Jump to content

Talk:John Byrne (comics)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Actual Quotes

Would it not be NPOV to include actual quotes from the man? As far as John Byrne being "controversial" it stems not from his art (directly), but rather what he has said in public forums, so why not take those quotes which have created this phenomenon of Byrne-trolling, place them in context, and record the reaction therefrom? Also, to focus only on Byrne's career as an artist/writer, at this point, makes no sense as the response to him as a person defines him now as much as his art.--Nabstoss 03:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The reaction to his words is more a reflection of those who react than they are of his work, or life. He has grown a dedicated legion of followers who follow his every movement, waiting for him to say something that will "offend" them, and then they launch into attacks on comic book related sites all across the internet. It would be like focusing on John Hinkley when composing a Jodie Foster Wikipedia entry.
Finally, this is similar to the current debate in academia, where christian bible scholars have created a "secular" bible class for American schools. So desperate to get the bible into schools, at any cost, they try any angle to get it in... just like Byrne's stalkers try any angle or justification to get in their particular obsession with Byrne - his "offensive" quotes and actions. Both parties, the bible scholars and the Byrne stalkers, should be made to realize that their objective is pointless, and they need to give it up. The bible is great in it's place, (Church) and Byrne stalking is disturbing, but acceptable, in it's place, comic fan sites and parent's basements.
Mike O'Brien
Please. You attributed people here as "deserving jail time" for writing what amounts to be a rather objective and accurate biography. I think there has been a standard for saying that Byrne at the very least makes controversial statements. This article was very factual and he was accurately quoted--in fact, we had battles before with some people who were too critical of Byrne. --JRT 18:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Byrne is only contriversial because a few people are making him out to be. Now, granted, he works in comics, and thus, the small dwindling comic fanbase's over-reactions to his actions should be worth noting, but really, these reactions are a reflection of the fanbase more than they are of John Byrne. If a totally unbiased, outside, NPOV person would look at the life and work of John Byrne, would they be interested in a bizarre grudge that some comic fans have against Byrne? As I said, if you wanted to read about Jodie Foster, would you need to read about John Hinkley? The contravery starts and ends with those who have an axe to grind with Byrne, and it's those people who are fighting so hard to include these "important" "facts" into the article. It's a forrest for trees example. You so want this portrait of Byrne to be painted that you're not seeing how it's irrelevant.

Mike O'Brien

Your bias against comics fans shows, more than any bias found in the article. We definately don't need any of your veiled self-loathing of fans of comics.
I should note that the controversies section is only a small part, and was written not only by myself but by another member of Byrne's message board, one well respected there. The only reason for putting a controversies it in the article was to try to mention as NPOV as we could the reason why the fan base reacts negatively to it. It's a lot better than message boards that spew stuff like "he's a hack", etc., and even negates a few of Byrne's usually dismissive attacks against the fans. It was intended as a way for somebody researching Byrne who wonders why there's negative opinion on him to get an understanding as why this may be the case.

--JRT 03:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's very noble of you, but there are dozens of message boards out there where one can look into why comic fans get their panties in a twist over John Byrne. But in the bigger picture, it's a small problem located to a small group of people; comic fans. Of which, I am not one, so no self-loathing on my part. Not being a comic fan also gives me the outside view of the whole situation, where I can see that it's a small group of people campaigning against Byren for percieved crimes against humanity, while no one else in their right mind would care about these world-shattering (non) events. One would hope that someone using Wikipedia to reasearch John Byrne would not be interested in comic fan gossip, but rather, an encyclopedic history of John Byrne. If they were so interested in gossip, there is no shortage of comic fan web pages that spew that nonsense.

Mike O'Brien

Sorry, you continue to miss the point. There was nothing unencyclopedic about the John Byrne entry at all, at least the one that was up before the purge. It was perhaps one of the best written articles we had for a comics creator.
You can't not be a comics fan and read Byrne's work. You were a comics fan, based on all your Byrne board posts, so you can't divorce yourself from that status by saying you're not anymore. That's a recent decision you made. --User:JRT 11:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the only way you can read Byrne's work is to not be a comics fan, since his work, and fanbase is so removed from everything else in comic books these days. And you're still missing your point that the points you're defending so highly have no place in an encyclopedic entry. What's more, your last post, where you justify making judgement calls about my life, makes your agenda clear, and shows that you have no desire to portray a true NPOV version of John Byrne, but rather, to continue the gossip from other comic book message boards here on a supposed "encyclopedia".

So, let's look at this from a new point of view. Why are you so concerned with John Byrne and his entry on Wikipedia? What is your motivation? Are you loading up other entries with similar gossip? Or just Byrne? Are there other minor celebs out there that you spend so much time obsessing on, and finding negative things to say about? Or just Byrne? Or should I just presume to know things about your life, as you did with me?

I'm not getting into this with you anymore, especially since they've asked this not be a chat room. I took very little from the message boards, rather I, and others, took from interviews with both Byrne and other comic creators, as well as facts from other items. If you read this entire talk page and the archives, you can see I've defended Byrne from some of that unjust criticism you've seen. You haven't been able to refute any of our work here except for vague accusations about it not being NPOV. Get into specifics or contribute specifics. --JRT 23:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting tactic; make some judgements about me and my personal life and when called on it, try to take the high road. Nice! Tell you what - say what you want about Byrne. I now follow Lightning Man out of here. This is no encyclopeida, it's just another comic book fan gossip site. I do rest happy as long as the disclaimer is left at the top of the page, so that anyone who stumbles onto this page of lies, rumor, gossip and inuendo are warned that what they are reading is not based in fact.

Have at it, it's all yours. Enjoy your laff books, too!

Mike O'Brien

The only problem is, you had started it with your judgements, especially making a non-sequetur towards another whole subject (fundementalists), and a condemnation of everything we do here as "gossip". We worked very hard to put in the facts. You still don't seem to have any actual rebuttals to any of the facts, instead attacking anybody who even points out some of Byrne's controversial statements. I only pointed out how your screeds have been against all of comic fans in general.
The disclaimer will likely be gone in a couple of months as we work to repair the article. There was nothing unfactual about the article. I'm actually proud of what we worked on, it was a better perspective than either Internet Trolls who think Byrne is a "hack", and some of the more militant Byrne fans who can't seem to accept why he might be criticized in the industry. --JRT 10:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Ditto Edward J. Cunningham 00:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed material

  • His original style of inking his own art lacked the smooth lines achieved when others inked his work, as can be seen in his run on The Fantastic Four. After he left Marvel to handle the Superman revamp at DC, he typically worked with strong or experienced inkers like Karl Kesel and Dick Giordano.
  • He tends to favor large panels--in the mid-1980's his individual panels tended to be larger than the panel layouts used by his contemporaries in the field. During the mid-1980s Byrne's work was influenced by that of French artists. He also makes good use of Negative Space in his art.

I removed this material because I am unable to source it. If the editor who added it or somebody else can, please feel free to place it back in the article with sources. Hiding talk 18:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

While I wrote the initial draft of this section a while back, I don't think I made these additions. The first paragraph can actually be observed. Check out issues of the FF that he penciled and inked, and compare them to both his later work. Not everything written in the article must be attributed to a source, especially when you can observe it directly. I can even compare his styles on my FF DVD-ROM. The use of strong inkers is also a fact.
Similarly, Byrne's panels are larger than his contemporaries, at least at the time he started working in comics. The French comment was based on quotes above, and I think N. Calgion was the one who added that comment. Negative space is based on the amount of "white space" found in his art. In my original context, it was meant to address what some critics have called him "drawing the same face". (Which I think it a very unfair criticism of his art, so I tried to objectify it.) His work does make a good use of negative space, similar to what we've seen in other comics like Bone. --JRT 00:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Whilst I understand all of that, we now need to source all the content for this page. So can it be sourced? Can we point to A. Critic who states that Byrne makes good use of Negative Space in This Work (1997)? Hiding talk 16:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Step two continued: The X-Men

Here are the original paragraphs about the X-Men from the article. I am at a loss about how to verify anything in this section at all, but we're definately going to need to reference specific interviews and articles to comply with Jimbo's request. They don't have to be on the internet, but they do have to be specific, with page numbers. Gamaliel 04:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

On the X-Men Byrne was penciller as well as Claremont's co-plotter. Their collaboration was critically successful, producing ground-breaking stories such as "The Dark Phoenix Saga" and "The Days of Future Past" that were to influence the superhero genre for decades after. In addition considering he is a proud Canadian, he balked at the suggestion at the time of dropping the Canadian X-Man, Wolverine from the series. To change Claremont's mind, he suggested several story ideas focusing on the character such as changing his costume and introducing his former compatriots, Alpha Flight which helped put the character on the path of becoming one of the popular characters for Marvel Comics.
Byrne later likened his partnership with Claremont to Gilbert and Sullivan's. A source of friction arose from the duo's use of the Marvel Method, a process whereby the artist and writer would agree on a plot that the artist would pencil before delivering to the writer for final scripting (followed, of course, by inking and lettering). Byrne felt that at times Claremont's dialogue altered the tone and narrative that they had previously agreed upon; Claremont less contentiously noted that Byrne regularly changed agreed-on plot details as he pencilled the stories. One example cited by Byrne is the conclusion to "Days of Future Past" where his original intention was that the X-Men should escape their post-apocalyptic destiny but Claremont's scripting cast ambiguity on that outcome. (Claremont later explained to interviewers that Byrne had added several deaths of major characters to the story, making a darker outcome more appropriate.)
Some of this comes from his own FAQ [1]
I believe that N. Caglion was quoting a book called The X-Men Companion, an unofficial guide to the X-Men, written in (I suspect) the 1980s, which had interviews from the creators.
Gilber and Sullivan is a term Byrne has used a lot. Here's just one example:

http://www.slushfactory.com/content/EpuFlFFVuZUiRPXKuz.php

The FAQ and this interview will both be useful sources, but I don't think we will be able to preserve most of the article without people willing to help find sources for much of the behind the scenes info. Do you or does anyone else have direct access to the "X-Men Companion"? We simply can't use it as a source with a vague reference to it like that. Gamaliel 18:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

http://www.lib.msu.edu/comics/rri/xrri/x_men_a.htm N. Caligon 21:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what I can do. I'll see if I can dig some up, but stuff like the last section about Claremont was added by others, I believe N. Caglion. He added some specific quotes including some sources.

