations against the American Legion were speculative ("What I think happened" and so forth). He told the COPYRIGHT HOLDER OF THE MATERIAL that he never received a word of complaint from the distributors or retailers. He told the COPYRIGHT HOLDER OF THE MATERIAL that his national distributor never looked into why the magazine failed. Excuse me for thinking that Warren is going to be a bit more rigorous in his claims when talking to the owner of the material than he would be with a fan writer, which is who the other authors cited are.

For everyone's information, the Catron interview, which was conducted in 1991--before any of the others cited--is featured in the current book collection of Blazing Combat from Fantagraphics Books.

The truth of the matter is that there is no evidence beyond Warren's allegations that the American Legion or anyone else tried to sabotage the magazine at the retail level because of the "Landscape" story or any other perceived "anti-war" content. I'll wait a week for replies, but if I don't hear anything substantively disputing this, I'm reverting the piece to the last draft I posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.31.151 (talk) 19:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, then you have to cite that source per WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CS, etc. Tenebrae and J Greb are correct here. Nightscream (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To 99.131.31.151, a.k.a. 76.226.45.246: You cannot "revert the piece to the last draft I posted" due to the policy violations that four editors have noted here. If you do so, I will ask an admin to have your two IP addresses blocked for inappropriate edits. -- Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Landscape"

[edit]

This article unfortunately tends to get attention from right-wing editors who object to Blazing Combat's anti-war stance. I've just today seen that in February, someone removed the entire section on the "Landscape" controversy, and even removed direct verbatim quotes from a James Warren interview because he claimed the interviewer — the long-established comics historian Richard J. Arndt — was a "just a fan." Even if that were true, that's no reasonable rationale to review direct James Warren interview quotes just because he didn't like what Warren said about the American Legion. Remarkable. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That editor, User:DKamiron, clearly seems to be the same as the anon IPs above, making substantially the same changes and using the same terminology about Arndt ("fan writer"). Four editors above found his edits objectionable for highly detailed reasons, and he should not continue to violate Wikipedia policies and to go against consensus. See above neutrality discussion for details. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blazing Combat. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blazing Combat. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 20:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blazing_Combat&oldid=1206333245"