Talk:John Byrne/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Calm down?

Okay, I had no idea Byrne would get so upset over the message I left him; I felt it was reasonably polite and low-key, and by "actual facts" I was referring to the lengthy biography and bibliography which had both been deleted (why delete, for instance, the section on his She-Hulk run? I liked his She-Hulk run). I do apologize, both to Mr Byrne for any hurt feelings, and to Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation as a whole for any difficulties that may arise from this.

sigh - DS 21:36, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Already Calm

Don't worry. Byrne's bark is worse that his bite.

He's mainly frustrated because he doesn't wield the same control on his entry at Wikipedia as he does on his own, creator-dedicated forum -- which is only right, after all.

Byrne also detests aliasing in forum participation: he feels people should use their real names when expressing their opinions. Can't say I disagree with this.

Your article intermixes facts with opinions, and is presented in an authoritative manner which tends to blur this distinction. Perhaps this is because -- in John Byrne's case -- it is impossible to discuss the man's work without discussing the man ... something which is quite possible to do with another comic book creator name of Steve Ditko who keeps an extremely low profile and prefers to let his work speak for itself.

At any rate, Byrne should not be allowed to simply delete entire segments of the article any more than historians should be allowed to censor history. Opinions have as much merit as facts if they can be substantiated. So, for example, if you're going to present the Byrne / Shooter relationship in unvarnished detail, please reference this information so the reader can formulate his or her own opinion.

I think the article is pretty good, by the way. It is surprisingly up to date. However, I think its contents would be more balanced if there was more in it about those people that Byrne helped along or inspired in his career. Mike Mignola, if memory serves, got to launch his Hellboy in the pages of Next Men. Had Byrne not allowed this, we might not have had one Hellboy Movie and another in the works. There is also the former illustrator Vic Bridges who contributed to Image Comics a few years ago (for Erik Larsen's Freak Force, I think) and whose style was very clearly inspired by John Byrne's work on X-Men.

Thanks for your efforts and, please, don't let John Byrne intimidate you.

Jesusgarcia 22:58, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Radical experiment

John Byrne has complained that this article contains a lot of falsehoods, rumors, innuendo, etc. He has not yet given me specific details of what that means. But I read through the article and while it was pretty good, it was filled with a lot of 'weasel words' like "Some say..."

I'd like to see facts added back into the article (the facts from the parts I have removed for now) with exquisite attention to sourcing every little thing. If we don't have a source for it, don't say it. No speculation, no opinion, no editorializing. Shining clean pure neutrality with a hard hard look at sources.

--Jimbo Wales 01:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I suppose applying the same standard to the Anti-Masonic sections of the Freemasonry article is out of the question? --SarekOfVulcan 04:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


As one of the original expanders of the article, I can state that I had at least a few specific sources:

Primary Source 1: John Byrne's own site. Facts such as his first work can be viewed in the gallery, such as the "Gay Guy" and early snowbird features. Much of the facts of his run come from his own faq.

Primary Source 2: Three Comics Interview Issues, I wish I could remember the issue numbers. I think the first issues were solely dedicated to him. The second issue detailed his start on She Hulk and Avengers West Coast. The third was an interview by Patrick Daniel O'Neil dealing with X-Men.

Primary Source 3: The comics themselves.

--66.189.63.91 01:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe somebody with better access to their collections can help me here.


I removed the Controversy section twice, as it has at least one falsehood (John Byrne does not hate blonde Latinas) and deals in large detail with the picayune of what characters received in the author's eyes short shrift by the article subject. LightningMan 23:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Most of the article was very well sourced, if not explicitly sourced. The weakest material was the stuff which presented Byrne's side in various disputes, added by editors who considered themselves Byrne fans/supporters. Not to be excessively snarky, but one of the biggest problems in writing about Byrne is that his own accounts of events often change substantially (as I've pointed out in a few cites I've added to the article). He has a reputation in the industry as a control freak (fairly well deserved, from my experience). Given what he's said on his own board since you wiped the existing text -- that he wants the entry to consist of the current opening paragraph and a bibliography, with no discussion of his work and career -- it's pretty clear that his concerns can't, won't, and shouldn't be met. N. Caligon 18:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

John Byrne and His Orwellian Attempts At Preventing Talk Of Anything Negative About Him

Someone needs to do something about Byrne and his recent attempts to prevent this entry from telling the REAL story about him and his career, warts and all. Byrne, much like in the comics he ruins, is attempting to purge all mentions of his own vile activities on his message board and his substandard writing which has him disrespecting countless writers just to fuel his own narcisistic view of the industry.