That's not the point. We don't need a citation for the X-Men Companion, we need somebody to open the actual book and say "Yes, on page 24 is Fact X" so we can include those facts in the article. Gamaliel 02:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we cite someone else's citing? The Wolverine Files:
  • Byrne commented on the beginning of his run, “I consider my greatest contribution to Wolverine as a character to be the fact that he's still around. Both Chris [Claremont] and Dave [Cockrum] wanted to get rid of him, and I said, ‘No, no, no, You're not going to write the only Canadian out of the book now that you've got a Canadian drawing it!'” Peter Sanderson, "Wolverine: The Evolution of a Character, " The Incredible Hulk and Wolverine #1, 1986.

Or do we just cite that webpage? I never know how to cite a work when you don't source directly. Hiding talk 16:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

If the quote is complete and you're comfortable that it's accurate, I'd just cite the original source, unless it's something terribly obscure or in another language or whatever. Byrne's said much the same thing in plenty of interviews, so you can just avoid the hassle and source the information using a weblinked interview. In this particular case, though, I think it's fine to source The Incredible Hulk and Wolverine #1. Incidentally I'm pretty sure I own that so I can just look it up and verify it myself, but this is a good point to discuss when it comes to stuff like that illusive X-Men Companion. Gamaliel 09:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of other writers/artists

I'm surprised that this article has no section on Byrne's well-publicized arguments with other writers and artists, and his handling of message board threads on his site. It tends to be a major source of discussion in fandom. Snowspinner 00:05, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

See Archive 3 for details.--SarekOfVulcan 00:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Archive 3 said we need sources. Surely these are obtainable. Snowspinner 00:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Then obtain them. :-)--SarekOfVulcan 02:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
This I have done! Snowspinner 20:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I want to apologize to everybody here at Wikipedia. When this whole bruhaha started, I was one of the complainers and whiners, but other people actually did the hard work of rebuilding the article. To my surprise, it is much more informative than anything I expected to see once this got started. Everybody who helped work on this deserves a round of applause! Edward J. Cunningham 02:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Moving forward?

Does anybody plan on working on continuing the recounting of Byrne's history, which has presently been taken forward only to the early 1990s? A bunch of stuff, like Marvel's Lost Generation and DC's Generations, has yet to be recounted. I know that some find it more fun to go on about his various feuds and conflicts, but in between he actually was involved in the creation of comic books. *Dan T.* 12:59, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Feuds and edit wars

Anyone know what should be done about the continuous POV editing attempts to the "Feuds" section? Surely we can draft something that will satisfy both sides of this, rather than this back and forth. Dyslexic agnostic 01:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

The original objection was that the feuds material was unsourced. It was removed on those grounds. I wrote a sourced version. Those who want to delete it, or add their own unsourced claims to it are, frankly, unwelcome to. If Byrne's supporters want to craft a sourced response, they should. Beyond that, I see little reason to compromise with them. Phil Sandifer 01:21, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Citing a gossip colum called "LYING in the Gutters" is not writing a sourced version. You are wrong. Provide real sources, and I will be more willing to work with you, but you continue to fight to keep a version up there that uses a GOSSIP column as it's only source. Step back from this a moment, take a deep breath and realize what you're doing.

LiTG has repeatedly shown itself to be an accurate and well-reported column, including things like identifying the names of the Infinite Crisis miniseries nearly a year before their launch. Phil Sandifer 19:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Fine, leave the links, but reduce the write-up to what is necessary. I am not a Byrnite, but let's focus on the man's work, leaving the links for those who wish to further investigate the "feuds" on there own. Check out my revision. Dyslexic agnostic 20:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with this, and think it's exceedingly POV - sourced accounts of feuds with major comics creators belong in the article. Phil Sandifer 20:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
How does one go over your head? Do you run wikipedia? Do you own this section of the page? I thought consensus was to be sought, instead, you just revert every change. Jimbo, help!! Dyslexic agnostic 20:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, you could start an article content RfC at WP:RFC. But I think it's fairly cut and dry - Byrne is a majorly controversial figure in comics. The feuds section has clear evidence of this. The evidence is sourced. What ground are there to remove it? Phil Sandifer 20:49, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Surely this can be resolved. And I do have some concerns, especially since we don't KNOW that User:John byrne is in fact JB. I added the following tag:

{{TotallyDisputed-section}} Dyslexic agnostic 20:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Byrne said to Jimbo that he had blanked the article. Which claims do you dispute the neutrality of? Or, for that matter, the accuracy of? Phil Sandifer 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Phil, your larger edit didn't help... we don't need to turn this article unencyclopedic with inflammatory quotes. I suggest you revert yourself. Dyslexic agnostic 21:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's very simple - you blank the section or significantly reduce it, the article becomes POV by ommission. - SoM 21:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I still reject this. "LYING in the Gutters" may get a few facts correct about Comic book gossip, but then again, a broken clock is right twice a day, too. Not only is it a gossip column, it's one that even admits to various degrees of reliablity with a series of stop-lights. It's also a column written by someone who has an axe to grind with John Byrne, which further taints it's reliability. You're going to have to ask yourself why it's so important to have such a section in Byrne's profile, and if it is so important, doesn't it deserve better sourcing than vague comments from a gossip column? Most of the things Rich Johnson reports in his column were originally found on the internet to begin with; is it so hard to look up the original instances yourself? Again, step back and look at what you've done. You've composed a smear section in an otherwise thoughtfully written article, and your three sources are all to the same gossip column. That's similar to turning in a school report on Bill Clinton, and all your sources are from one Rush Limbaugh book. (or Bush from an Al Franken book, if that helps you understand.) What is your motivation in including this section, and fighting so hard for it? What does it gain you to spread lies and gossip about someone? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.119.64.111 (talk • contribs) .

162 has a point, we should refer to the original sources whenever possible and lessen our reliance on Rich's column. Perhaps this will bring us closer to a version that's acceptable to all parties. Gamaliel 23:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
In fact, I have already done this - everything that is not sourced to a thread Bryne deleted off his forum now has the original source material. This was, of course, rather easy as the sources were all in Rich's column already - it's strangely well-referenced for a pack of lies. Phil Sandifer 23:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

If they are so well referenced, why are Johnson's links still there? Anyway - in the spirit of fair play, here are the issues I currently find with the document:

"Byrne has developed something of a reputation for his fights with other writers and artists in comics." - Fair, if unneeded.

Do you have a better way of summarizing it? Phil Sandifer 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"These fights often spilled over to his message boards, where further controversy arises over people alleging that they have been banned from the boards for criticizing Byrne." - This is true, that the fights happen on message boards, and people claim to have been banned... however, many of them were not banned. And by leaving that fact out, you've tainted the truth of the piece.

Find me a source of Byrne claiming not to have banned people the people in question then. Phil Sandifer 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"For example, in 2003, he and Erik Larsen got into a feud that started when Larsen criticized the art of George Perez. The exchange went back and forth between Byrne and Larsen's forums, with Byrne claiming, "uou can tell when Erik is saying something stupid -- his lips move." [28]" - OK - true again, and good use of source, I grant you, but why do you single out what Byrne said about Larsen? Why not include what Larsen said about Bynre. Oh, and while we're at it, while you accuse Byrne of deleteing threads - you'll note that Larsen deleted threads of he and Byrne fighting on his own forum. Why is this bit of information left out?

Erik Larsen is over that way. Phil Sandifer 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"The feud ended with Byrne issuing what has been referred to as a "non-apology apology." [29]" - would be ok, if it was a real source, but instead, more Rich Johnson.

I think Johnson is a pretty good source on what Johnson says. Phil Sandifer 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Byrne also got into a conflict with Mark Waid, due to Waid's accusation that Byrne was telling untrue stories about him." - Not true. That was the latest fight. They had been fighting since the 80's, when Waid, as an office boy, tried to sabotage Byrne's Alpha Flight, and later attacked Byrne verbally at a convention, and finally, with the help of his followers, spammed Byrne's old message board to the point to where it was rendered unusable. Funny this was left out, and Byrne getting some facts wrong about Waid's failed comic book company is the only thing you quote.

Sources are our friends! Phil Sandifer 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Waid noted that "I'd gladly refute it more directly at the message board on which it was posted, but--at least in my experience--those who attempt to correct John's delusional statements and borderline libels are quickly booted." [30]" That is a quote, even if it favors one party over the other.

OK then.

"Waid claims also to have been banned for criticizing Byrne for insulting George Perez, Barry Kitson, and Mike Wieringo. [31] [32]" - see, two problems; one, Waid hasn't been banned. Glad you quoted him, because now it's not just you repeating gossip (remember that, it's coming back in a second) but now it's Waid publically lying. Second problem - Byrne didn't insult Perez or the others; he repated gossip about them. The very thing you are doing.

Mhmm. And if Byrne wants to flame me on his boards, he should feel free. Phil Sandifer 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Byrne also has allegedly been dropped from a fundraising book " Not allegedly. He was dropped. "for Dave Cockrum for criticizing Cockrum while he was in the hospital." - Another lie. He complimented Dave, but the compliment offended Mrs Cockrum.

Source? Phil Sandifer 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Cockrum has in turn referred to Byrne as "an arrogant, first class jerk." [33]" This newly added line kind of pleases me, as it hints at what a nut Mrs Cockrum is, but it would help show her character a little better if you included more quotes from her insane rants. How about the one where she accuses Marvel of being Anti-Semitic?

That seems beside the point - again, she has her own article, surely. Phil Sandifer 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Byrne has also been accused of getting into fights with Peter David, Jim Shooter, Joe Quesada, Mark Evanier, and Marv Wolfman. [34]" - oops. Quoted Rich Johnson again. Just because he says it don't make it true. In fact, Byrne himself has strong words to say about most of the people listed, but you don't quote that for some reason. However, you have strong things to say about Byrne, and unlike Byrne and the people listed, you haven't worked with nor do you personally know Byrne. Forgive me for getting personal, but when Byrne does it, one understands the motivation. When you do it, it doesn't make sense. How about this - if you're going to quote random unverified things people say about Byrne, how about quoting this: I saw Byrne eat a baby once. Go on. It's just as verifiably true as a gossip column.

