Talk:John Byrne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John Byrne article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: This is a forum for discussing changes and improvements to the John Byrne article only. This is not a message board and is not for posting your thoughts on Wikipedia or John Byrne in general. If you have something to contribute, please do not hesitate to do so, but please do not use this page as a soapbox because your rants will do nothing but waste everyone's time, including your own. Gamaliel 18:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Archive
Archives
  • Archive One (December 2004 - June 2005)
  • Archive Two (June - September 2005)
  • For the extensive discussions that were made following Byrne's involvement, the page's protection, and subsequent media coverage, see Archive Three (September 2005). Please read this discussions in this archive before making substantial edits to the page.
  • Archive Four (September 2005 - February 2006)


Contents

[edit] Homeless footnotes

These notes don't appear to reference anything currently in the article:

  1. ^  Tuesday, January 6th, 2004 - In Other News. The Comics Journal: ¡Journalista!. Retrieved on January 31, 2006.
  2. ^  Dave what do you think of John Byrne's penciling of X-Men?. Nightscrawler's message board. Retrieved on February 3, 2006.
  3. ^  Erik Larsen speaks about George Perez!. The John Byrne Forum Archives. Retrieved on January 31, 2006.
  4. ^  John Byrne on Alan Moore. The John Byrne Forum. Retrieved on February 1, 2006.
  5. ^  John Byrne on The Onion. The John Byrne Forum. Retrieved on February 1, 2006.

Thought I'd post them here in case anyone wanted the references. Gamaliel 20:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiquote

I had some time left over last week and think I've found a way to keep everyone happy by adding the material relevant to that rather than this area and simply providing the standard link in the related section.

In case anyone would like to add some of his most noteable quotes from the years 1983-1999, feel free to help out. :) Dave 18:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Online presence

Although I know WP:LIVING means we have to be careful here, I'm distressed at the degree to which this section has become muted. The minimizing of Johnston's comments seems to me tenuously justified - he is far from a tabloid writer, and in the case of Byrne, he's been scrupulously well-documented in what he's said, almost always containing links to specific threads and comments on Byrne's part. I know he's not the most popular guy in comics fandom, but I do feel like he's more notable and more reliable than this section suggests. He may write in a sensationalistic style, but let's face it - stories he flags as green-light have proven damn reliable.

I'm not saying we should go back to when this article was heavily dominated by criticism, but let's face it - some pretty serious and well-sourced accusations of racism (The Jessica Alba flap), of banning critics from his forums (Mark Waid, iirc), etc have been made. They should not be written off so lightly. Phil Sandifer 16:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

--- Muted? It's been gutted like an effin' fish. How can someone get away with saying the shit he has said and not have it be in the public record? The article should be neutral and balanced, but not excised of all the embarassing garbage he's spewn out. You are letting him run this page like he runs his web forum [insults snipped - Eloquence*]. Good going.

Fan: Then this all brings up the question of language. Do words have inherent meanings or just those we ascribe to them? If enough pros, in addition to the fans, say "speech bubble" then why wouldn't "bubble" be just as valid as "balloon"? JB says "balloon", someone else says "bubble", and they could both be right.

John Byrne: There are lots of people who call Black people "niggers". Are both terms "right"?

  • I think I handled it all rather smoothly according to the rules through simply adding a Wikiquote link. I think we came into an agreement to leave it as is as a balanced solution. Of course some overzealous people seem to have vandalised it, but I just reverted it to the pre-destroyed format. Dave
  • My apologies, I noticed that there had been other changes made as well. I re-reverted it to the last page with the addition of the vandalised column. Dave 16:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Indeed - I don't think we should restore the extended version of this, but I think incorporating one or two of the more choice quotes into the section would be more balanced. 24.136.38.121 13:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've added some of the more relevant quotes (I.e. the ones I've been made aware of) to the Wikiquote section easily avalable through clicking the link beside the text, so that should be sufficient in itself. It simultaneously serves to squash distortions of what he's actually said and highlight the statements which others have tried to hide.
If you want people to take better notice of it we could always add 'For further examples see the Wikiquote link to the right' at the end of the 'Controversies on the Internet' column. Dave 09:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table?