In short, John Byrne made his bed and now has to sleep in it. And we shouldn't let Byrne get away with it......

Jesse Baker

Jesse, the material you are attempting to enter into this article violated our policies regarding NPOV. Our goal is to write a neutral article on Byrne, not a hatchet job. This doesn't mean that we will avoid all negative issues or controversies, just that writing it the way you apparently want is inappropriate. Inserting opinions and calling people "evil" is not appropriate for any Wikipedia article, not even Hitler's.

Also, you are close to violating the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. Please read this rule and adhere to it. Gamaliel 19:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Byrne isn't just deleting POV. He's blanking everything in the article except the list of his works! That's vandalism. If anyone else was doing it he'd have been blocked by now.--198.93.113.49 14:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to have to agree. The last version of the article was pretty decent, and I think between all the back-and-forths, we made it a fairly accurate article that worked out the history of his publication. Byrne apparently seems to believe the Encyclopedia entry should be simply a who's who article. But Wikipedia articles can get into minitue and details that a regular one wouldn't. --66.189.63.91 14:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
On the Byrne board he's refused to say what exactly is wrong with it. He seems to beleive that if he feels there is a single error in the page then the editors here should find it and fix it without him revealing what it is or the whole page has to be blanked. Call me cynical, but I don't think Byrne is capable of pointing out a particluar flaw in the article because if he claim something was innacurate it would only take a few days for someone to prove it was in fact true. Byrne is therefore forced to be non-specific.--198.93.113.49 15:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I have a modest suggestion. Most people (aside from John Byrne sycophants) agree that it is wrong of Byrne to vandalize his own Wikipedia article because he does not like any criticism. Some friends of mine are thinking of posting the original Wikipedia article without the Wikipedia logos or the unique web page design. Obviously, John Byrne will not be able to change this no matter how much he rants and raves. But if the text of the article itself comes from Wikipedia, would that violate Wikipedia's intellectual property rights?--Edward J. Cunningham --151.200.57.137 23:55 17 September 2005 (UTC)
All content on Wikipedia is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. Please see our license and copyright issues. Func( t, c, @, ) 23:07, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous edits

First of all, I am not a John Byrne fan (have only read a few of his comics since I live in Sweden and haven't really got much of an opinion on his work). I am of course not anti-Byrne either, for the same reason. I have only made a small edit here and has since had the page on my watch list, and I have to say that the constant "edit war" here is just ridiculous. All the anti-Byrne edits (and some pro-Byrne edits) make me wonder how some people can have so much time on their hands and so little life to fill that time with. Of course people are entitled to their own opinions, but when opinions are posted as fact on an encyclopedia website I can't understand when those people don't accept that their edits are removed. If you have opinions on Byrne's work and his personality, surely there must be better places where those opinions can be expressed.

And the now-infamous "goatse"-edits...*sigh*

To end my little rant here: This is an encyclopedia website. Let's try to keep in that way. Just cause you know a lot it doesn't mean you know the right stuff to include in an article. You can actually know too much - that's when you have formed an opinion on the matter that you can't avoid including in your posts. And that's when you shouldn't write it on an encyclopedia website AEriksson 21:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Expanded biography

The expanded biography appears to have been retrieved from a previous version of this page, which is fine. However, it needs to be edited for references that no longer exist.

LightningMan 23:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't remove references that no longer exist. This is counter to Wikipedia policy as found at Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style:

Because the Web is dynamic, it is possible that a web page used as a reference may become inactive. Do not remove such inactive references—even inactive, they still record the sources that were used. Make a note of the date that the original link was found to be inactive. If an Internet Archive copy of the page is known, add a link to that. Hiding talk 07:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

So, what, Byrne wasn't born in Walsall in Staffordshire? He didn't go to the Alberta College of Arts, his first exposure to superheroes wasn't Superman-on-the-BBC, he didn't succeed Cockrum on Uncanny?

