Talk:Alan Moore

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] See comments

Read this first. This article has three times been a featured article candidate. It failed all three times, but the discussions generated many helpful suggestions. Please see comments here, here, and here to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed, you may resubmit the article for featured article status.

Alan Moore has been listed as a good article on an artist for meeting the criteria for this category of articles. If you can expand or improve it further, please do so!
If it does not meet the criteria, or has ceased to since its inclusion, you can delist it or ask for a review.

	This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. See comments
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
	This article was a former Comics Collaboration of the Month. (30/1/2006-3/3/2006) To see how the article improved click here.

[edit] Plagiarism?

A user called "L." has removed a passage I wrote in the section on From Hell which connected Gull's statement that he had "delivered" the twentieth century with the conception of Hitler depected earlier in the book, because the use of the phrase "simple arithmetic", unconsciously lifted from a source cited in the references, apparently constitutes "plagiarism". The connection between the two was an important part of my interpretation of the book, so I have reinstated it, rewritten to avoid the offending phrase. However I consider "plagiarism", for a matter of two words, to be an outrageous accusation and would appreciate a retraction. --Nicknack009 8 July 2005 17:37 (UTC)

I'm afraid I myself have been successfully accused of plagiarism for unconciously printing two words together that were also from another source (the words were "flabby weight" and, ironically, also concern Hitler). I'm afraid I had to agree with them - Wiki contributors must hold themselves to an extremely high standard. Moreover, there is no place here for hurt feelings and egos. --L. 9 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)

Should there be mention of the sinister ducks? -FZ 21:44, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've reworked the article a little to remove some redundancy. I don't think that Supreme or 1963 can be considered major works, and the sections on the "interim" and ABC duplicate earlier sections, so I've merged these parts into Career History. I've also added subheadings for From Hell and Promethea under major works, to be filled in when I (or anyone else) has the time. --Nicknack009 19:43, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree about Supreme not being a major work. It (along with the precurser, 1963, which I'll concede is not one of his major projects) introduced a completly new era in his writing style, and a brand new way to look at superhero books. It's one of his most innovative projects, and just as clever in its way as the grim and gritty books. I put it back in.

--Scott Dubin

Fair enough. I think its more notable in the context of the evolution of his work rather than a great piece of work per se, but maybe I'm a bit biased against superheroes. --Nicknack009 17:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I just stumbled on to this article, and I was shocked at its superb quality! I am nominating it for a Featured article. Good work everyone! Gkhan 17:41, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

I think that the Sinister Ducks are worth a brief mention, though I may be biased because it was my comment. It's not like it's mentioning an unimportant comic he wrote - musical work is a complete deviation from the rest of his body of work and hence worth a mention.

Yeah, but is his Sinister Ducks stuff professional quality, or just a hobby level thing? I'm not sure that a hobby project would rank. How many people have listened to it, have you? Scott Dubin

The Sinister Ducks are definately of professional quality. I have MP3s of both March of the Sinister Ducks and Old Gansters Never Die, and they're both songs which I would love even if they weren't related to Alan Moore.

I haven't decided upon how/where to add a mention to this article for The Sinister Ducks, but I think it definitely warrants inclusion. The band members were Alan Moore, Alex Green and David J, and it appears to have had an actual release as a 45rpm record. I have some other things to add to this article as well, when I have time, hopefully well-referenced.

[edit] Photo

Surely there's a photo that doesn't look quite so much like Ian Anderson on a bad day...?

Have you ever seen the pictures of himself that he puts on the books? I don't think Alan Moore is really that interested in looking like GQ cover.

Also, on the topic of David J, you should change that he is an "ex-member" of Bauhaus, as they (David and all of the original members) are currently on tour.