So it's not true to say he's been accused? The Johnson column is clearly over there accusing him. That makes the statement that he has been accused pretty cut and dry. Phil Sandifer 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"Recently Byrne's feud spilled over to Wikipedia in which Byrne claimed bias in the description of his history." - Well, no one doubts that. This one is ok. "This led to several edits of his entry there and included Byrne himself "blanking" most of the article [35], and the page being protected from vandalism shortly after [36]." I'm thinking the article was protected from vandalism because of all the insanity added to it, but I suppose we could let the Wiki folk answer that question.

You're thinking wrong. Phil Sandifer 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

In summary, I am willing to work with you to create an unbiased Fueds section. I still think that just having a fueds section is un-needed and biased in it's own way, but if it's so important to you, I'd be willing to help you at least present an unbiased version.

Then find some evidence instead of insisting all the existing evidence is a pack of lies. Phil Sandifer 01:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

erm. No. You're quoting a gossip column. I'd say that if you really are interested in getting to the truth, it would be up to you to find the correct quotes. What you're doing now is making a mess and having other people clean it up. Byrne noted recently on his board that it was inncorrect that Waid and others had been banned. If you don't want to take the time to look for the post in question, you could even send an e-mail to the mods of the board. Etc. But it's just bad form to repeat crazy things from a gossip column and expect others to clean it up.

But more to the point, I see you have no intention of doing a fair job based on these recent quotes of yours:

"I think Johnson is a pretty good source on what Johnson says." - Misses the point. Johnson can say that the moon is made of cheese. Sure he said it, but that doesn't make it true. I'm going to start saying that Phil Sandifer eats pickles. I'll write about it on a website. Does that make it true? Of course not. It's just something I said. If I had evidence that it happend, if I saw you eat a pickle, etc, then we'd have something, but as is, I just lied about you.

"Mhmm. And if Byrne wants to flame me on his boards, he should feel free." - Your biggest problem quote - if you wanted to "flame" John Byrne on a message board, you are more than free to - (thought, one thinks, you'd be not very original, but that's beside the point) - this is not a message board. This is, if the mast head is to be believed, an "Encyclopedia". And one which should be subject to fact, not gossip. (Or did you miss the news today? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051206/ap_on_hi_te/wikipedia_rules;_ylt=AlX_IQT2bvj8Y1BEI992Y0Os0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3cjE0b2MwBHNlYwM3Mzg-) Further, if you want to "flame" John Byrne, you have many options open to you that don't involve "encyclopedic" forums. Popular destinations for Byrne Talk are: www.dccomics.com, www.newsarama.com, www.comicon.com, www.comicbookresources.com, www.joequesada.com, www.geoffjohns.com, www.imwan.com, www.savagedragon.com [though be wary about this one - Eric deletes the Byrne rants from time to time], www.jinxworld.com, etc and so on. Do you understand the difference between those sites and this one? This one is supposed to be a repository of true information about people, places, things, evetns. Those sites are for comic fans to celebrate and tear down the men and women who write and draw comics. I still stand by my point that having a "feuds" section is not totally needed on this sort of brief entry, and it's very existance and the fact that it's one of the longer sections and the most vehimently defended is a testament to the goals of the person behind it, not a search for truth or facts, but in the interest of maintaining a true history of John Byrne, I'd be interested in seeing a balanced look at both sides of the article, not just how Byrne wronged so many with out getting the other side of the story.

anyway, back to your other quotes:

"Source? " - Not too hard to find; I'm sure Johnson's article has some sort of link to Byrne's original quote, which, I don't have on hand, but went, roughly - the art is great, but there are a lot of lines laid down on the page to get the right one. A compliment, followed by an observation of how the art is composed. If anyone else were to have said that, it would have been a fascinating insight, from an industry insider, on how a particular artist draws. Instead, to further an anti-Byrne agenda, it became an "insult". Futher, it seems odd that if Byrne had set out to insult Cockrum, why would he constantly praise the man's work, remind folks that Cockrum's X-Men outsold his, and contribute a work of art to a charity book to help Cockrum? The whole incident speaks more to the sick mind of Mrs Cockrum, and her later behavior just validates that. Which is why I brought it up.

"So it's not true to say he's been accused? The Johnson column is clearly over there accusing him. That makes the statement that he has been accused pretty cut and dry. " - Another of your really bad ones - Why would you want to add to a historical record the fact that someone is ACCUSED of something? Yes, it's true he's been accused. Did he do it? Again, I could accuse you of eating pickles. Does it need to go on your perminant record. Not until it was proven that, in fact, you ate pickles. Stop for a moment, and consider that. Really think about it. Is pointing a finger and saying words enough to damn someone? Is the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" so lost on us in these modern times? You are correct, it is TRUE that he has been accused of such things; I'm saying that until it is proven one way or the other, it is irrelevent.

"Then find some evidence instead of insisting all the existing evidence is a pack of lies." - and now back to my original point. You taint a historical encyclopedic record of a man with facts backed up by gossip columns, or paint a one-sided picture of the man, and then want the rest of us to clean up your mess? The easy way to fix this, on your end, is to make sure that each fact you stated has a reasonable fact or source to back it up, and what's more, if possible, find more than one source, so you're sure that you're providing a clear and balanced work. If that was, in fact, your goal. If your goal was to just "flame" Byrne, as you say, then I'd advise you, especially in light of Wikipedia's new policies, to take it to a comic book message board where it belongs.

So, if I may summarize your point, you say my quotes do not tell the whole story but cannot be bothered to find evidence for the other side, you discount Johnson even when he is making statements of opinion that are sourced, and you do so in a really rambling way. I think we're done here - I'm removing the dispute tag. If you want to do some work to fix the article, do so. If you want to insist that it's POV and non-representative without providing a shred of evidence, don't expect me to care. Phil Sandifer 03:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you missed my whole point. What I'm saying is, IT'S NOT SOMEONE ELSE'S JOB TO CLEAN UP YOUR MESS.

Who do I report this clown to? Under Wikipedia's new rules, this sort of nonsense shouldn't be allowed.

You haven't lifted a finger to show that it's a mess. I have sourced every statement. You have blankly said they are untrue and provided no evidence for this. Right now, every piece of evidence presented in this discussion supports my version of the article. Absent any evidence that there is a mess (And your say so is not evidence), there is nothing to clean. Phil Sandifer 05:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

It's funny how you can be so wrong, and yet so arrogant. I explained that you are not using facts to back up your gossip. I explained it pretty clearly. You clearly have some sort of problem.

I have well-referenced sources. Your objection appears to be that you say they're all wrong. In which case there should be evidence that every single source I have is wrong. And yet... you haven't shown any. Phil Sandifer 05:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Now Mongo has returned your last edit, with the crude quotations. The article shouldn't be whitewashed, but nor should it be biased against Byrne. Leave your POV dislike of Byrne out of this! Leaving these quotes in does not befit an encyclopedia!!! Do you really think Wikipedia 1.0 will publish it that way? Please put it back the way to had it before we discussed things. The curious can read the quotes for themselves by going to the articles. I urge you. Dyslexic agnostic 05:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how quoting people is bias against Byrne. The facts are there, they are being stated impartially and accurately. That is not POV - that is the epitome of NPOV. Please also note that removing sourced information as you are doing can be considered vandalism. Phil Sandifer 05:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I changed it back one last time. Now I wash my hands of this dumb issue... life's too short. Dyslexic agnostic 05:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. Everyone's fighting over the least informative section in the article. Does it really matter who Byrne has feuds with? Does it really matter if Byrne has feuds at all? If he owned a dog, would we need to report "John Byrne owns a dog that he walks every day"? Why don't we just have the article talk about his career and delete the online/message board feuds section? --Pc13 09:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Because in contemporary fandom he's become infamous for these things? Phil Sandifer 15:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
No, he is not. We're not taking about a former child actor who ended up flipping burgers for a living. He is not John Byrne, former comic book artist, trolling around message boards to have people paying attention to him. He works on a regular basis for the two major comic book publishers in North America. This decade, he worked on an X-Men spinoff, a JLA story arc, a Superman graphic novel and the relaunch of classic characters Demon and Doom Patrol. So, he's a jerk to other people while on message boards. Well, whatever, that's what I say. His mood swings and dislike of other professionals don't seem to affect his chances of getting work. --Pc13 16:24, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not saying the feuds are what establishes his notability. I'm saying they are notable parts of the topic. There's a difference. Phil Sandifer 16:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Feuds section: Keep or delete?

Please cast your vote, short and sweet, on whether to keep or 'delete' the feuds section from the article.

  1. Polls are evil
  2. Even if polls were not evil, Wikipedia works on consensus, not majority or mob rule
  3. Even if we allowed voting, we would not allow the voting away of encyclopedic and NPOV information. Phil Sandifer 23:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I fail to see how the feuds section can have a NPOV. --Pc13 08:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's the only thing comic fans have to use to bring him up nowadays.


I have mixed feelings about this section. While there certainly should be something there, and I'm as guilty of helping it expand as anyone else, I'm not sure we should be stuffing it full of every angry post he made in the last five years. Some of this can go, certainly. The blackface "controversy", for example, probably can be cut, and we should find ways to condense the existing material. Gamaliel 08:19, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. My feelings are similars to Gamaliel's. Something should be there, but a shopping list of every single dispute, arguement, and alledged event just looks to a non-comics fan as being unbalanced (even petty) and unencycolpedic. A single paragraph on the phenomina quoting from a journalistic source would be enough. --Jason Kirk 12:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of it merits inclusion. This sort of thing is what comic book message forums were made for. I'm amazed it has gone on this long, frankly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.42.215.75 (talk • contribs) .
  • Keep, but... I'm with Jason Kirk and Gamaliel on this: Clearly, loud and unabashed public clashes--and perhaps not terribly well-considered, brash statements--are an important part of the comic book-reading public's (i.e., fandom's) perception of this man. If we didn't at least say something to the effect that Byrne's been a controversial figure at various moments, and give some sense of what this might mean, then it'll look like a whitewashing job to anyone with an interest in the behind-the-scenes of comics. However, as things stand, this article begins well enough and then ends looking a bit like a smear-campaign. More importantly: To any reader whose acquaintance with comic books in general and John Byrne in particular is only casual, this whole business as it stands is rather unprofessional-looking and needs to be cleaned up and further contextualized. A person who's never heard of the man and just happened to link to this page from someplace else probably needs to know about Byrne the artist more than they need to know about Byrne the provocateur. (It would be a different story, obviously, if the former couldn't be fully appreciated without an understanding of the latter, but unless a case for this can be made--and a case to that effect has not been made, as of this writing--then the point stands.) As I've said in other "Talk" posts on other subjects, we're writing, ideally, for an audience composed of people of all backgrounds, not just those who already have a stake in what an article is about. In other words, the Wikipedia's first aim is to inform, rather than to serve as a forum for the esoteric concerns of hard-core fanatics. Buck 04:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki the quotes, we are not wikiquote. Edit the text to read for better NPOV, we should cite someone rather than have the line Byrne has developed something of a reputation for making controversial statements and feuding with other comic book creators, that's original research if we can't source the opinion in a reliable source, and it's also weasel words. Hiding talk 17:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The tags