I deleted the mention of Shooter as speculative, but these seem to be - as I mentioned in my very first message to JB - facts.

DS 12:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't edit the section and the references were to later text in the section that was no longer there, not web references. LightningMan 13:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

special treatment

So John Byrne sends a complaint to Jimbo Whales, and he immediately deletes 90% of the article? Now all of the hard work that went into it is supposed to be redone just to satisify the ranting of a man who will never be satisifed with anything.

Byrne's career section

1) Considering the things he has done post Marvel, including and especially Superman, if you're going to have a Byrne's career section, there needs to be more except...

2) While I am a fan of the guy, I believe that there are atomic scientists, humanitarians, and other figures deserving of more webspace here than a guy who draws comic books for a living (no offense to JB.) Brevity is the sole of wit and less likely to invite alterations and controversy. LightningMan 04:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Controversies non-section

What on Earth is the purpose of repeatedly inserting the Controversies section, which has not been NPOV any time I have seen it? LightningMan 13:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Byrne has been the subject of numerous controversies. This is simply a fact and any complete article on him cannot avoid this.--198.93.113.49 17:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Missing the point. The Controversies section that was repeatedly being tried to be inserted was easily not NPOV and was repeatedly attempted to be reinserted only to be removed by at least four different people. Why keep flogging a dead horse?
Also, Byrne has had numerous different things to eat over the course of his life; that doesn't ipso facto make them appropriate for a wikipedia article. If there is to be a Controversies section, it should, IMO, not dwell on minutia (such as a list of what characters were "mistreated" by the subject), should not be phrased as to create controversy, should be NPOV, and should be properly sourced. LightningMan 17:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree that a list of characters mistreated by Bryrne is likely not relevant. This is no excuse to not have a controversies section, however.--198.93.113.49 19:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that given what a controversial figure Byrne is in the industry, an encyclopedia article on him should touch upon some of the more controversial episodes on that front. The only real question is how many examples should be listed, and in how much detail. For example, since Christopher Reeve was such a famous person, mentioning the flap in which Byrne stated his opinion of Reeve vis a vis the word "hero" is appropriate. So is a brief mention of some of the "feuds" or "disagreements" he's had with people like Peter David, Todd McFarlane, Jim Shooter, etc. So is the very serious behavior he exhibits on his website. In sifting through the wheat and the chaff in this manner, I don't think the Jessica Alba flap needs to make the cut, but I can understand if others may disagree. All of this can easily be included in a NPOV wording. The mere mention of this aspect of his life and career is not necessarily POV. Nightscream 9.19.05. 1:37am EST.

Deleting comments

I cant' believe this has come up again, but once again user:Gamaliel is deleleting my comments. I request the help of everyone here to help me stop this. Whether you agree with me or not, please do not let Gamaliel censor this talk page. Wikipedia will neve work if we are not all free to take part in the discussions.--198.93.113.49 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

This talk page will not be used as a forum to insult John Byrne. Such comments will be removed immediately. This is non-negotiable and non-debatable. Gamaliel 16:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Full support for Gamaliel.--Jimbo Wales 01:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
"Non-debatable"?! this is Wikipedia for crtying out loud. Maybe you should give some serious thought whether or not this is the place for you.--198.93.113.49 16:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I think Gamaliel thinks this is the Byrne board (it has a "rep" for a reason). If he deletes your comments again, just ignore him and reinsert them - SoM 17:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
People who persist in reinserting insulting comments will be blocked. This is a forum for discussing the content of the article, not for insulting the subject of the article. Gamaliel 18:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks SoM. But the problem is Gamaliel has blocked me in the past for reverting his vandalism of my comments on the grounds that he calims my comments are insulting. The problem is that he is the final arbitrer of what is insulting. And there can be no negotionation and no discusion. Se his comment above. So please help me to revert the talk page whenever he deletes comments. If we all work together to restore each others comments when they are deleted then free discourse will still be able to take place. (see User talk: 198.93.113.49 for more info)--198.93.113.49 18:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