There's a picture fo him that looks a little more appealing, walking on a street with a cane. Kidney Stone 12:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The current photo does look a bit old. I'd be in favour of replacing it with a more up-to-date one. Also, there is a pretty cool picture of Alan Moore by Bryan Talbot here [1]. Maybe it could be included if the copyright status could be worked out. It's a parody of the famous Allister Crowley picture so it fits in nicely with the stuff about Moore's belief in magic. Iron Ghost 00:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References and stuff

In response to the denial of featured article status, I've added some references and put more detail into the bibliography. There's not, as far as I know, a great body of critical writing about comics, so most of the information about his work comes from reading the comics themselves. In which case, publication details of the comics will have to be the bulk of our references. --Nicknack009 23:16, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Eyes & Ears

The article used to say that Moore is blind in one eye & deaf in one ear. I've heard this before, but it's now removed from the article. Is it true, and if so where should it go?

The only source I've seen for this is this interview, in which the man himself says he's "practically deaf" in one ear and "practically blind" in one eye. ←Hob 00:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is actually true. Reason why he doesn't drive, etc. For a reference see the book, "The Extraordinary Works of Alan Moore", edited by George Khoury, TwoMorrows Press 2003. I believe one of his daughters mentions it in either the foreword or afterword.

[edit] Anarchist?

Someone added Category:Anarchist. Can anyone back this up? Marc Mywords 07:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Alan Moore can. [2] Sarge Baldy 00:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retirement

After he finishes promithea 34 hadn't he said he was done with ABC and would soon retire now thats he's 50?

Cool, maybe that way someone else will do a Watchmen sequel. Yeah Mr. Moore, please retire! 168.243.218.2

Last time I spoke to him he was talking about retirment. I put it to him that a writer can never retire not propally. He agreed and rephased his statement to say that he would slow down his output. That was about 4 years ago in 2002. I seariously doubt he will dissapear in a hurry. Andham2000

[edit] Occult

I seem to remember reading a number of rather odd pieces by Moore in which he refers to various occult practices he has performed. The article doesn't seem to cover this aspect of his life. Does anyone know anything about it? Leithp (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

He sure as hell is. His album The Highbury Working is all about performance of a ritual. A "working" is a magical ritual. Semiconscious 07:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

He worships a snake too, doesn't he?

Alan Moore contributed an article about the history of The Moon and Serpent Theater of Marvels and the worship of Glycon (a snake sock puppet that performs faith healings and cons the wealthy out of their jewels) in Joel Biroco's KAOS magazine, available here: http://www.biroco.com/kaos/

[edit] St Pancras Panda?

I note no mention in the "early work" section of the 1970s "St Pancras Panda" series, written and illustrated by Moore for Oxfords's Back Street Bugle magazine. In its thirteen episodes, our cuddly hero was, in his own words, "shanghied by furriers, kidnapped by cultists, browbeaten by bears, got at by gangsters, abducted by aliens" before getting a dose of relgion and being sent to meet his maker. Alas the series was never completed - Moore was offered work that paid actual money - and the eponymous panda was thus abandonned over 25 years ago in "Northampton - an accident black spot - where there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth". The "Penultimate Panda, Panky's Inferno" never appeared. Nick Levine 19:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External links

According to WP:EL external links are there to add authoritative data

It seems to me that a lot of the above are personal fansites which are not authoritative. I'd like to ensure that we keep below the Spam Event Horizon here. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 17:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

The interview transcript is on Comic Book Resources, which isn't really a fansite. Personally I found it extremely interesting when I heard it, and since there are other links to Comic Book Resources articles in the Notes and External Links section, I think that that one, at least, is relevant enough to be restored. I'll do so. Of course, if anyone refers to it for anything in the article, be sure to move it to the References section! :) --Nick R^Talk 10:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography?

