Jump to content

Talk:Brian Wood (comics)

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

I don't think this Brian Wood is dead.

[edit]

Another man by the name of Brian Wood who worked on video games died in a car accident on September 3rd. However, it was not this one. As far as I can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.29.169.1 (talk) 02:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Harassment accusation and other edits

[edit]

I've added a section that deals with the recent accusation of sexual harassment against Wood, linking it back to two reliable sources. I've kept the section brief and factual, framing it entirely in terms of the accusation. There is, I recognize, some debate to be had on whether this is appropriate or whether it's reporting gossip, but as the story has been widely discussed in comics circles, with writers like G Willow Wilson and Greg Rucka making blogposts about it, and because the issue of harassment and misogyny in comics culture has been one that's been prominent in comics press for a while now, I think a brief mention that does not overly slant the article is probably appropriate, yes?

I'm keeping my eye on the story, and will update it with Wood's reaction when and if he says anything about it. (He declined comment to Comics Beat) I can't imagine many more sources or developments that would require expansion from there - this shouldn't be a major part of the article or anything. But it is something that should be mentioned, I think. (Notably, the person accusing him is a reasonably well-known professional in her own right. Who could use an article, as she's a redlink. Suppose I'll get on that today or tomorrow.) Winter's Tulpa (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wood's statement added. Barring anyone else coming out with any accusations naming Wood, I think this is probably exactly as much coverage as it should get. Winter's Tulpa (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently Brian Wood himself (or a user claiming to be him) removed the whole biography section, because it is " unwieldy and out of date" and removed personal information because of personal attacks on him. Is this in line with Wikipedia policies? IchiGhost (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sexual misconduct section has seen a lot of edits. I added a few minor ones, to better reflect what the cited articles have reported.

Since the Anne Scherbina was included by another poster, I have added relavant clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.73.124 (talk) 17:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added actual quoted initial accusation against Wood. Clarified muddy sentences and overly passive statements. Deleted a sentence that referenced private emails that Fowler published without permission. Finally, changed the headline since the accusations do not describe the generally accepted 'sexual misconduct', and are mostly verbal. - TFowler86, Apr 15, 2021 TFowler86 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't come across this until after I left the message on your talk page. I reverted your edits for the following reasons:
  • Wikipedia requires that the material in its articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the article text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. There are indeed such citations for the material in the passages in question, and they do not support your edits. In fact, you changed the passages so that they say the opposite of what the cited sources say, in particular the Bleeding Cool and Altantic articles. The former does not support the quote about Wood being called a "dick," while the latter says that Scherbina was not described by name; only that her identity could clearly be inferred, yet you changed Wikipedia passage to say that she was named.
  • Per WP:CLAIM, Wikipedia prefers to use neutral wording when referring to disputes or matters of controversy, such as said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to, rather than words that can carry loaded implications, such as asserted or claimed. This is why the passage on Laura Hudson's August 2019 comments used "stated", and why your change of that word to "claimed" was reverted.
  • Your change of the section heading from "Accusations of sexual misconduct" to "Accusations of unprofessional behavior", which explained in your edit summary was because "the accusations do not describe 'sexual misconduction', and are mostly verbal," was was reverted because in the first place, sexual misconduct can indeed be verbal, and in the second, if the two principle people in that account were at a bar at comic-con, as is explained in a passage, then it was presumably not a professional meeting, so professionalism is not an issue.
  • On a more minor note, referring to Rich Johnston as a journalist rather than by reference to Bleeding Cool, which the uninitiated may not be familiar with, is more clear. Nightscream (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed material that sourced personal tweets, not reliable secondary sources as required by Wikipedia. 108.29.73.124 (talk) 08:56, April 28, 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your removal of that material, as well as you change of the word "stated" to "alleged" for reasons I summarized in my edit summary -- the second point of which is explained in the second bulleted point above. Nightscream (talk) 14:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed item using a personal tweet as a sole citation. According to wikipedia, "Tweets and other self-published material may be acceptable if the conditions specified at WP:SPS or WP:TWITTER are met." They have not been met by the definitions provided.