You seem to be laboring under a misapprehension that this is a comic book forum. This is a tool for editing the associated article. If you want to rail against John Byrne, there are any number of comic forums for you to visit. LightningMan 18:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The fact that this article is being treated differently than any other on wikipedia and that Bryne appears to have been given a license to delete everything he doesn't like by Jimbo is significant to the editing of this article and my attempt to discuss it should not be censored. I frankly, don't know what the rules are on this article. What can we add? I don't think I'm the only person confused. Look how little effort is being made to restore the things Byrne deletes. How atypical is that!!! If I'm misunderstanding the situation someone please tell me. That's how a discussion works. Please don't simply erase my comments. Explain to me what I'm missing. This is wikipedia people! We've got to discuss these things together whether or not we agree.--198.93.113.49 18:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
What do you want to add? What do you want to discuss? LightningMan 18:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to discuss what the rules aer for this page. Can we add factual content or do we need Byrnes approval? Can we revert Byrne when he deletes sections or does anything he deletes have to stay out.--198.93.113.49 18:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Please stop trying to stir up trouble. Byrne does not have final approval on anything. All Jimbo has asked us to do is rigorously fact and POV check the article. Please calm down. Gamaliel
Absolutely right. This is a problematic article, Byrne has some detractors trying to turn this into a one-sided rant. Byrne himself doesn't seem particularly interested (as is his moral and legal right!!) to help us fix it. So, we have to do the hard work ourselves, the hard way. Difficult, yes, but this is the mission we have chosen for ourselves. :-) --Jimbo Wales 01:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not trying to cause trouble. Please stop trying to misconstrue everything I ask. Jimbo has done more than ask us to fact check the article. He's DELETED most of it and given us no indication of what parts were objectionable. Was all of it wrong? Is this how other articles are treated? (this is not a rhetorical question please answer it.) And what about my other question. Can we revert John Byrne's deletions or not? I don't think I'm the only person confused by this. If you have an answer or something valuable to contribute to this discussion please, please do so. But I fail to see how this discussion is advanced by your attacks on me.--198.93.113.49 19:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Fact-checking involves leaving the thing up and going through it section-by-section on the Talk page and removing stuff after it's been checked and found wanting. Right now, the article's been essentially blanked even of basic stuff like the fact that he's Canadian, or that he worked on She-Hulk. - SoM 19:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Please respect Jimbo's wishes and let's use the talk page to work on this. Gamaliel 19:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
That's what we are trying to do. Some of us don't understand exactly what we are allowed to do. Could you please help us work this out instead of just trying to interfere with this discussion.--198.93.113.49 19:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

To SoM

Exactly. This is what I don't understand. Can we put those two facts back in? Is there something we have to do first? Can we never put them back in? Gamaliel won't give me a straight answer. Do you know?--198.93.113.49 19:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I just read through the original article all this controversy seems to regard (at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Byrne&oldid=20671633 if I understand it right) and I must say that it seems extremely tame, polite and to the point for such a great debacle. Compared to the general controversies I've read about these aren't presented in a particularly offensive manner.

That said, as I understand it, the matter which provokes most people is his tendency to shut himself in an environment where he ahas complete control of all information and regularly abuses this to censor anyone who proves him wrong in an argument or has a different opinion, including very high-profile comics-creators like Mark Waid. Meanwhile he chides everyone else for being 'cowards' for not entering this environment, even though it seems pretty pointless for anyone to put thought into something which will immediately get deleted. He would regain enormous amounts of goodwill if he started to play on even terms, whether with other creators, supporters, those who feel offended by his attitude, etc and relaxed somewhat with the need for absolute control. It would seem like the more mature approach.

Personally I used to find most of his quirks to be somewhat annoying, but nowhere near evil enough to warrant such obsession. The two single quotes which actually severely pissed me off were the following: "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."

"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."

Above he apparently supports the stance of preemptive genocide on the irish and the middle-east, which sounds very Stalin/Hitler/Hussolini/Mao/Hirohito-esque even if seemingly not an uncommon view these days. Then again, he might not have meant it and simply made the statements for effect.