Is the work 'bibliography' appropriate to describe Moores books, audio recordings, and films? I guess I thought 'bibliography' was somewhat specific to books. Would it make sense to title this section 'creative works' or 'published creative works'? ike9898 19:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Bibliography is OK for all written works but not films or recordings. The other problem is that Moore has publicly disavowed any involvement with most of the films on the list. Iron Ghost 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see this diff to compared my proposed re-organization to what was there. Feel free to modify. ike9898 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That seems fine to me. Iron Ghost 22:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I first came across The Courtyard as a short story in an HP Lovecraft tribute put out by Creation Books, The Starry Wisdom ISBN 184060873, copyright 1994, reprinted 1996, new edition 2003. Alan Moore also has a contribution in The Thackery T. Lambshead Pocket Guide to Eccentric and Discredited Diseases ISBN 1892389541, hardcover edition.

[edit] The Culture Show

Alan Moore gave a rare television interview on BBC 2's The Culture Show this evening (09/03/2006). The interview is avalible at [4]. It may be of some use. Iron Ghost 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a direct link in to the video as part of the interview links. I have passed it round elsewhere and some people from outside of the UK report that it won't let them view it which is unfortunate? Should I flag it up as such, remove the liink or...? I'd imagine a proxy server should get around this restriction but still. (Emperor 17:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

It's on youtube for those outwith that area, but I'd suggest noting that it's geographically protected. Stx 22:26, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, it's only available for a seven-day period after the actual broadcast, so probably best to remove it

It's also worth noting that the version of the interview on the bbc website has been abridged, whereas, the youtube version is the full interview as it appeared on TV. Iron Ghost 00:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrick Moore?

When I heard Alan Moore refer to Sir Patrick Moore as his uncle on last nights Culture Show I assumed that he was joking. However I notice that the information has already been incorporated into the article as a fact. Was I the only one who thought that it was a joke? Perhap this fact should be checked. Iron Ghost 00:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Iron Ghost. I'd like to see another source other than a possible script in-joke. Stx 22:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't find a single reference to the supposed connection between Alan and Patrick Moore anywhere else on the internet and I'm sure someone would have picked up on this before, if it were true. As such I'm removing the reference to Patrick Moore from the article. If corroboroting evidence is found it can always be reinserted. Iron Ghost 23:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

So Patrick Moore-related sentences keep appearing, disappearing and re-appearing in this article...! Personally, I am convinced that it was a joke and should appear in a "Trivia" section, if at all. Mattmm 23:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the same thing is happening on the Patrick Moore page, but hey, that's Wikipedia folks! My feeling is that if there is no corrobaroting evidence it shouldn't be in the article at all. After all trivia still has to be true. Iron Ghost 01:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well... the sentence as it currently stands is more or less true - "In an interview on The Culture Show, he claimed that his uncle is British astronomer Patrick Moore." - at least, if you replace "claimed" with "joked". True, that is, but not very significant... Mattmm 11:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, that if it is a joke, it really isn't even significant enough to appear in a trivia section. It certainly shouldn't be in the introduction. People use Wikipedia as a source of reliable information. It's hard to see this article ever achieving featured status while it has this quality of infomation in it. Iron Ghost 16:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

This article now has lots of references, which is an improvement, but in most cases there is nothing to show which statements are supported by which references. Anything you can improve along these lines will help push the article towards FA quality. ike9898 15:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A practicing magician?

To be a magician needn't there be results of one's magic? Otherwise he would be a fumbling magician (joking). Is being a magician considered a matter of faith, as in "a practicing christian" for instance? I would propose to remove it or give it the correct name. Thoughts? Rigmarole 15:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

No, there need be only the practice of the magic, not the results. Moore does engage in magical rites, so he is a practicing magician. Jessnevins 10:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliograhy tidy up

The comics bibliogrpahy needs a bit of a tidy. I'm also helping tidy up the Grant Morrison and Garth Ennis entries with the plan to initially tidy things up, expand areas and get all the dates right and then arrange things in a more chronological order (the books and audio are the comics aren't). So I'll be working away on that - at least the first stage. (Emperor 03:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC))

I'm usnure dividing it up along company grounds is very useful as the main section describes his work for different companies (and the disputes) and it makes it difficult to work through the list in any kind of order as it jumps around so much. Thoughts? (Emperor 00:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC))