Again, removed section that didn't cite a secondary, independent source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.29.73.124 (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Using someone's personal twitter is not a reliable source. Deleted the offending sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFowler86 (talk • contribs) 21:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many clarifications. The section headline is inaccurate and overly broad in definition. These accusations each have public resolutions, so now the header reflects that. Removed text that in no way met the definition to be included in that section. Wood was not the offender - Rich Johnston was. Let's keep this section factual and as per the rules. Libel and falsehoods cannot be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TFowler86 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Using someone's personal twitter is not a reliable source." Not according to Wikipedia policies/guidelines. Such a source can certainly be used so long as it adheres to WP:PSTS and WP:SELFPUB. Nightscream (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The section headline is inaccurate and overly broad in definition. These accusations each have public resolutions, so now the header reflects that." This is a non sequitur. All or most material in articles concerns "past" events. The point does not need to be emphasized simply because you wish to emphasize your personal point that the participants resolved the conflict. Doing so does not make the heading "more" accurate, nor does its omission make it "less" so. Shoehorning the word "past" into the heading in question is no more warranted here than it would be in any other article on a notably crime or accusation, including ones in which the victim/survivor accepted the perpetrator's apology. Rihanna famously accepted the apology of Chris Brown for beating her. That does not mean that we shoehorn the word "past" into the relevant section in her article or in the one in his.
Headings tend strike a balance between having titles that are unique in the article, but which refer to the section's content in a general way, per WP:SECTIONHEAD. They are not to be used for you to make a personal point. Please see Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point for more on this.
"Wood was not the offender - Rich Johnston was." An accusation for which you have provided no source, in violation of WP:V/WP:NOR, and possibly other guidelines as well. Apart from this site's policies and guidelines, making an accusation like this without support for it is not only morally indefensible, but could you open you or Wikipedia up to legal action. Johnston is not the author of the cited Atlantic article, nor the cited Luthorville article. Nightscream (talk) 00:08, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My goal in putting in work on this page is to benefit it overall. In recent years it's been whittled down for no reason that I can see, from a full account of the subject's 20+ year career to a condensed overview lacking in key details. I want to contribute factual information that reflects the citations correctly. I've removed some minor content because the citation is broken, a 404 Page, but Nightscream still reverts it back to its incorrect edit. This is true of the Brian Wood bio page on his website. The bio page is GONE. This is what I aim to do for the entire article, to check citations, to make sure what's being said in the article is accurate to the citation, and restore key details. I believe Nightscream has become biased against my actions based on the past, and I take responsibility for either not fully understanding the editing laws and by-laws, and for not explaining my goals clearly. I do not want innocuous and beneficial edits to be mass-reverted because Nightscream believes I am a bad actor. I was a journalist in the comic book industry for many years. I am knowledgeable and I understand Wood's history and what aspects are important to include. I carry no water for the man - he's made mistakes but he's contributed a lot to the medium.

I am modeling my edits after several of Wood's comtemporaries, such as Ed Brubaker, Warren Ellis, and Greg Rucka in terms of sections and headlines and organizing content. Nightscream reverted my recent work to something that uses decades to broadly categorize Wood's work, but its arbitrary and the career doesn't neatly conform to those dates. I will attempt to find middle ground in my next effort.

I beseech Nightscream to take my next edits on their own merits, to not mass-revert everything I've done. If I've made an error, please correct that error but leave the harmless work alone.

Oh, and on the "Wood was not the offender - Rich Johnston was." note, it was Johnston who published the gossip in question and exposed Scherbina, as per her own account (Luthorville) The Atlantic article is libelous in how it paraphrased Wood's actions. The entire section on Sexual Misconduct is flawed and I believe reflects bias against the subject. Facts and truth must win out over personal distaste.

I will update here as I write. Cheers.

TFowler86 (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The line about Wood's stuttering, backed up with a valid citation, was removed by Nightscream. No reason that I can see. Stuttering is a valid issue and can go a long way to defining a person's life and career, as Wood makes evident. We can't be insensitive and act like its not important to include. I revised that section, and brought the introduction paragraph up to date and more reflective of his career.