OK. So you want discussion, discuss. How does the section that currently has a dispute tag violate WP:NPOV? Phil Sandifer 02:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not actually interested in discussing this further. Pc13 has it right... this article needs some tender loving care, to make it encyclopedic and to give each aspect of the article its proper emphasis: in this case, Byrne's accomplishments as a writer and artist over the last several decades. Right now it is just a ragtag collection of facts. We do no service to Byrne, or to Byrne fans, or to Wikipedia, making edits that get us nowhere. I plan to improve the article as a whole, so that it can see the improvement that Watchmen has recently seen. Once the article has improved enough, the "feuds" information will fall into place as it should. You can simply revert every edit you see, Phil, or you can be part of the solution. To the greater Wikipedia! Dyslexic agnostic 05:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe "My way or the highway" is an appropriate approach to the group editing of an article -- especially if the editing rises or falls on one or two editors' objections to one section. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Excellent. I wholly support this. So I take it to mean that no one is actually saying the section is POV? In which case the tag can go? Phil Sandifer 05:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought Calton the world traveller deleted them all, but I see he left one. Either way you see fit... Dyslexic agnostic 06:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm removing the tags then. I look forward to the improved version of the article - I don't intend to revert you, so long as you don't try to improve it by removing sourced information - add context, organize, add more information. These are good things. Removing verifiable and sourced information is bad. Phil Sandifer 06:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted DA's edit to the feuds section. Not trying to start an edit war, and I agree that this section is probably a bit much, but what DA seems to have done is reverted back to an old version and then chopped it in half, in the process restoring quite a bit of wording I'd edited because I found it awkward and problematic. This time, though, I left out the blackface paragraph. Does anyone think we need that? Gamaliel 06:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your reversions are noted... I haven't looked at this page in a couple of weeks, and I have gained some perspective on this. Having said that, the section is too big; as stated earlier in this talk section, it appears to be petty and unencyclopedic to list every "atrocity" (word used sarcastically) committed by Byrne. It won't be me, but I ask someone to consider condensing this section. Dyslexic agnostic 18:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed some links to avoid the Spam Event Horizon. WP:EL supports links to good, authoritative relevant sites, but discourages blogs, forums and such unless they are actual sources for the article (which WP:RS ndicates they ussually are not).

Note that Byrne's website already has a link to the forum, so a single link should be enough. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed Dyslexic agnostic 17:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why these links were removed. None of them appear to be blogs or forums, with the exception of Byrne's own forum, and I don't see what the problem with linking to the subject's own message board, but I'm not going to fight over that. But most of the rest of these appear to be perfectly legitimate interviews or pages. Gamaliel 19:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

A lot of them seem to be just general "me-too" chat. And the forum is linked fomr Byrne's own homepage, we don't need two links to the same site, surely? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite by Hiding

Okay, I've rewritten the text regarding his controversy. I gave it a new header, which is based upon Byrne's own column title so I would hope that would be somewhat uncontroversial. I've added balancing quotes to the introduction, because it's not wholly apparent Byrne's comments have harmed his artistic legacy. I also broadedned the intro out a touch, and incorporated some of the claims that were previously bulleted into it. I've also balanced out the Christopher Reeve section, adding in his later clarification, and I also added the complete quote, whcih contextualises it somewhat. I rewrote the Waid section, based upon the sources provided, and I've added sources and footnotes for other sections. I also added a quote from Larsen to that dispute to balance the one Byrne aimed at him. I also dropped the ref to him being dropped from a Cockrum benefit book since I couldn't source it, although I kept the qote, moving it to the intro.

I've removed the IRA and 9-11 sections, both were based upon secondary sources which I do not believe meet the standard for reliable sources. I also removed the FF poster comment, again there was no original source for the quote, and I'm not sure the blog is a reliable source for the criticism. I removed the paragraph Many feel this development, like the Mark Waid case, is in-character of an ongoing need for heavy control policies since I can't find a cite for it in the article, so it appears to constitute original research. Anyway, comments are appreciated. Hiding talk 22:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The section seems to me totally unclear in terms of its header, which is a problem - controversy or feuds is just more descriptive. Phil Sandifer 22:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't follow you; in what way is In his opinion an unclear section header, when we are discussing comments Byrne has made. Since it is also a pun, utilising his own column header, I thought it quite apt. Controversy and/or feuds is somewhat provocative and indicates a point of view stance on the content of the section, something I would think we shouldn't do, instead aiming to present the information as balanced as possible and allow the reader to draw their own conclusions. Hiding talk 22:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the header, it is in no way clear whether "In his opinion" is the title of a work, a section on John Byrne's views of himself, or what - it certainly doesn't point towards "feuds" with any accuracy. Phil Sandifer 23:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair play, you have a fiddle with the header and we'll see where we end up. I should think there'll be more voices through here before long anyway. Hiding talk 23:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Text removal

I've removed certain sections that went in overnight:

Terrorism and Rich Johnston

In late 2001 John Byrne made the following comments:

"The only acceptable response, now that we are officially in a new world, is for the American government to go Old Testament on these motherfuckers. Operation Flaming Sword. Find them and kill them. And kill their wives, their children, their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, uncles, butchers, bakers, candlestick makers. Go Super-Israel, and let them know what it =feels= like to be "at war" with the United States." [2]

This created an arguement with comics columnist Rich Johnston:

JB: "I've been thinking this since the various lunatic cells of the IRA began loudly declaring themselves "at war" with Great Britain, imagining immediately what woud happen if the British government said "Righty-Ho, war it is!" and sent over the RAF to turn Dublin into a smoking crater."

Rich Johnston: "They'd have killed a million innocent people and have missed the IRA. Who organised across Eire, but were mostly active and present in Northern Ireland. It wasn't Eire who were at war with Britain, but a terrorist organisation who wanted Northern ireland to be part of Eire as a whole." [3]

The original board thread [4] was edited away, but some of the discussions stemming from and referring to it remain.

The original quote is second sourced from a site I'm not convinced is a reliable source. I'm also not convinced as to the point of inclusion. There were a lot of strange comments made in the wake of September 11th, I seem to recall Grant Morrison making statements to the effect that Bin Laden should be captured and placed "in the playboy mansion!" [5]. As to his comments on the IRA and Dublin, again, I'm not sure what it adds to the article. The comments haven't been reported elsewhere but online, to my knowledge, so they aren't that controversial, whereas the Christopher Reeve incident was brought up at a question and answer session at a convention, the Dallas comments were recorded in the Comic Journal and saw a retraction published, whilst the Larsen and Waid citations are examples of feuding, and also develop the theme of the section, that of Byrne's internet persona.

As to the following: Erik Larsen and John Byrne have feuded since Image Comics was formed in the 90s. In an early Savage Dragon comic Larsen drew a group of villains as "Johnny Redbeard and his Nixed Men," an obvious shot at Byrne and his Next Men. It needs a cite otherwise it's original research. Hiding talk 11:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

These were not lists of quotes. Quotes that are included as evidence and support of statements in the article are NOT what that rule is about. It's about trimming the often long "quotes" sections that appear at the ends of articles. Phil Sandifer 16:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
They are lists of quotes, because there is no text contextualising them beyond, Byrne said blah, then Rich Johnston said blah, and so on and so forth. Are you suggesting we document every single argument or discussion John Byrne has entered into? That's not the remit at Wikipedia, Phil, I'm sure you can appreciate that, there's no reason to include all these arguments, because they are already summarised within a short few lines. Please also note that Wikipedia is not a primary source. We shouldn't be keepimng the quotes, that's precisely what WikiQuote is for. Wikipedia is not a collection of source material, and these quotes are source material. We don't quote in other articles, we cite, we include a link to the incident. Why is this page any different? Hiding talk 19:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
We most certainly do quote - look at Jacques Lacan for the first example that springs to mind. We quote if it illustrates the topic - not if it's just a cool quote. Phil Sandifer 20:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Phil, you're comparing apples with oranges. If this article built a head of text around two quotes the way that article does, I'd have no argument with you, but it doesn't, it is presenting the quotes as said, which is thus using Wikipedia as a repository, not treating the quotes as encyclopdic, examining them for their context and placing them in NPOV. Surely you can see the difference between reporting on an argument, such as:
In the wake of the destruction of the World Trade Center on the September 11, 2001 Byrne revealed his own thoughts on terrorists and how to deal with them, although inaccuracies regarding the IRA were challenged by Rich Johnston. [6]
and merely replicating the argument in question, as already quoted above. The latter is making Wikipedia a repository, something it is not. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm not arguing that this article should remove any reference to Byrne's more colourful comments, but what is important? That the article notes Byrne makes statements others find contentious, or that the article lists every contentious statement he makes? Hiding talk 20:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The quotes were indeed second-sourced, with reference to the original thread (also included as a now non-working link, in case anyone finds it collecting dust in an internet archive), which was removed due to Byrne's editorial mandate at the site, but given that the people in the threads referring to it evidently had plenty of time to check up on its validity before it eventually was edited away and noone complained I don't see why this should be a discriminating factor? Then again someone was kind enough to add a shorter reference to one of the links right at the start, so I tried to compromise and create a somewhat shorter mixture of that and my old version and also reformatted to more negligible episodes (Alan Moore & The Onion) to off-hand references.

Also while I could see your rationale of people being upset after 9/11 (I myself wrote a damning column of the actions in the university newspaper), saying that Usama and the actual perpetrators should be brought to justice and executed or even being serial-raped(or perhaps mentally broken down due to the dichotomy with their chastic belief systems) in the Playboy mansion certainly come within the very acceptable limits. Stating that we should commit genocide on millions of innocent arab women and children and then underscoring his full seriousness through referencing long-held views of using indiscriminate nuclear warfare against Northern Ireland, certainly qualify as very contoversial and highly relevant.