If you're planning to reconstruct the Controversy section you might want to include his ongoing need for complete control to the point of absolute censorship of anyone disproving him and extremely rarely communicating with anyone unless through his forum. To my experience this seems like the main ongoing topic which annoys so many readers and professionals alike, so I was surprised to see that it was overlooked. This whole ordeal seems pretty in character for him given that background.

All the best in any case. It's too bad if you'll have to be forced into censorship, but I can see the argument that 'Yeah everyone has noticed him in the comic industry, but in the big World who cares really?', so it's obviously up to you guys.

Also thanks for helping to provide this information archive in the first place. You do great work and I find it quite useful.

David Andersson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.230.49.157 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Argh

Can we get this protected again, as the last version from me? Make sure it's a totally unvandalized version, please. DS 16:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

What's there to protect? The article has virtually no content. We might as well VfD it. That would stop the vandalism and it wouldn't cost us anything but a useless list of Bryne's works.--198.93.113.49 16:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Of course, you could always insert useful things for content. LightningMan 16:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
There was a more substantial biography of Byrne, but apparently Byrne himself deleted it. DS 16:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Indeed. IIRC, the reason he gave for deleting it was redundancy. Given that a person or persons insist on inserting a derrogatory point of view and that the article subject is going to heavily edit anything else, freezing might be the best option. LightningMan 16:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you could always insert useful things for content.

