Talk:Gary Groth

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 16:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I hope whoever has been vandalising the entry gets the message from the lockout and stops. Dgabbard (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome

Gary Groth is fukcing AWESOME. Wroth of Groth (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Alan Light "feud"

Recent text:

One of Groth's most infamous long-running feuds was with The Buyer's Guide for Comics Fandom founder/publisher Alan Light (who was co-editor of Fantastic Fanzine). This is extensively described in Ron Frantz's Fandom: Confidential along with details on the role of Groth's interactions with the WE Seal of approval program in the launching Comics Journal.

Notes:

• "most infamous"? No objective infamy scale of Groth feuds exists; it sounds like POV.

I have been involved in fandom since the 1970s. A feud between two of the leading publications for comic book fandom in its formative years I think merits the description.Dgabbard (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Between the publications... so was it a Groth vs. Light feud or a TCJ vs. TBG feud? If it's the latter, it might belong in those magazines' articles. --AC (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• Alan Light was 'co-editor' of FF. How many issues? When? (How old were the two boys then?) Maybe that belongs more in the AL article.

One issue MurrayBishoff (talk) 07:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It merits mention to note they at one time had been in a partnership which later shattered.Dgabbard (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The article text says "co-editor", not "partner"; can you clarify? --AC (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Groth in his initial TNJ editorial states Light "took over the publishing chores of Fantastic Fanzine Special II, the last issue of FF I edited (the only issue I didn't publish myself)". So even Groth admits Light has some sort of role with FF at some point. http://www.tcj.com/235/nostedit.htmlDgabbard (talk) 02:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I expanded what I now call the controversy section, with details, citations and links. I tried as much as possible to provide the means to read Groth's own writings so people can come to their own conclusions. Dgabbard (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding a 'controversy' section seems appropriate and can be expanded as needed. The sources needn't clog up the article text itself. Even with the additions, "infamous" seems like POV, and would require general support. "Infamy" is not the same thing as being disliked by partisans, infamy is, (or rather the only kind of infamy we'd allow is), a general condition. i.e. Webster's "Total loss of reputation; public disgrace;..." (The National Review might seem infamous to fans of The Nation, and vice versa; both make for lively partisan rhetoric.) "Harassment" seems equally subjective, outside of a courthouse.

The now parenthetical Fantastic Fanzine mention lacks relevance amidst its paragraph, which itself is too complex; it's not clear what's true and what's opinion. Is "Battles That Shocked Through Collecting" a typo? Looks like a word's missing. Lack of focus: "Groth also acquired a copy of the WSA mailing list and used it to solicit subscriptions, without authorization from the organization." Why 'Groth' the person, and WSA the organization? Might as well be "Fantagraphics used..." if the focus is corporate.

The Carol Kalish addition is vague, it should explain why that editorial was controversial. --AC (talk) 09:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I added quote by Robert Boyd who was working at Fantagraphics when the editorial appeared on why it offended many, and comments on the impact of Groith's often blunt style on those who work for him. As for "Why 'Groth' the person...?" Frantz makes clear Groth personally using connections got his hands on the WSA mailing list and offered subsequent half-hearted excuses; this makes the focus personal not corporate Dgabbard (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• The Frantz citation should be a footnote.

I'll add that when I get a chance.Dgabbard (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I added them. Dgabbard (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• "details on the role of Groths interactions..." seems vague and gossipy. If what happened is important it should be described; if not it doesn't belong.

I added a better description of what happened, including actions by both parties. Dgabbard (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• What was this feud about that makes it relevant?

Have you read the online interview from the period? Certainly provides a context for the atmosphere in which Groth launched the Journal: http://www.tcj.com/235/nostint.html Dgabbard (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. The "interview" or altercation clearly shows a lack of mutual respect, but for our present purpose is still a bit short on facts. That said, we might mention Light's policy of rejecting ads from rivals (or a rival, perhaps making the more general claim out of personal spite) versus GG's liberal acceptance of most any paid ad. --AC (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I quote a fan who was an observer from the beginning about how the feud dominated the first years of Comics Journal that I think bolsters its significance. Dgabbard (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As it stands I couldn't revise it because it's unclear what that paragraph's author wished to convey; better to delete it, but first let's wait a few weeks in hopes that perhaps somebody can improve or explain it. --AC (talk) 05:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

When I get a chance I'll try to improve it.Dgabbard (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, though maybe if it's a long time unrevised, I'll zap it until the improvements. Also I dunno where in the article this might belong, it seems anticlimactic to have it at the end. --AC (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Did some tweaking. Put most quotes in "ref" tags, (NB: my "ref" technique is informal at best -- improved formatting for those refs would be good), lest the article read like a newspaper. The WSA connection is still not so clear as it might be. More on Kalish would be nice, if done carefully; also a separate article is needed, as her name comes up a lot circa '80s Marvel. --AC (talk) 05:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I tried to improve the Kalish portion via the Boyd quote. Dgabbard (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that Boyd quote is not suitable, even if it were just in a 'ref' tag: it's a message board quote & Wikepedia frowns on those. We can link to message boards if the thread itself constitutes the fact being cited, but message boards (currently) aren't allowed to be cited for facts contained therein, since message boards usually aren't fact checked, edited, accountable, etc. Even if it were straight from TCJ, the Boyd quote as mere opinion would still be unsuitable. The "right" (neutral style) way is to accurately summarize the situation that preceded the controversial Kalish editorial, then summarize the jist of the editorial itself, then summarize the differing reactions of the resultant factions. --AC (talk) 09:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gary Groth. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100731153058/http://archives.tcj.com/journalista/zarch200212B.html to http://archives.tcj.com/journalista/zarch200212B.html

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) 10:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)