Not to mention that you didn't mention that, within minutes of me adding them, you or someone else has simultaneously repeatedly edited away several relevant other sections, which _did_ link directly to the (not yet deleted) sources. without further comments of my own. By your rationale Byrne should be free to revision history as he sees fit simply due to only communicating through his personal control sphere where those of his statements which portray him in too negative a light or comments from others which disprove them (as in the Mark Waid case) are frequently deleted. I've taken a little time to go through what seems to be his more relevant quoted views and at least try to make this article elevant without either heavy censorship or turning it into a rant (Such as keeping the dispute with Morrison to the point, avoiding the myth that Byrne has explicitly stated that his Doom Patrol is 'back to basics and the best interpretation yet of the original series', rather than simply noting what I found each party to have said and then letting people form their own conclusions). Whether I've succeeded is another issue entirely.

I'd appreciate if others would take the time to help out in doing some research of their own about the subject of his past debates (Possibly a chronological quote reference of the conflict between him, Joe Quesada and Marvel Comics) and whoever it is that keeps monitoring changes every 5 minutes to then immediately indiscriminately deleting everything new to kindly stop doing so. Thank you.

David A

Umm. Not sure where to start. First off, can you clarify what you call Byrne's long-held views of using indiscriminate nuclear warfare against Northern Ireland, since the quote doesn't support that context, making no mention of nuclear bombs, and not being a threat against Northern Ireland either. Second, can you qualify why you regard these quotes as very controversial. Did major newspapers run these quotes? Was Byrne interviewed on national, or even local television or radio? If not, I think we'df have to agree they're not very controversial, since they created no major controversy. You also need to make a case as to why they are highly relevant. Why are a comic creator's political views relevant? Byrne doesn't vreate political comics, unlike Ditko, so they're not relevant in that way. What is it about Byrne's work that makes these views so relevant?
I'm not arguing that Byrne should be free to revise history, I am stating that Wikipedia is not a repository to prevent that from happening, and if that is your motive you should instead place the quotes at WikiQuote, a sister project whose purpose is to hold quotes. If your purpose is to demonstrate that Byrne attempts to control history, then note that is already tackled by the wikipedia and Mark Waid sections. I also have to query why you believe this article should document every dispute John Byrne has had. That's not the purpose of this article, nor should it be. The purpose of this article is to discuss the man and the reasons for his notability. There is certainly no reason why this article should devote more time to his quoted words than to his work in the comic book industry, which is the reason he is notable in the first place. I am not attempting to censor any information, I am merely pointing out this is not the place for it. Hiding talk 20:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

He's stating that "I've been thinking this since the various lunatic cells of the IRA began loudly declaring themselves "at war" with Great Britain, imagining immediately what woud happen if the British government said "Righty-Ho, war it is!" and sent over the RAF to turn Dublin into a smoking crater." This is word by word a statement of long-held beliefs (since the IRA terrorist movement declared 'war' on the british) and a proponent statement for the airforce to use nuclear warfare (or perhaps millions of ordinary bombs?) to completely annihilate Dublin.

I'm also not trying to make the article document every single conflict he's had (that would likely take up several dozens of more space), I took time to filter out a few I thought seemed most important and extreme and keep them concise and to the point. Since I saw that there existed a quote section and that the existing listed conflicts seemed to stay clear of the most controversial and interesting ones, which nowadays create lots of diffuse antipathy few really know where it came from, it seemed of import to try to clear up the matter for all involved. Neither revisionism nor rumour-mongering would continue to be prevalent.

If someone wonders about a creator (and in this case thousands of people are curious about whatever the conflicts around Byrne are about) they will usually use Wikipedia to look up the entire profile, while I hadn't even heard of WikiQuote before and doubt most other people look for extensive information there, rather than loose quotes they think sound neat to use.

Would it work to use both Wikipedia and WikiQuote in combination to make the afore-mentioned list of one-sentence references to conflicts, with links to the related quotes stored at your sister project (in case the original pages get erased)?Dave 17:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

standards for quote and fued section?

This section is rapidly getting out of hand. While I think it's important that it exist, I don't think it should be a catalog of every damn thing JB has ever said. Perhaps we should limit the section to only comments that have been referred to by someone other than the participants (JB and whoever he is arguing with) in some significant way (web column or prominent blog as opposed to just a message board thread). Gamaliel 18:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the ones I added to be very relevant and I shortened down the ones which weren't to near non-existence, but I'm finished with adding any new, so there's no real fear in that respect. I filtered through lots of them to find what seemed to be the main outright conflicts and most controversial statements, which constantly seem to create such widespread upset feelings among readers and writers everywhere (though personally the genocidal quotes were the only ones which were severe enough to piss me off and his extreme need to edit and censor history as he feels can also be somewhat annoying). The only main conflict I can remember other than these was the ongoing personal war with Marvel Comics and I have no real wish to filter through _that_ particular backlog.

Btw: My comments seem to register as being unsigned despite that I logged in?

David A

Posts are not signed automatically. If you add four tildes (~) to the end of your post it will add your user name and the date. Also, please consider using the "Show preview" button instead of making a series of small edits. Gamaliel 18:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, will do.Dave 19:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I might take a stab at this on the weekend.
The big problem? The old entry at least explained why Byrne polarizes opinions amonst comic fans and fellow professionals. But the problem was we got concerned about sources, thus people have just been dumping quotes. Byrne's political opinions are pretty much a non-issue. The last time I saw an entry this detailed was for a political pundit.

The reason for dumping quotes is that this is a public persona who usually either creates sect-like complete devotion or blind frenetic hatred in thousands of people, while far more just stand by the side watching the yearlong fighting go by. He's arguably the most controversial public persona in the business. At least in terms of discussion and coverage. The only way for everyone to be clearly informed about what has actually happened seems to be to use straight quotes and links without comments of ones own. Editing them all out would be to simultaneously serve Byrne's own pre-tried heavy agenda of censorship as well as that of vague rumour-mongers.

However, as I mentioned below, while I don't think the room for the column is currently all that extensive, or at least not out of order, if it's neccessary to trim it down the best solution might be to simply create a (literal) list of one-line references for each topic and then provide the previously existing external links at the end, while possibly making some more quote room for the pre-Internet material? The only risk is that Byrne himself or one of his moderators will simply delete many of the linked pages in question.Dave 16:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What I would suggest is to use WikiQuote to store the statements, and reduce the entry to the gist of the items. That's really what WikiQuote is for. To put all these quotes from people.
For example, I would just have all the political stuff stated like this.
In addition to his opinions in the comics field, Byrne has been noted to make many politically charged statements, include thoughts on terrorism and 9/11 [link to quotes], race relations and color-blind casting [link to quotes], religion [links to quotes], and society [link to quotes].
I mean, for instance, his statements about 9/11 were done at a time when everybody was really emotional. It's really not fair to take him to task for that, as a lot of other people at the time had hot tempers. I think it's more relavant to discuss the disagreements he has with editors, other creators, and comic fans, because in part nobody would really care about the comments if he had a better relationship with fandom in general. ---JRT

A list keeping the previous description for each of the written topics, while moving the actual quotes to WikiQuote, linking there (as well as the original sources) and storing all statements, including those from others in responce (Rich Johnston, Peter David, Erik Larsen etc) would seem like a fair way of shortening the article down while keeping all the information at hand for the interested.

As for it being unfair to take him to task, he _did_ explicitly state that he had held these types of views for years or even decades. 'Now that we are officially in a new world' also indicates that he was just waiting for this to happen.

Not to mention that one of the 3 documented main terrorist types (and one of the 2 most numerous along with religious zealots) are in it due to perceiving their countries and entire families to have been destroyed from western involvement (most noteably the parentless youths after the Afghanistan war). However that nowhere nearly excuses them from attacking innocents and John Byrne doesn't have anywhere near even that ravaging a motivational factor/'excuse' for going that far in his beliefs, since his home, country and family wasn't destroyed.

Shock and extreme outrage towards those responsible is very understandable and something I felt myself, but in all seriousness proposing for us to intentionally create far more widespread genocides of innocents than the terrorists themselves is extremely noteworthy indeedDave 19:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Whole 'Comments offline and online: In his own opinion' section needs to go

Most of that stuff is just not encyclopedic at all. Say he's made controversial statements, summarize a couple, maybe link to someplace that goes into all the detail for those few people who care, but it's just not relevant, and including it is just insane. It's POV pushing by unbalanced coverage if nothing else. If I go to a page about some celebrity (or a field-specific one), I don't want to know about their political views or everything stupid they ever said, I want to know about their professional life -- what they are famous for. Some celebrities end up being more famous for political views, such as Sean Penn or Jeanne Garaffolo (sp) or Charleton Heston or (how can I forget) Arnold Schwarzenegger, but even there it has to be measured for overall fame and importance. The Onion gaffe doesn't even rate, the Wikipedia thing is absolutely bizarre, perhaps some on interaction with other comics personalities but not in long long quotes. A few good external links can take care of all that. That whole section can and should, for reasons of notability and NPOV, be trimmed down to only a handful of sentences. DreamGuy 12:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that some of the incidents could be cut, I don't think dramatic reduction to a few sentences is appropriate either. Two or three paragraphs, perhaps. Phil Sandifer 13:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, what he's currently most famous for is year-in year-out creating constant outrage and coverage for his extreme statements. For better or worse this is the major point of interest for readers everywhere. My researched quotes serve to give a clearer picture about what has actually happened (as opposed to rumours) for both sides of the issues. It would also be overly biased in Byrne's favour to completely edit them away or only keep the more harmless ones listed previously. If you truly wish to cut away the fat at least list one sentence of reference for each subject and then 1-2 links at the end for further information.