TFowler86 (talk) 15:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a new photo. I found the previous one dark, unprofessional, and of poor quality. The new one is a professional headshot. TFowler86 (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added an Awards section. TFowler86 (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added an Unrealized Projects section, based off a similar section I see on Warren Ellis' wiki. TFowler86 (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuilding the Career section. I am modeling my edits after several of Wood's contemporaries, such as Ed Brubaker, Warren Ellis, and Greg Rucka in terms of sections and headlines and organizing content. I also found great material to add to Early Life. TFowler86 (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Still working on Career. I am not finished, but have to step away for a bit. Again, I am making these additions in good faith and the best of intentions. Nightscream please don't revert automatically. Tell me if anything's amiss. TFowler86 (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back at it, building out the Career section. TFowler86 (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your desire to improve the article is appreciated, but it still has to conform to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and while I notice that much of the material does appear legit, including apparently well-sourced material and the new Infobox portrait, which I agree is a nicer pic, much else of your additions does not, as you seem to give no indication that you care about this, or even that you read any of the ones I listed above or on your talk page. Why is this? Do you plan to fix that through your continued editing?
If you want us to hold back a bit while you continue to "finalize" your edits, we can do that, but ultimately, if your edits continue to violate Wikipedia's rules, then they're going to be reverted. This includes relatively minor things like capitalizing entire section headings, placing punctuation after citations instead of before them, redundant line breaks, etc., but it also includes adding material lacking citations of reliable, secondary sources. This includes relatively minor claims like Wood's residing in Brooklyn, to your continued allegations about Rich Johnston. Do you understand that such accusations require secondary sources, and that your mere accusation to that effect is not a valid basis for including it in the article or even on this talk page? Or do you just not care about follwoing Wikipedia's rules? I ask, because I notice that you describe your rather self-serving motives for your edits, but you never respond to the issues of the policies or guidelines I've mentioned here. Why is that? Nightscream (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not intentionally violating rules. I have not touched the Rich Johnston thing. Your reversion remains in place. I am working through your previous comments. Small copyediting errors like periods are obviously honest errors and I hope don't cause mass reversions of entire paragraphs? Can they not just be fixed? I will do my best to catch them. I am looking at other, similar wiki pages as guides, for both section headers, line breaks, format ideas, and so on. I am primarily looking at Warren Ellis' wiki. Please give me the benefit of the doubt and let's deal with this in less hostile, accusatory tones...please? TFowler86 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Brian Wood lives in Brooklyn, as is evident in every social media profile and bio page I've seen. It's not contentious information but I will source it. TFowler86 (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I sourced Brooklyn, and moved all the errant period marks in my edited sections so far. To the best of my knowledge I am using proper sources. I am not a super master wikipedier, however, and any errors are honest ones. I would appreciate a flag or a note to fix offending ones, rather than wholesale reversion. I'm doing this in good faith. Thank you. TFowler86 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You again reverted my edits, again adding uncited information (about Wood's high school, in violation of WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:CS), adding your own personal viewpoint and personal knowledge (regarding the Comics Beat matter), in violation of WP:NOR), and again removed a dead link, despite the fact that I explicitly stated in my edit summary that your edits were not how Wikipedi prescribes link rot to be addressed, and even linked you to WP:LINKROT, which explains this. Despite this, you asked in your edit summary, "How can we include it if the citation no longer exists? Honest question."
Seriously? Even after I repeatedly answered this question?
One more time for the cheap seats:
You can include it by virtue of the fact that it is NOT how Wikipedia policy/guidelines call for linkrot to be dealt with. See WP:LINKROT. What part of this do are you not getting? Again, is it or is it not your position that you are not required to follow the rules on this website, which is property of the Wikimedia Foundation, and not your personal property? Nightscream (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do not insult me, please. I said it was an honest question. I don't have your knowledge of wikipedia rules - this is why I am me and you are an admin. Thank you for your information, I take it to heart. Please, no personal insults or insinuations. I'm doing my best. TFowler86 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the spectrum. Please, I'm trying. I don't like being insulted. TFowler86 (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know you have an issue with line breaks, but unless it's a specific wiki rule, I would ask you to bear with me. Line breaks break up the text and make it easier to scan and read. I'm not using them gratuitously. I add them went I feel a piece of timeline is ending a new notable point begins. I guess what I'm saying is its not my preference so much as a best practices thing I've learned over the years copyediting for news publications. TFowler86 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To reiterate what I said on TFowler86's talk page after they posted a similar message there, for those who may not be aware of that exchange, I apologize for losing my temper before.
Regarding line breaks, an essay reflecting the editing community's use of them is at Wikipedia:Line breaks usage. Though it is not an official policy, it does reflect the practices of the editing community here. It is not a personal issue, though again, I should've been more patient with such things above.
I'd like to compliment you on the hard work you've done in not only adding material on Wood's career and organizing it, but in incorporating advice/suggestions by me regarding policies and guidelines.
The only two things I would point out at this point would be:
1. The ommission of publication info in your citations, which presently appear to be lacking in much of them. Let me know if you need help with filling some of that in.