The problem is it's hard to tell what is considered accpetable by John Byrne and Jimbo. The rules for this article seem different from any others in Wikipedia and I'm at a loss as to how to proceed.--198.93.113.49 16:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'd stay away from Christopher Reeve, blonde Latinas, and sales of any particular comic book he's drawn for starters. LightningMan 17:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
There is nothing we can do at this point besides rigorously fact and POV check the article. Let's stick to the non-controversial parts for now, we can always insert a controversy section later, but it seems silly now when we don't even have a bio yet. Gamaliel 17:06, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that Byrne isn't willing to have more than the bare minimum - he even deleted the reference to himself being CANADIAN for crying out loud, let alone the actually controversial bits! I gave links to quite a few of his "controversial" comments before on this talk page - they're in one of the archives if you want to look. - SoM 18:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand your concern. Byrne will not get final veto approval on the article, but his concerns will be addressed as best we can address them. This is, of course, made more difficult by the fact that he won't identify his concerns, but there is no harm in rigorously fact-checking the article. Gamaliel 18:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't need links. As a member of his forum, I have read his so called controversial comments in context and, honestly, don't believe the comments are controversial. And the question for me would be the point of bringing them up at all. I really don't believe these "controversies" define the man or his work in any meaningful way nor do I believe they are anything all but a small segment of comic fans truly care about. LightningMan 18:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
That is not for you to decide. If something is factual then it's up to the consensus of the editors to whether or not it belongs in the article. It's one thing to object to innacuracies, but it's another to demand that factual content be left out just because Byrne doesn't like it.--198.93.113.49 18:25, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I never said it was for me to decide. And leaving it out has nothing to do with whether the subject likes it. As I said, it's a question of whether the section is truly appropriate at all. LightningMan 18:30, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
That is a worth while matter for discussion, but factual sections which do not violate copyright laws should not be deleted without any discussion.--198.93.113.49 18:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
So if I insert a description of how synthesizers are tuned to the eighth roots of two into the entry for Samuel Clemens it should stay? I don't think so. LightningMan 18:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
No. It should be moved to the synthesizer article. And information related to John Byrne should be moved the the John Byrne article. Wait, this IS the John Byrne article. So this is were it goes.
Honestly, if can't see the difference between adding a section on synthesizers to the Byrne article and having a section on John Byrne related controversies then maybe you should run along and let the rest of us take care of this.--198.93.113.49 18:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
My point is that Byrne's "controversies" are irrelevant (in my opinion, of course) and that irrelevancies should be excised. Again, as I stated earlier, John Byrne has eaten any number of different foods in his life; should this article be a repository of everything he has eaten? I think not. LightningMan 19:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it should. I fail to see how that makes it approriate to delete any section at all without so much as a discussion.--198.93.113.49 19:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
How can they be irrelevant when he's had more publicity for things like his remarks on Christopher Reeve and Jessica Alba than he's had for Lab Rats or Doom Patrol? - SoM 19:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Explain their relevance, then. Why is it important in knowing John Byrne the comic book artist what he had to say once about Christopher Reeve or Jessica Alba?
The relevance of these comments, as well as the majority of the other "Controveries" that were deleted (sans the inflammatory comments from Jesse Baker) is that Byrne has decided through his message boards over the last decade, that he's a public figure as well as a comic book creator. Things like his comment that using the term "word bubble" is equally as innapropriate as using the N-word are relevant because he's set himself up not only as a comic book creator, but as a commentator on all things comic book related.Stephen G 23:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
As a participant in said thread (James C. Taylor, you can look it up) it's a mischaracterization of what he was saying and I, a black man, did not take offense, and at any rate, as it wasn't in any comic book he did or in any public interview or column. A la Christopher Reeve and Jessica Alba, I still don't see the relevance. Your answer to me reads that it's relevant because he thinks he's hot stuff. That doesn't make it relevant, not in my opinion. LightningMan 20:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, no, it's not out of context. Byrne said that "word bubble" is an incorrect term. Someone else replied that they'd heard people use it before. Byrne then responded that just because someone uses the term N-word, that doesn't amke it right. With that exchange, he placed both terms on the same level, which immediately caused controversy. You weren't offended, but a number of other Byrne boarders were, yet he refused to acknowledge that perhaps he could have come up with a different example. Controversy, and a perfectly reasonable topic for inclusion in any biographical recounting of his life as a public figure.Stephen G 23:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
When did I say it was out of context? I said it was a mischaracterization and it is. He used an analogy to explain the appropriateness of the usage of a word. He did not on any level equate using "word bubble" with calling someone a nigger." I was one of those who didn't think he needed to come up with another example as the problem was with people having the ability to read. It is useful to note that most black members of the forum didn't have a problem with it and it was well meaning white people who decided to get offended by it. And at any rate, just because it happened doesn't mean it should be included in his biography. It was one thread in thousands. John Byrne was also "killed" by Marc Guggenheim on Law and Order. Should that be in his biography, too? LightningMan 21:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
There were several black members who were offended, and at least one rather eloquently and politely stated his reasons why and asked that John at least consider that what he said could be offensive. John decided not to, further fueling the controversy. Other comic book professionals took offense to it as well, discussing the topic on their message boards, thus fueling the controversial aspect of it. Just because you weren't bothered by it personally doesn't mean it didn't cause a bit of an uproar in the comic book community, of which John is a rather public and outspoken feature. And, yeah, as a bit of trivia, I thing the L&O factoid is a neat little piece of info that should be lsited under "Trivia".Stephen G 23:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Several black members? Nah. And it got posted on message boards, like gossip. Did it make a news outlet? Did it have an effect on John's career? Is it relevant? There are enough obessessed fanboys in the world that John's entry could be thousands of pixels long, but does it need to be? The only reason anyone has given me to include it is because it happened. But is it relevant to anyone beside the small group of people who are mad at him because he said it? LightningMan 23:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't keep tabs on everyone's race, but I can remember two posts in specific from gentlemen who told John that, as black men, they found his example to be offensive. A normal person would have apologized, perhaps with the caveat thet they didn't mean to offend in the first place. That didn't happen. And when a prominent comic book creator says something like that, it's news in the comic book world, not gossip. Just like it's news when Cheney tells someone to fuck themselves or Bush refers to someone as an asshole over a live mic. Again, if John doesn't want to be remembered or talked about for this sort of thing, perhaps he should consider what he's saying before going public with his comments.Stephen G 00:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The idea that Byrne's controversies are irrelevant, and comparable in importance to the different foods he's eaten in life, is specious. Byrne is a public figure, and his controversial statements are one of the things for which he is well known. It is the job of an encyclopedia to relate noteworthy events in a person's life, and indeed, other articles about public figures on this site naturally devote space to discussing these episodes in their lives. Whether Byrne made the comments in question in a comic book or whether someone thinks they "define" him is beside the point, as is whether they were a small number of threads in his forum. The comments raised controversy in the public community, and for that reason, examples of some of them are relevant to mention in a biography about him. Nightscream 9.19.05. 11:16am EST