Also, the minor Onion gaffe was both mentioned as a minor imbroglio and almost edited out by myself. It could easily be fully erased to make space for his most extreme conflicts, but the columns for Terrorism, Morrisson, writers and readers in general and Christopher Reeve seem to be the main ones (or at least the ones I've heard about) and should probably at least be clearly referenced.Dave 16:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, what he's currently most famous for is rebooting Superman in the 80s and for his work with Claremont on X-Men. Phil Sandifer 16:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A few years back I thought the same thing. Since, I've seen such a vast amount of two-sided heavily biased discussion and coverage from his statements that I've been convinced othervise.Dave 16:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That would be true only if 100% of comics readers were involved in fandom. Phil Sandifer 17:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard guesstimations that only 10% are engaged in it, so that's a good point. Rich Johnston (the most well-read comics columnist on the internet) also claims to have several hundred thousand readers every week, which I guess would at least involve most readers, especially given his coverage of Byrne's various fadeses, but either way those selfsame 10% (/60-80%?) are also the ones active online and most likely to look up his profile, so I thought a short no-comment chronological listing of the main ones would be prudent and helpful to finally clear up this matter for everyone involved. My personal ideal would be to keep the 4-5 most controversial episThey took offense at comments he made about the recently deceased Christopher Reeve odes (those which infuriate people the most) somewhat more extensive, while all others should be added to a very concise 'Short description and link' list, where others might add a link each for the 'All blond latino women look like whores' and 'All Marvel editorial since the 90's fad should be sought up with a time-machine and shot before they could do any damage' ones. (These two are from memory only so don't take them too literally) later on. That seems to the point and informative.Dave 17:33, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems DreamGuy took it upon himself to simply completely erase the entire section without deigning to responding to comments here. I rather liked the idea of simply shortening it down to a list of references othervise. Also, how is a list of _quotes_ without personal comments slanted in the way of previous rant versions?

After all, just because you're not interested in reading about the greater controversies surrounding a certain author doesn't mean noone is and in this particular case it seems to be of constant high interest for a very great amount of people. Keeping it to plain quotes always seemed to the point to myself.Dave 20:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

For the moment I restored the previous version I had saved the format code from (regrettably without the later kindly added quote breaks) in awaiting further input and thoughts how to do this without being too drastical in either direction.Dave 20:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Dave, don't keep restoring the section like that. If you want a list of quotes, then, as I've directed you before, please enter them at WikiQuote, which is a sister project whose rationale is to provide a free online compendium of quotations. Wikipedia is not a repository of quotes; this is not the place to simply list quotations. Hiding talk 21:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

So the idea of simply referencing various more important conflicts in a list (without quotes) is no good? :(Dave 21:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly, but it's best if we build it here on the talk page. For a start we'd have to work out what's important with regards Byrne's career. Byrne is most notable, as Phil states above, as the rebooter of Superman. It's important to keep in context what is and isn't important in light of that. There needs to be discussion on what is and isn't of value to the article, and what unbalances the article's NPOV. My feeling is that there should be a few lines detailing the fact that Byrne has had differences of opinions with other creators. However, there is absolutely nothing to stop you placing the quotations themselves at WikiQuote, and then linking to that page on the article page through a Wikiquote has quotes by John Byrne, which would achieve what I see as being your goal, namely that such quotes are listed. A list of Byrne's many clashes is not of value to the project. We do not list every clash Val Kilmer has ever had, for example. Hiding talk 21:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That seems very reasonable. For a starting point here is the old version shortened down with most quotes edited away (along with that silly Onion conflict and the irrelevant comments about Alan Moore, which I unwisely added previously).


==Comments offline and online: In his own opinion ==
Byrne has developed a noticeable online presence, with his own website and forum, on which he is a participant and moderator, and a column, titled "In My Humble Opinion" (sic), which has run at both Slush Factory and UGO.online. His comments and statements, both online, and through the years in print, have gained Byrne a reputation as a controversial figure. Whilst noted as "one of if not the most longstanding and prolific writer/artist in comics today" [7], Byrne's expressed opinions have led to him being described, along with Peter David, as "jackasses of the highest order", by Dirk Deppey, [8], whilst Dave Cockrum, whom Byrne succeeded as X-Men artist finds Byrne "an arrogant, first-class jerk". Byrne has also gained a reputation for engaging in feuding with other comic book creators, being accused of getting into such conflicts with Peter David, Jim Shooter, Joe Quesada, Mark Evanier and Marv Wolfman [9], whilst in 2003, Byrne and Erik Larsen got into an argument, which saw Byrne claiming, "you can tell when Erik is saying something stupid -- his lips move" and Larsen calling Byrne "a habitual liar". [10] Rich Johnston has noted the feud as ending with Byrne issuing a "non-apology apology" [11].
Other noteworthy conflicts:
1982: A potential legal dispute with Roy Thomas stemming from comments during the Dallas Fantasy Fair.[12]
2001: In the wake of the destruction of the World Trade Center on the September 11, 2001 Byrne revealed his own thoughts on terrorists and how to deal with them, although inaccuracies regarding the IRA were challenged by Rich Johnston.[13][14]
2004: In March this year, when Byrne was in the process of rebooting the Doom Patrol concept and erasing all past material from continuity, a controversy arose regarding the work of previous writer Grant Morrison.[15][16][17]
2004: In mid-2004 fellow writer Mark Waid made claims of a fabricated account of events and deleting all statements to th contrary from his board.[18]
2004: Four days after the death of actor Christopher Reeve, Byrne commented on the actor's paralysis[19], which created reactions from several other professionals, among others New York Times bestselling author Peter David.[20] In late November 2005 Byrne clarified himself.[21]
2004: In December Byrne recited his views of the current creative climate[22], missing deadlines and readers of late books.[23]. He came up with the label 'bungee writers' for the currently dominating generation.[24]
2005: Byrne complained about[25] and erased[26] most of his Wikipedia article, which was revised following a complaint from Byrne to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.


Through the mini-list format others could easily add other important notes throughout the 19-year gap or inbake the first column to this chronological order.Dave 22:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

My initial thought is that the list is unnecessary. What are you attempting to show through using the list that isn't shown in the text above it? Wikipedia is not a Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and a list such as the above is unwieldy, unencyclopedic and the thrust of the list can easily be summed up through a few lines and references. We should not be seeking to document every single statement made by any notable person which may have caused a reaction. We should only document those which are notable. I would agree that since the Thomas incident was covered in the Journal, it is a notable incident. Hiding talk 10:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, my personal motivation lies in trying to get to the bottom of the sources for all these discussions and make them available for everyone on either side, cultists and hatemongers alike. Frankly all statements but the genocidal one are far too tame and insignificant for me to see what the fuzz is about, but the information should still be freely available for everyone to get reasonable and see things for what they are. I have a hang-up about the importance of that sort of thing.
I do think we should try to find and link to his more sympathetic statements as well though, not to give too one-sided a perspective. For example I remember how he wrote stories propagating animal rights and mentioning this in a Next Men later on. Likevise, when trying to find the basis of the conflicts I recalled from memory I saw a very decent take about what Captain America represents ('No people anywhere should have to be afraid' etc) and that comics in general are twisting children's stories into something nihilistic. Those seem like equally important to most of the rest.
Technically I think most of the listed conflicts (or at least those regarding Christopher Reeve, Latino Women, Grant Morrisson, the Onion, Wikipedia, Neal Adams, the conflict with Marvel Comics and the Industry in General) have been reported on by either Rich Johnston, Newsarama, All the Rage or other sources (Like the Popimage link. Has Wizard run any articles chronicling Byrne?) There have been a couple of listings of his conflict history over the years in All the Rage and LITG at least. I don't know if the Mark Waid conflict, or the Terrorist statements were included, but think the Peter David & Erik Larsen conflicts have been mentioned several times.Dave 20:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
There is another problem with this section in that it is rapidly approaching "original research" - Bad Byrne stories added together just looks like the writers are trying to prove something. I think a more detached version is need, something more like:
Well the use of the 'Bad Byrne' phrase certainly indicates that you have a far stronger automatic pro-bias, than I have a negative one (heck I strongly agree with him about several topics). I do think it's become nearly as important to list his documented ideological history given that this is what people all over the Internet are constantly interested in/in an uproar about and discuss a lot. He's become an exaggerated icon for those who choose to see him that way, both as the last bastion and spokesman of 'the good old days' and as 'the last grumpy old stoffil preventing us to make comics into a full-blown nihilistic counter-culture movement'. My observation is that this is his most important role in the last few years. An 'imaginary figurehead' for either side. Let's just cut away from that and let people see what's actually there.
I do agree with you that we should try to find more positive stories to make a counter-point (sadly they're harder to find) before re-inserting the more negatively(?) ones, but editing it all out until we only get the nice facts in effect becomes a history revision and I'm very opposed to that sort of thing.Dave 20:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
John Byrne was one of the first comic book creators to regularly interact with fans and he hosts an official forum on his website where he shares artwork, anecdote and opinions with his fans. He is known for his traditionalist views on superheroes and the comic book industry in general. Some of his remarks and his defense of them have provoked negative reactions from some sections of comic book fandom.
I like the 'traditionalist views on superheroes bit'. Very to the point. 'Some' sections seems like a severe understatement and carries an automatic derogatory negative. 'Certain of his expressed views and defense of them have provoked strongly opposed reactions from different parts of the comic book readership and gained recurrent coverage in the fandom press.' seems more to the point.Dave 20:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I think all of that can be supported with ample references if needed. Then I'd link to some columns or blogs noting their reaction of JB's comments. Failing that the something like the following could be used, but I don't personally think its worth it.
Subjects they have taken offense at include comments he made about the recently deceased Christopher Reeve, the colour of a hispanic lady's hair, and the semantics of the word "nigger." (with the currect references).
'They' is an implied automatic derogatory again. Neither pro nor against should be seen as an automatic positive or negative. 'Subjects which have caused strong reactions include comments about Christopher Reeve, Grant Morrisson, Mark Waid, current comics creators&readers, Marvel Comics management, terrorism, hispanic women, racial semantics or Wikipedia.' seems to concisely sum up everything without taking almost any room from the rest of the article.Dave 20:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
His relationship with other comic book professionals is more difficult as many of these events are either rumours - where those involved haven't commented - or disputed - where they have commented. And in most cases where the events are substantiated and directly related to books he has worked on then they should be included under the entry for that book or if important enough (e.g. leaving a company) included in the main text - i.e. within context. What remains then is pretty much a continuation of the note about online comments:
Differences in opinion and in the recollection of events have also brought Byrne into conflict with other professionals including writer Mark Waid and ex-Marvel editor-in-chief Roy Thomas. (cite as normal)
I rather like the current one, which I think is much the same as what you suggest here.Dave 20:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Those that want a really large feuds section may find that a bit vanilla, but it's accurate and doesn't over labour the point. I'd then include that really short paragraph about the wikipedia incident that was knocking around as a subsubsection, but that's just because wikipedia always seems news on wikipedia. --Jason Kirk 14:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, Johnston reported extensively about Wikipedia and I think All the Rage covered it as well, so it certainly qualifies for that alone. It doesn't need to be more thorough than my phrase above though.
I think the most sensible criterion here is Johnson's column. It's widely read, and easly provides enough notability to make a call. If Johnson covered it, it's notable, if he didn't, it's a fan issue, not an encyclopedic one. Phil Sandifer 18
07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm concerned that we should regard Johnston's column as a reliable source in any way; it's a rumour column, it doesn't name sources and it describes itself as "Neither Fair Nor Balanced." I would be wary at sourcing from it too heavily, and would think it wise to seek other reliable sources, a newspaper, a magazine, a book, so as to cross-reference these arguments, and then there is no problem with the inclusion of such disputes. Hiding talk 10
03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a rumour column (but right a surprising amount of the time) for upcoming storylines, more of a report column for ongoing industry conflicts (like Dreamwave) and a linked reference column for most greater industry fights and debacles. It certainly does provide linked sources to the original material/discussions for these and while Johnston is loyal enough to not hang out contributors to his rumour pieces, he's right frequently enough to verify their reliability (of course in other instances the industry insiders are intentionally trying to leak false information, but I digress). It's also the Internet comics column which boasts the by far greatest amount of individual visitors, which easily makes it noteable enough. The 'neither fair nor balanced' bit is a jab at anyone who claims complete fairness, Fox News in particular. It's recommendable to at least try to strive towards it, but to disregard one's own inherent bias is foolish. I'm rather honest about my conflicting types of bias, while others try to hide it. It is however wise to try to compensate. In this manner I'm shortly going to post a list of links to instances where either LITG or 'All the Rage' have listed various Byrne-related conflicts, so that everyone can quickly skim them (check for 'Byrne' with the search function) and verify instances of note for themselves. Sadly I haven't had much luck finding many report columns more than 3-4 years or so of age, despite that Rich claims to have been active for more than 12 years (I think) and there should be other writers as well. Help would be very appreciated both in this regard and for finding and relaying information from magazine articles.Dave 17
08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
It's a gossip column. Johnston himself has described it as such. It's not a reliable source on it's own. When Johnston provides sources to stories or quotes it's acceptable,. but just because Johnston reported it does not denote notability. As to boasting the largest amopunt of visitors, unfortunately that claim would need to be independently asserted to stand. Like I say, if you can double source there's no problem. As to listing a lot of links, that again is not Wikipedia's function. We are not a web directory. Hiding talk 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly above I think we are in agreement. The relevance is dependent on if he's is depicting stories where links/sources are listed for it. I'm preparing a half-finished list of links to such articles, so everyone can fairly check for themselves. As far as I recall Rich has stated that he gets 'several hundred thousand individual visitors every week and you can check that with Jonah Weiland if you want confirmation', so that seems like numbers enough to make it highly relevant in terms of pure attention-creating, especially given the widespread discussions afterwards?Dave 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Neither him nor Jonah are reliable sources regarding the popularity of the site, but that's by the by. The site is no more or less reliable because it is popular. As to the list, I'm more than happy to peruse it, but I am not interested in simply inserting a long list of links to the reporting of allegedly contentious statements made by Byrne, which would unbalance the article. Hiding talk 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
No, I mean that I'm in the process of (off-and-to, since I don't have that much time and energy on my hands) trying to find as many 'All the Rage' or LITG columns as possible, which mention Byrne in some seemingly relevant way (small parenthesis aside each link describe in what way). It's just intended to be added as a column to the discussion forum, so everyone can check for themselves and decide what seems relevant enough to shortly reference or not. That seemed a fair way of handling this.Dave 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not the only place that reports on these things (see the Grant Morrisson link to Popimage or the mentioned All the Rage list of Byrne incidents for example) but I think he's mentioned almost all of the listed conflicts at one time or another. Still his statements seem to create serious discussion and interest everywhere, so I don't neccessarily think things should be edited out if they created an uproar without a Johnston reference. Same thing holds with his considerably nicer statements. Shouldn't we list a few of those as well even without major articles about them, if we aim to give a balanced account of events? Dave 20:42, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