I'll explain what I was thinking when I did it and leave it up to y'all to decide ... when thinking of the career of Alan Moore, I do think that the different periods have distinctly different interests. The titles he did for Image is considered largely, if not entirely, disposable by most fans. I don't think it's the place of a source of information to ignore the period entirely, because people should be aware of it if they want to know it, but to create an entire mixed list actually seemed, to me, to make the information people would want more obscured. It seemed to me like DC could largely be described by "DC Universe", "V For Vendetta", "Watchmen", and the "Swamp Thing" books ... but if you kept the stories arranged by book, would you file all the stories collected in "DC Universe" together, or would you cite each one seperately and then put "reprinted in 'DC Universe' book (at which point, the question becomes, "What else is reprinted in there?"). And the early stuff is largely for completists only (actually, I think it might not even be fully complete; I'm pretty sure I didn't put in all the stuff, missing some short stories along the way.

Anyway, I'll abide by whatever you guys decide. Even though I generally do see the logic to the straight-alphabetical listing, in this specific case, it actually seemed (to me) to be more beneficial for accessing the information people would be most interested in. Sorry, didn't mean to cause trouble

ThatGuamGuy 04:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Sean (TGG)

See my thinking is that a straight alphabetically listing is probably not the best way to go and I'm suggesting sorting things chronologically (see also the comments on the Grant Morrison and Garth Ennis entries. If you did that the various periods would emerge but you'd also get extra pluses (seeing the transitions between those phases) without some of the minuses (the classifcation nightmare of somehow having Marvelman in early British work and V in DC - not that there is good solution within the current framework). At the moment I'm not that bothered as long as the bibliography keeps getting tidied up and dates and the like are added so if/when it gets sorted chronoligically it'll all be much easier. (Emperor 17:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

I can dig you; I put "V" there because it seemed as if the entries were based on the trade paperbacks, not the original printings, and the trade was (of course) DC when it was finished ... which also points to one of the complications of a chronological listing, especially with somebody like Moore; 'V For Vendetta' took five years or so to actually finish ... 'Lost Girls' was first published almost 15 years ago, and has been worked on on and off since then, and is now coming out as a trade ... I don't even totally understand 'Glory', but it was apparently written more than a decade ago, published two issues, and stopped; maybe it'll be finished one day. Moore wrote 'The Killing Joke' as a favor to a friend at DC, but because the art took so long, it wound up being published more than a year after Moore had bitterly left the company.

I want to say, I do totally see your points about the limitation of the format I implemented (a possible [temporary?] solution to the specific V example would adding this to "Early British Work":

Warrior:
- V For Vendetta: issues 1-26 (later collected, and completed, under DC comics)
- Miracleman: issues 1-18, 20-21 (later reprinted in Miracleman issues 1-7, collected in A Dream of Flying and The Red King Syndrome)
- note that The Yesterday Gambit from Warrior #4 was never collected, but was later re-written into a different Miracleman story.
- #9-10 Warpsmith: Cold War, Cold Warrior (later reprinted in Axel Pressbutton #2
- #16 Christmas on Depravity (originally printed in Sounds Magazine, 12/26/81)

Just an idea ... anyway, I'll work on the dates some more next time I'm at work, because I do think that information is imporant, I just don't know that it should neccessarily be the primary sorting tool overall (even though, in this case, I did do some of that just because so much of his work can be easily categorized that way; I personally would vote for straight-alphabetical over straight-chronological, but I thought some sort of compromise made sense in the Moore listing for the reasons I mentioned above. With Moore, it's difficult to figure out the easiest way to arrange all the information for maximum clarity...

ThatGuamGuysean

That is just making things worse ;) . You can't list strips from anthologies under the actual anthology (just think of how that would work for the 2000 AD entries). Its fine as it is for now. The fact that it took a while to complete isn't an issue - a lot of series stretch over long periods of time and it doesn't cause a problem putting things in chronological order - it just goes under the first publication date (Emperor 16:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC))

No, I understand how they'd be arranged, I was saying those quirks of publication, which are quite numerous in Moore's case, make it difficult for the flow ... I mean, if people wind up wanting it chronological, that's fine, it just seems to me like people would be more likely to scan a Garth Ennis bibliography looking for a full list of all his Punisher works together, rather than wanting to find out whether 'Pride and Joy' was published just before 'Unknown Soldier' or just after.