What's with the odd table after all the links and references? It seems to cover a random period of 13 years or so - why? --Charlesknight 09:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are sequence boxes. They're more at home on political and historical biographies where they show the succession of a particular post, i.e. for a President they'd show who preceeded and succeeded him in office. Some wikipedians have put them together for more minor successions like the sequence of writers/artists on particular Marvel comics as that box shows. Personally I think its overkill, but its their right. As to the random period of 13 years well that's just the blocks when Byrne was working for Marvel. There are gaps for when he was at DC, but DC wikipedians don't seem to be so keen on these boxes --Jason Kirk 12:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

But it just seems to be totally random - where's Iron-fist? Marvel Team-up? X-men: the hidden years? Spiderman:Chapter one? Where does Captain America/Batman go? --Charlesknight 12:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand it they are only for titles where there has been a long run - i.e. an actual sequence to document where its worth showing forward and backward links to the next artists/writers in the sequence. Hidden Years, CP/Batman and Chapter One were standalone projects so there was no sequence of before and after creators. If you think a particular sequence is missing then you're free to can add it in, that's the beauty of wikipedia. :) --Jason Kirk 14:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia controversy

Hey, mention this in the article please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.230.140.240 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians try to avoid self references in articles, but if there is a reputable source out there (such as a newspaper which published an article on this controversy), then there'd be no problem adding a note about it. ~MDD4696 18:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:LegendsthecollectionTPB.jpg

Image:LegendsthecollectionTPB.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Number of images

There are six images for a career spanning 30 years. That's two per decade for an artist who has written and drawn several of the medium's most significant titles and characters. I'm wondering if the editor who posted that template would discuss his rationale. Without such discussion, the template seems as it might not have been placed there seriously or in good faith. --Tenebrae 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northstar

"One of those characters, Northstar, became Marvel’s first openly gay superhero. Though intended by Byrne to be gay from the beginning, his homosexuality was only hinted at during Byrne’s tenure on the book." Are there any references to these hints that Northstar was gay during Byrne's tenure? I've read the comics recently and haven't found any hints that Northstar was gay during this time, though there are hints that he was heterosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.197.195 (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Without going back and rereading all 28 issues I would point to the story in issue #7 regarding Northstar's old friend Raymonde Belmonde and the comment Hudson makes in the Northstar origin story at the back of #10 about women being one of the trappings of fame that don't seem to have interested Northstar. I will admit I read both these comics several times without picking up on this subtext but Northstar's reaction to Sasquatch's change of gender in one of the later, Bill Mantlo penned, issues caused me to go back and re-evaluate them. Feefa (talk) 02:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Byrne vs. Wikipedia

Is this necessary or appropriate for the "Controveries" section? Is there a source which describes it as controversial? --Diagonal P. (talk) 13:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Tom Spurgeon, former editor of The Comics Journal called it a tussle.[1] That's the best I can get, there's nothing in the journal from that period that I can see. Hiding T 13:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Looking through the links suggests that the "tussle" specifically refers to Byrne's attempt to edit the article,[2] not the ban of Wikilinks from his forum. --Diagonal P. (talk) 14:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
True. That used to be what the article said, but then I think it was consensus to remove that version. This new text has been in the article for about a week, [3]. I've removed it per this discussion. Hiding T 22:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: External links

"External links" are "for further reading" sites ONLY, not sites used to support facts in the article. Those, like Byrne's official site, which confirms such basics as names, spellings, biographical facts, etc., go under References. There should also be no more than five or six Ext links per Wiki guidelines,. I deleted a duplicate link (You Go Ghoul) appearing in both Footnotes and Ext Links. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: 1999 relaunch of Hulk is Hulk v3, not v2

From the beginning of the 4th paragraph in the Later Career section: "Marvel hired Byrne in 1999 for a second volume of the series featuring The Incredible Hulk". That should be 'third volume'. Hulk volume 1 (the 1962 series) only lasted 6 issues. After guesting in a few books he became a regular in Tales To Astonish, which got renamed Hulk as of issue 102. This series (the 1968-1999 one) is volume 2, not volume 1 as many people think. This makes the 1999 relaunch volume 3. Of course Marvel claims all 3 series were volume 1, but marvel always says that. They get the volume number right less than 50% of the time and don't seem to care (ok I guess that "don't seem to care" bit is opinion). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.248.98 (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)