Byrne is a public figure, and his controversial statements are one of the things for which he is well known. I challenge this assertion. It was only after I had joined his forum that I was aware of any of these so-called controversies, usually in conjunction with a few individuals who seem to have personal axes to grind with him, given the level of vitrol associated with the spreading of the controversies. And whether or not they are relevant is entirely on point. When you say the public community, do you mean comic book internet message boards? Was the Christopher Reeve comment covered anywhere by any news media, even comic book news media? Again, I point to Justice Clarence Thomas, a figure of more substance, who does not have a Controversies section. IMO, relevance is the key, and in particular revelance to his work. LightningMan 16:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

It was only after I had joined his forum that I was aware of any of these so-called controversies... I was aware of his reputation for controversial views and statements more than a decade ago, when I studied under Walter Simonson and Klaus Janson in art school. What difference does it make whether you're the Johnny-Come-Lately to the phenomena? Because you only became aware of them recently means that that's the criterion for relevance? You're personal perception, and not the many in the public?

...usually in conjunction with a few individuals who seem to have personal axes to grind with him, given the level of vitrol associated with the spreading of the controversies. Even if this were true, it does not mitigate the effect it has on public opinion on him. I have been made aware of these flaps, and did not detect any disproportionate amount of "vitriol" in discussions that were sparked about them.

And whether or not they are relevant is entirely on point. Agreed. I never said it wasn't. If you read my above post, you'll see that I said that Whether Byrne made the comments in question in a comic book or whether someone thinks they "define" him, and whether they were a small number of threads in his forum is beside the point. Not that "relevance" was beside the point. Relevance is determined by how they affect public perception of him.

When you say the public community, do you mean comic book internet message boards? Was the Christopher Reeve comment covered anywhere by any news media, even comic book news media? The news media is not the only forum in which things are made public, discussed, and public opinion can be gauged. The Internet, in fact, is one of the media, and that includes message boards, from which one can glean some idea of public perception. The same people who consume the news media are the same people who visit and post on message boards. Think about what you're saying. You're saying that something is only relevant for inclusion into the article if it was in the news media. By that logic, the article itself should not exist, since John Byrne has never (to my knowledge) been covered to any extent in the news media. Byrne's public persona is marked partially by his controversial views and statements. Just because you count yourself as one of the fans of his forum that does not like discussing him in a critical manner doesn't mean that your view of him or of what's relevant reflects the consensus of the public.

Again, I point to Justice Clarence Thomas, a figure of more substance, who does not have a Controversies section. Further proof that you didn't read my post, since I already refuted that canard. Wikipedia is a work in progress, and articles are only created and modified to the extent that there are those willing and interested in doing so. Comic book articles have an entire base of fandom to do this. It is simply possible that interest in the Supreme Court or in Thomas in particular is such that no one has done so yet. That does not mean that someone might not do so in the future. Moreover, you deliberately ignore the fact that any issues of controversey vis a vis Thomas' rulings are covered in his article in the quite lengthy section on Judicial philosophy, which covers matters regarding his rulings, his Constitutional interpretations, his divergence from the rest of the conservative wing of the court (namely Scalia), his views on affirmative action, on sodomy laws, etc. So a separate section on "Controversey" would be redundant, and indeed, the only difference between such a section and the one there now that covers such things is the word used as the heading of the section ("Judicial Philosphy" vs. "Controversy"), which just a matter of semantics. The idea, therefore, that the lack such a section for Thomas justifies omitting controversial instances from an article on Byrne, is a logical fallacy.

IMO, relevance is the key, and in particular revelance to his work. Your opinion. Not a fact, not consensus, and not reflective of public perception of Byrne. The article on Tom Cruise doesn't merely focus on his work. It details the flaps from 2005 pertaining to his romance with Katie Holmes, his odd behavior when interviewed by Oprah and Matt Lauer, and his statements about Scientology, psychiatry, addiction treatment, antidepressents, and Brooke Shields. Not just "his work." Where you get the idea that the only matierial appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia article about someone is their professional work, I don't know, but there is no basis for such an assertion, and it is not in line with generally understood and accepted purposes and precedents of encyclopedias, including this one. Nightscream 9.19.05. 3:29pm EST.