ThatGuamGuy 04:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)sean (TGG)

[edit] Glycon

From what I can tell, Moore was joking when he said that he worshipped Glycon. Does anyone disagree? I want to rewrite it so that it is more apparent that he was joking. - Xtreme680 17:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear whether he was joking or not. The current wording says only that he claimed to have worshiped Glycon, which is true. I vote to leave it as it is. Iron Ghost 22:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

He's not joking. Here's a page which has gathered together a couple of responses on the subject from various interviews. It's clear he's treating the subject with some humour, but it's not a gag.--Nalvage 15:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks, good thing I checked first. - Xtreme680 21:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alan Smitheed

The article originally included the phrase, "Moore has also stated that he wishes his name to be "Alan Smitheed" from comic work that he does not own". Clearly the writer of this meant to use Smithee's name as a verb, hence the inverted commas and the sentence structure, but people keep assuming it's a typo and changing it to "Alan Smithee" which then makes no grammatical sense. So I've changed it to "removed". Hope that's okay by everyone.--Nalvage 12:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I saw that and think it's a great move. I am going to find a place to put a link to Alan Smithee in there somewhere, just to please everyone. --Chris Griswold 00:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Lost Girls

Could someone detail his graphic novel The Lost Girls? There doesn't seem to be any mention here. I would, but I've only heard of it from one news story. Peace. JayW 16:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned briefly under "The independent period", and has its own article at Lost Girls. Probably deserves a bit more notice here. --Nicknack009 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've added a very brief section under 'Major Works' - if the picture stays it probably needs another paragraph adding to it so the formatting isn't all wonky, but I was wary of repeating information that's in the main Lost Girls article. Since I live in the UK and therefore haven't read it yet, I'm a bit stuck on what else to add. I'd be grateful if someone else could expand a bit so this section is inkeeping with the other titles listed under 'major works' Curiousbadger 15:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you summed it up nicely. I might add another line. Definitely worth reading for older and demanding comic fans I think Moore was being deliberately provocative in categorizing it as pornography. I believe it was seized by Australian customs at one stage. This should be the model for the other major works summations. Fred.e 15:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Graphic Novels

"including the acclaimed graphic novels, Watchmen, V for Vendetta and From Hell". But Alan Moore hates the term graphic novel and considers his work to be mainly just usual comics, as he has stated that he considers that graphic novels is just an unnecesary term for "expensive comics". Should it be changed here?

changed to what, "expensive comics"? I don't think it should be changed at all, as the term is widely used and recognised, regardless of what he thinks of it. --duncan 07:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to the term 'graphic novel,' as long as what it is talking about is actually some sort of graphic work that could conceivably be described as a novel.[5]

Iron Ghost 12:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that the issue is he hasn't produced a lot of graphic novels - he has done a lot of comic work that has been collected together as trade paperbacks, something I've tried to show in his bibliography. As he is a fan of Bryan Talbot's work I suspect he is contrasting his own output with things like Luther Arkwright. The only true graphic novels I can think of are A Small Killing, The 49ers and probably Lost Girls. If the wording is going to be changed then graphic novels could be changed to "trades" or just "comic books" or "limited series". Then again it might be nitpicking as most people would understand when you call Watchmen a graphic novel but that is the angle I suspect he is coming from. (Emperor 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC))