2. Your use of websites whose information is user-generated, like imdb, Patch Media, etc, which is not permitted by WP:USERG, which is part of Wikipedia's policy on source reliability. Although someone removed the Fandom citation, the imdb and Patch cites remained. I removed them, but if you're working on finding suitable replacements for that info, you can always restore it with cites of more appropriate sources. Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TFowler86: Oh, and for the record, I am not an admin. I was an admin for about four years about a decade ago, but no longer. Nightscream (talk) 21:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see there's been quite a discussion regarding TFowler86's edits, and since I enjoy researching/maintaining comic book writers' bibliographies I'd like to add my two cents. I'm not aware if there's a larger guide to maintaining bibliographies—the Manual of Style cited here doesn't mention it as far as I could see—but I copied the current structure from an existing page (I think it was Mark Millar's) back when I first started editing and since it's a relatively widespread one I assume most users find it easy to navigate. I know I do. Chronological order of works and the "publisher—title—collected edition" hierarchy strike a good balance in being informative on when, how and with whom the subject collaborated on any given title. Not sure this particular author's page requires different treatment. DETVB (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why I found chronological problematic is several of Wood's titles jump from publisher to publisher over many years, so you have four editions of Demo across three publishers over fifteen years' time. Channel Zero the same way. I feel like you would have to be strictly chronological to make that clean, perhaps listing titles under years, not publishers. I admit I like the cleanliness of this, and was working to implement that a little bit to see how it looked. Comics are the only book medium where publisher is given top billing, which always struck me as bizarre, and in Wood's case where the majority of his work was outside of the two superhero universes, kind of a bad fit. So that's what I was going for - clean, simplified, no extraneous info or formatting, and using many of the suggestions and directives on that Manual of Style page. I'd like to give it a fair shot, either alphabetical or straight chronological. TFowler86 (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TFowler86: The purpose is informativeness, not "cleanliness"; it's a list of works, not a CV. As you said yourself, the comic book industry is publisher-centric, and it's irrelevant whether any of us consider this fact bizarre or cool. A website with encyclopedic aspirations is supposed to reflect reality and not try to skewer it in its contributors' preferred directions. I know a lot of creators consider Wikipedia to be an extension of their personal webpage, or in some cases a substitute for one, but that's most definitely not the correct way to approach it.
Besides, the only series "separated" by the current layout is Demo, and both entires for it have short notes stating each volume has a prequel/sequel under a different section/publisher as well as the Dark Hose reprint info. I also don't see the point in disrupting the uniform style of bibliographies on Wikipedia if your preferred list is already available online (i.e Wood's website). DETVB (talk) 10:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By cleanliness I meant legibility and the ability to quickly acsertain the relevant info, but I understand your position and will obey. Informativeness it is. TFowler86 (talk) 12:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New credits in Early Work sourced from here. I shot Wood a DM last night and he confirmed this info is correct. TFowler86 (talk) 14:50, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TFowler86: That's really great. I'd like to point out that the biblio is built around the original publications of works with collected editions taking second billing, i.e the "complete collection" of Channel Zero should not be listed as a separate release but an addition to the CZ entires in AiT/Planet Lar and Image Comics sections. Same for Star Wars, Conan, Couriers etc. There are other small errors like Supernatural not being published by Wildstorm, Rebels not having a subtitle for its first volume and so on: let me know when you're finished and I'll fix it up. DETVB (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Rebels does have that subtitle for its first volume. You're right about Supernatural. I REALLY hate that second billing thing, especially when the subsequent editions are unique from each other as they are in this case of some of Wood's books. If we are going to the trouble to observe the publisher-centric aspect of these listings, why this deviation? It would be better to list works by project name, then, or strictly chronological. The way you suggest is neither fish nor fowl, but something in between. To get accurate information on Wood's body of Marvel work, you have to know to read in the Dark Horse section. And so on. TFowler86 (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TFowler86: Regarding Rebels, I'm talking about the original ten issues. They're listed without a subtitle everywhere, including Dark Horse's website.
Wood's body of Marvel work consists of four X-Men titles and a short run on Moon Knight. If he somehow gets hired by them for a Conan or Star Wars series next year, it will be listed under the Marvel section. It's that simple. Same for creator-owned series. Wood and Cloonan created a Demo series for AiT, and a Demo series for Vertigo. As far as I'm aware, no new Demo periodicals or graphic novels were created by the pair for Dark Horse. This is not a storefront to keep potential customers aware of the latest Brian Wood reprint with extra five pages of sketches. I don't think I've EVER seen a bibiliographic list that provides each new reprint with a separate entry as opposed to listing them under (or above, if they contain several separate titles) the original work, on this website or elsewhere. That sounds completely counter-intuitive. Again, I don't understand why Wood should get special treatment in regards to this matter. Are you definitely, 100% sure you "carry no water for the man", as you put it above? I noticed you used to edit under the name North72, which is, according to Wood, a pen name he adopted for personal work last year. Coupled with the fact that Wood himself is well aware of how to use Wikipedia, as evidenced by the blurb at the top of this page, this can't not raise some suspicions, I'm sure you'd agree. DETVB (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Wood (comics). 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) 09:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brian Wood (comics). 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) 20:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Wood (comics). 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) 15:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Design credits

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brian_Wood_(comics)&oldid=1206072777"