To expand a little I think what people who get caught up in all the discussion are interested in finding out is a to the point reference of his objectives and viewpoints and how these can sometimes get extreme enough to offend so many different groups of people, depending on what he's talking about. As well as how many people somehow summarily get caught up even in what seems rather harmless, while loyalists can automatically disregard anything without a frown. I.e. how he's either literally seen as an anti-Christ or new Messiah depending on who you ask. I think some sort of unbiased, factual account of this is what we should aim towards eventually reaching, without letting it take up too much room from the rest of the article.

Btw: I just checked the linked (#22 I think) Rich Johnston column about noted conflicts and while it wasn't one of those cross-referenced and linked Byrne conflicts summaries, rather than a simple reference it did refer to conflicts with Rich himself along with Peter David et.all. Is that enough to qualify the Rich-Byrne terrorism discussion to the list?Dave 21:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Dave, if you want "some sort of unbiased, factual account of this" then John Byrne was one of the first comic book creators to regularly interact with fans and he hosts an official forum on his website where he shares artwork, anecdote and opinions with his fans. He is known for his traditionalist views on superheroes and the comic book industry in general. Some of his remarks and his defense of them have provoked negative reactions from some sections of comic book fandom. is suitably succinct in fulfilling that goal.
As mentioned above, the following variation has much less inherent bias for either side. It doesn't strongly imply anything derogatory or negative regarding finding some of his statements highly offensive, nor about agreeing with them.
'John Byrne was one of the first comic book creators to regularly interact with fans and he hosts an official forum on his website where he shares artwork, anecdote and opinions with his fans. He is known for his traditionalist views on superheroes and the comic book industry in general. Certain of his expressed views and defense of them have provoked strongly opposed reactions from different parts of the comic book readership and gained recurrent coverage in the fandom press.'Dave 17:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but I already edited out the direct quotes, so that's more or less over and done with. The point is that we should aim for some sort of very cut-down factual account of the relevant conflicts or heavily expressed views. Much like the current set-up, but with a few more added.
As mentined above, rather than automatically cutting down any conflicts which some will take in a negative manner, please help out with finding some accounts which most people should find positive. For example his interpretation and handling of Captain America or stories for animal rights. Or a link which explains his justifiable cause against twisting characters of innocence into something evil and depraved in a highly sympathetic manner. Wouldn't this be of interest to you as a fair way to counter-balance his more high-profile nastier outbursts, rather than striving to censor those out?Dave 17:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Dave, you're not really listening to what people are saying on this page. We're here to build a consensus, not restate our opinion every time. Even if Byrne has written stories which address animal rights, in an encyclopedia entry that isn't going to warrant much more than the line Byrne has addressed many issues as a comic book writer, including animal rights. Please try and listen. Note we shouldn't seek to overload the page with links either, per Wikipedia:External links. All this information is on the internet anyway, wikipedia is not a web directory; it is not our place to link to every single piece of information on John Byrne that exists on the web. Hiding talk 19:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've tried to be extremely forthcoming in my flexibility to the demands of others. Whether it's to edit out events, quotes, rephrasing and merging different versions of the same topic, (twice) restructuring the entire section for smaller space etc. The idea to list what would uniformly (?) be seen as positive, was an attempt to accommodate such a view above, since I thought he had a good point about that since Byrne only gets press for volatile statements this can paint a one-sided image. On the other hand I'm aware that I'm not very good at correctly interpreting what others are intending. ;)
In any case the reason I sometimes repeat myself is that it feels like, while I'm trying to be amiable and come up with various compromises, few seem to bother giving them the time of day. I just give further and further ground until we're back where we started and all my material is deleted without even a footnote. I frequently won't even get an acknowledgement/reply to my ideas regardless how well I argue a logical point. That's rather disenheartening. Still, it's also very possible that the cluttered structure of my comments simply make them hard to follow so when I'm unsure if people caught it or if I was very muddled I do a (hopefully clearer) repeat.
To return to the subject directly above, it's not like the subtle difference between 'Certain of his expressed views and defense of them have provoked strongly polarised reactions from different parts of the comic book readership and gained recurrent coverage in the fandom press.' and 'Some of his remarks and his defense of them have provoked negative reactions from some sections of comic book fandom.' is such a big deal, but at a glance the latter seems to downplay the entire debacle somewhat and single out anyone who gets a negative view from his statements as peculiar oddities rather than frequent commodities. It also overlooks that a whole lot of people are just as rabid in their automatic positive views and defence of _anything_ (no matter how extreme) he says as a lot of other people are in their automatic rage over lots of harmless and silliness. Opposed or (as I changed it to) polarised reactions seems pretty to the point. It's only a very minor beef for me, but I don't think it should matter so much to change the semantics somewhat?Dave 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, see I still maintain that it's a good idea to place all the quotes on WikiQuote, because we can then link to that page from here. Do you not agree that's a reasonable compromise? You haven't actually addressed that point as of yet, and maybe once we get an agreement on that issue we can tackle some of the other points to hand. What do you say? Hiding talk 21:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I still disagree strongly with "all quotes." Phil Sandifer 16:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for being unclear. I definitely agree with you that, if we are to even use the quotes in any way rather than simply referencing and linking, WikiQuote seems like the best bet. I haven't decided yet if I should create a WikiQuote profile or not, since I didn't immediately grasp how to set one up when I visited and am unsure if it's meaningful or if the links here (in the style of the current format) should suffice? I rather like your current comprised and to the point model myself, but an extra link at the end to a list of quotes might be an extra bonus?Dave 19:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Here is a start listing of the seemingly more relevant links I've found from what seems to be more well-read report/rumour columns. This way everyone can quickly check for themselves for conflicts of note. I've edited away more obviously nonsensical or non-referenced topics. It's very hard to find chronicles of activities more than a few years old, so help to expand the list with your personal contributions would be very appreciated. If you've heard of other relevant sources, please mention them. If you find overlooked relevant topics from the listed columns, please post the links.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?article=1937 (Mark Waid)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=1696 (Erik Larsen)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=1884 (Marv Wolfman)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=1848 (Jim Lee & Image Comics)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2252 (Wikipedia)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=1808 (Lifetime achievement feuding award, Erik Larsen & Peter David)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=1941 (Dave Cockrum)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=comicwire&article=718 (Breaking with Marvel Comics)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2333 (Peter David & war criminals)