I disagree. "sort of graphic work that could conceivably be described as a novel" refers to a work that is comparable to a novel in terms of length, scope and artistic unity, not simply something that was first published in book format rather than pamphlet format. The only comics I own that I would consider comparable to novels are Watchmen, From Hell, Luther Arkwright and Cages, all of which were serialised before being published in a single volume (as were all Dickens's novels, and we don't call them "limited series"), and possibly the entire series of Sandman, which is a single work published in several volumes, like many Victorian novels, and Lord of the Rings. A Small Killing is probably too short to be a true novel, as is The Forty-Niners which is also an installment of a series rather than a unified work (this is not a judgement of quality, just a personal judgment of whether they're comparable to novels - I like 'em both, and admire a lot of comics, from Tintin to the Desert Peach, that aren't novelistic at all, and are no worse for that). "Trade paperback" is jargon and shouldn't be used in a work for the general reader - it's a wholesaling term and just means an oversized paperback book, regardless of content. --Nicknack009 08:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a tough call. I agree that the term "trade paperback" should not be used. I would be happy with either "graphic novel" or "limited series". Although, there is more agreement to the precise meaning of the term "limited series" and therefore it might be slightly preferable. --Iron Ghost 13:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too long

As editors have no doubt noticed when they edit this piece, it's much longer than Wikipedia guidelines suggest an article should be. There are reasons for these guidelines; a too-long piece is both hard to read and hard to edit as a whole.

One easy way to cut is to make the summaries of his major works much shorter; these works all have lengthy articles of their own, and people who are interested can follow those links if they like. As it is, we sort of have two articles on Watchmen, From Hell, etc., which is not an ideal arrangement of information. Just a thought. Nareek 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Can't the article be broken up so that wathcmen, from hell all have their own pages? Andham2000

These works already do have their own extensive pages--there's no need to go on at such length about them here. Nareek 19:06, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone protest if I simply moved the entire section "Major Works" into a seperate article, "Major Works of Alan Moore"? I think it disrupt the article to have the major works described twice, once in the historical part, and then again in its own part. And as mentioned above, each of the major works have their own extensive articles, which will still be listed from the historical part.--Per Abrahamsen 05:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I suggest you summarise it instead. I'm sure if people (like me) want a complete list they use an external link.Fred.e 15:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is already a summary. If it is condenced further, it is even harder to justify over the the history section, which also mentions his major works. It is not a complete list in any case, the complete list can presumably be found in List of published material by Alan Moore.--Per Abrahamsen 16:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think a merge of the major work list and individual sections into a discussion of their commercial and critical success and their influence as a whole is what the bio article needs. I'll have a go and post it here. --Fred.e 19:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Influences

Is this list of influences in the second half of the second paragraph really meaningful? I'm sure it's totally useless in an encyclopedic sense. It is unverifiable opinion and just pushes the indisputable facts down into what is already too long an article.

[edit] Lead section

I moved some sentences about his other works out of the lead section. As per WP:LEAD, the lead section of the article should attempt to summarize the article. Too much emphasis was given to these other works by putting them in the lead section, hence the move. The lead section could still stand some rewriting — it's fairly small considering the over-the-suggested-limit size of the article. However, I couldn't think of a clever, concise way to introduce, for example, his disputes with the major comic book companies into the lead section. So, I'll leave it to someone else. --GentlemanGhost 01:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Work!

This is one of the best articles on Wikipedia. Do not seek to reduce it further. The length is quite fine!

--Gautam3 03:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Undoubtedly. The other thing is that YouTube links are not stable or permanent. Even if it was a good 'source' to be used and cite, the likelihood that Youtube videos have dissappeared or been removed is very high.

--Gautam3 23:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing style

How in what style does Alan Moore write?

Tgunn2 01:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess that I don't understand the question...how would the answer help the main page? --Gautam3 05:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factural accuracy: Marital Status

I just recently added the detail that Melinda Gebbie is Moore's fiancée, based on the article and interview in the August 23, 2006 Village Voice, but I then scrolled further down and saw that it asserts that she's his wife. Have they gotten married within the past two and a half months? Can anyone confirm what their marital status is with a source? Thanks. Nightscream 11:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/l/a/Talk%7EAlan_Moore_48cd.html"