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2306 (Ongoing racism in the Marvel Comics of old)


http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/109562404535125.htm (List of conflicts)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/100985083552536.htm (Bomb Dublin)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/10950280014411.htm (Good manners in personal promotion)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/111497451826808.htm (Racial Semantics)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/98189246988359.htm (Hidden Years & Marvel Comics)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/109617183474242.htm (Hispanic and Latino women)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/98306429253701.htm (Quesada & Hidden Years)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/98672871958330.htm (More Marvel & Hidden Years)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/105990170623044.htm (Peter David & Deleted Threads)


http://www.twistandshoutcomics.com/features/columns/ramblings199909.html (Grant Morrison makes first mention of Byrne wishing to eventually retcon his Doom Patrol run)


http://fanboyrampage.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_fanboyrampage_archive.html#106743698384951341 (Mature Comics)

http://fanboyrampage.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_fanboyrampage_archive.html (Will Eisner Ayn Rand & lateness, Explaining the Doom Patrol's lack of success)

http://fanboyrampage.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_fanboyrampage_archive.html (The Byrne Forum Motto, Alan Moore)

http://fanboyrampage.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_fanboyrampage_archive.html (Misogynism)

http://fanboyrampage.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_fanboyrampage_archive.html (Wikipedia)

http://fanboyrampage.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_fanboyrampage_archive.html (Warren Ellis, Late Professionals & The current readership)

http://fanboyrampage.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_fanboyrampage_archive.html (Hispanic Women)


Positive: http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/100543014048648.htm (Supports cancer victims)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/101697517097509.htm (Defends Stan Lee)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/106533833740482.htm (Automatic Signing of TPBs)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/109320380450320.htm (Charitable discussion with Neal Adams)

Dave 23:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


Btw, here's where I found that time machine comment: http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=190

As mentioned above I rather like something in the style of 'Subjects which have caused strong reactions include comments about Christopher Reeve, Grant Morrisson, Mark Waid, current comics creators&readers, Marvel Comics management, terrorism, hispanic women, racial semantics or Wikipedia.' (with links added after each reference) as a very concise summary to add to the current article text. :)

Dave 23:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely the best way to sum this up is by describing Byrne as having controversial views. There is no need to list every single view he has held, we don't do that in any other biographical article, for example Margaret Thatcher, why should we do it here? Hiding talk 09:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I thought we were in agreement to use the very short snippets for the most relevant reported conflicts, as is the current version? For every time I'm being forthcoming it seems we should suddenly take things to a further and further extreme than the original proposition until nothing at all remains? If the final aspiration is to delete everything then what's the point of claiming to build a compromise in the first place? It's not like 2-3 short phrases summarising and linking to more relevant reported conflicts in any way should overshadow the rest of the article after all.
For starters this is what most people likely to look up the article are interested in getting to the bottom about. Noted conflicts are essentially what his entire public persona has turned into and vague rumours or severe hush-hush history revisionism are both part of the ongoing pointless circle-debates leading to general confusion for everyone else. It's very unfair to compare him to people of note whose history of statements and conflicts are well documented in other literature and can easily be linked to such previous listings. In this case there is a complete lack of completely truthful references. This would very literally be it and if you edit it out you in effect run the errands of the man himself in his previous anti-Wikipedia campaign. I'm a firm believer in that some measure of truth, or at least linking to further information for those who want information should be accessible.
I've taken time to create a starter reference list, since I thought this would be the most fair way for everyone to overlook which conflicts should be briefly noted. I've probably missed out on a whole lot of them (for example, given all the widespread discussion about the Reeve statement I should probably find several columns of note which mention it), but it's a start at least.
Would adding some variant of the following extremely compressed account to the given text (or simply using it to replace other segments) really be such a great detriment from the rest of the article? It's very much in the spirit of the current format after all.
Subjects which have caused polarised reactions and coverage in fandom press include comments about Christopher Reeve, Grant Morrisson, Mark Waid, current comics creators&readers, Marvel Comics management, terrorism, hispanic women, racial semantics or Wikipedia.
Inquiring a little about your WikiQuote suggestion, to make sure I haven't misunderstood, if I were to create a Byrne reference (after registering I didn't quickly find the option, but I could try again), would you be willing to link to this at some point of the profile, or simply let it exist as a separate entity? Dave 16:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'll have to try your patience a little further: Is creating an account, logging in and selecting the 'toolbox: upload files' option for a 'ByrneQuotes.txt' document the right way to create the new profile, or should I do something else? Also, is this profile set up in a similar way as here? I.e. subject to immediate deletion of the content, regardless that it's truthful and verified. Dave 17:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

POV and balance

Looking at the list of conflicts in the last big version, here are the ones I think merit a paragraph:

  • The 1983 feud reported in The Comics Journal
  • The Larsen feud
  • The Waid feud
  • The Cockrum feud
  • The Wikipedia feud

The rest seem to me to be insufficiently widely reported on. I am using here as my main test of notability (Not of accuracy, but notability) mention in Lying in the Gutters. That said, I do think all of these should be explained with short paragraphs, although the Larsen and Waid ones could probably be merged into one paragraph, possibly even with the Cockrum feud. Any less, I think, becomes a whitewash. Any more becomes a needless pile-on of irrelevent material to push a POV. Phil Sandifer 17:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A POV isn't a point-by-point completely truthful reference. Much less making a thorough effort in making this as fair and easily overviewed as possible nor including every found reported positive news item. It would however qualify as a conscious attempt to thoroughly gleam-polish history.
It's unwise to assume that the ones I've so far found and listed are the only LITG, ATR, FR etc columns which handle his conflicts (They're rather hard to navigate given that not all major linked articles name Byrne or obvious search words by name etc). It's likevise doubtful to consider LITG as the end-all be-all, given that others are nearly as notorious, that Johnston frequently edits out stories thoroughly reported elsewhere and has himself worked on several different column names over the years, including ATR and various Ramblings/Rumblings/etc variants. The conflicts you mention are by no means the ones which have been most widely talked about in my experience, though I would obviously very much appreciate lots of help in finding more original references. The ones I've provided are just skimming the surface after all.
  • The hispanic/latino women comment for example was at the very least referenced in the following sources and seemingly endlessly debated virtually everywhere in fandom:

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/109617183474242.htm

http://www.sequart.com/news/?story=158

http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons/archives/006710.html

http://fanboyrampage.blogspot.com/2004_09_01_fanboyrampage_archive.html

http://fanboyrampage.blogspot.com/2005_01_01_fanboyrampage_archive.html

http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=925

  • The Racial Semantics issue came very close by and can be viewed as a sub-topic:

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/111497451826808.htm

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/ambi/111562065575762.htm

http://www.buzzscope.com/features.php?id=1182

  • For unknown reasons the Christopher Reeve comment was the one which I've noted the most widespread outrage about:

http://www.fanboyradio.com/columns_view.php?c=43

http://www.whiterose.org/howlingcurmudgeons/archives/006841.html

http://fanboyrampage.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_fanboyrampage_archive.html

http://newsarama.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=22533

http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/002112.html

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/masters/109813455614224.htm

  • Peter David has been his ongoing main sparring-partner for over a decade, allegedly ranging back to the time Byrne wished to sue Todd McFarlane but David declined due to lack of faith in their chances. There should be far more examples than these:

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/109562404535125.htm

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2333

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=1808

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/105990170623044.htm

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?article=1941

http://www.tcj.com/journalista/zarch200401A.html#other2

This is just a start for a few topics mind you, so please help out and check for references as well. Thank you. Dave 17:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Here's a short update regarding the reports I found for Byrne's comments about Warren Ellis, scheduling and current industry creators or readership:

http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=967

http://kungfurodeo.com/2004/12/07/when-creators-melt-down/

http://fanboyrampage.blogspot.com/2004_12_01_fanboyrampage_archive.html

http://www.monitorduty.com/mdarchives/2005/08/kistlers_korner.shtml

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2059 Dave 22:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep it brief

I think the guidance at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Opinions_of_critics.2C_opponents.2C_and_detractors is quite clear. Any criticism of Byrne which isn't relevant to his reason for notability has no place. Byrne is notable as a comic book artist, not as an opinion former. Also, we should be careful not to give a dispropotionate voice to detractors, opponents or critics. Hiding talk 20:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Byrne's fights with the image founders (like Erik Larsen) are more important than whatever Byrne thinks about latinas. HotWings 23:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, with time he's become more well-known for his controversial public conflicts than for his work and other authors who have a history of public debates have had larger parts of their articles devoted to them. Devoting as little as 3 short single columns to this extremely prominent part of his public profile certainly isn't cutting it high and a very reasonable request, especially compared to the very extensive other sections.
Not to mention that very short factual referencing and linking to his conflicts doesn't count as criticism, just fact checking and I have made a strong effort to check up which ones have merited a mention. The Larsen conflict does qualify, but the entire racial semantics issue has received a greater amount of coverage and involved two of his main sparring opponents in just Erik Larsen as well as Peter David, so that one is important as well.
Aside from the ones I referenced above, the ongoing feud with Joe Quesada and Marvel Comics should also qualify in terms of coverage, but I'm not sure I'm up for spending further time on research when it feels like my attempts to provide good solid proof for my arguments and being flexible to the demands of others are largely one-sided, while noone else is prepared to budge an inch or try to help me out. However I naturally strongly encourage other readers to find and list the coverage for other main topics such as this one for comparison purposes.
In any case, going by the above listed coverage, I think the current columns are very good as is, while needing some additional very short notes (style example above) of the to my knowledge most covered and talked about feuds & controversies:
  • Mark Waid
  • Dave Cockrum
  • The M***** Comics management feud following the seemingly unneccessary cancelation of X-Men: Hidden Years
  • The Wikipedia censorship attempts
  • The combined conflict, with comments of hispanics and racial semantics coming within days of each other.
  • Christopher Reeves
  • The current industry climate, creators & readers
Possibly also the matter of Todd McFarlane slanderised him as a KKK member in his 'Spawn' comic, which almost led to a court case, as well as the terrorism issue. I'm not sure about the first and while I only found 2 Rich Johnston reported mentions of the second, it did receive quite a bit of high-spirited discussion and seems far more relevant than the rest in terms of sheer extremity. Other topics I'm not sure about including would be the Grant Morrisson/Doom Patrol and misogynism issues.
As seen above this could all together be summarised up in one short sentence, taking up virtually no space whatsoever. Dave 20:17, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Byrne_(comics)/Archive_4&oldid=935603473"