...and not reflective of public perception of Byrne. Is there a "public perception of Byrne"? To most Americans he's nobody or the guy that did Superman or the X-Men. He's not a personality in the same way an actor or other entertainer may be. It's only in the insular world of comic book fandom in the even more insular world of message board frequenters that there could even be said to be a public perception of Byrne. As to your example of Tom Cruise, if I cared whether or not he had a fair article, I'd be over there excising many of the same things you cite as belonging there. Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not a complete unauthorized biography. Again, if any controversies are truly relevant, they should be covered in their proper place in his history. LightningMan 20:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
By that logic, the article itself should not exist, since John Byrne has never (to my knowledge) been covered to any extent in the news media. John Byrne was in Time Magazine (March 1988, IIRC) regarding Superman. (Missed this earlier.) LightningMan 23:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there a "public perception of Byrne"? To most Americans he's nobody or the guy that did Superman or the X-Men. We’re not talking about most Americans. It is obvious that we’re talking about the industry and the community in which he works, and in which he is followed by those interested in it. Why you pretend that we’re talking only about the general public, I don’t know. And this is entirely off the originally point from which you quoted me, in which you stated, "relevance is the key, and in particular revelance to his work." My response to that stands: What is relevant in encyclopedias is all information that the reader might find interesting, which is and has always been the case in encyclopedias, on A&E’s Biography, etc. Incidents like the one we’re discussing help provide insight into the subject’s personality, and how those who are familiar with him/her perceive him/her, which is most certainly relevant to a biography or ‘pedia entry on him or her. The idea that only their work is relevant, is entirely your opinion, and such reference works are not constructed on the basis of merely your opinion. You have every right to express interest or lack of interest in given pieces of information about a subject as a reader. You do not, on the other hand, have the right to use that as a criteria when contributing to the article on that subject, at least not here. What you describe is more in line with an almanac, an index, or a checklist. Not an encyclopedia.

He's not a personality in the same way an actor or other entertainer may be. It's only in the insular world of comic book fandom in the even more insular world of message board frequenters that there could even be said to be a public perception of Byrne. Your use of the word “only” is irrelevant. Since when is the comic book industry, or Internet message boards not legitimate aspects of the public media? Again, if that’s the criteria you’re using, you might as well eliminate the entire article, and for that matter, all articles on comic book creators, since most in the general public have never heard of them. What difference does it make if the subject is an actor/other entertainer or a comic book writer/artist? Simple. None.

As to your example of Tom Cruise, if I cared whether or not he had a fair article, I'd be over there excising many of the same things you cite as belonging there. And you would be utterly wrong to do so, and your vandalism would be undone. Again, neither Wikipedia nor encyclopedias in general accumulate information based on what ‘’your opinion is of what’s interesting or relevant.’’

Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not a complete unauthorized biography. Just out of curiosity, why the qualifier "unauthorized"? Is that relevant somehow? Why not just argue that "this is not supposed to be a complete biography"? Simple. Because the phrase "unauthorized biography" carries a more negative connotation, stemming from its lack of cooperation with the subject, further proof that your arguments stem solely from a fan's uncritical adulation of Byrne, and not any objective viewpoint. So much for your ad hominem argument that the only ones who want a controversies section are ones with some type of ulterior motive.

Again, if any controversies are truly relevant, they should be covered in their proper place in his history. Not a bad idea, but many of these flaps don’t have a place in that history. Hence, their own section.

By that logic, the article itself should not exist, since John Byrne has never (to my knowledge) been covered to any extent in the news media.

John Byrne was in Time Magazine (March 1988, IIRC) regarding Superman. Now you’re trying to have it both ways. First you make arguments about Byrne’s entry based on the fact that the general public isn’t familiar with him. When I point out that ‘’everything’’ in the article (and about all comic creators) can be described as such, and that therefore you can just eliminate it all, you then say he was in Time magazine. Which is it, LM? Either he’s a public figure or he’s not. Either’s he’s known to the public or he’s not. I said he’s never been covered “to any extent” in the mainstream media. Did that Time article cover him “to any extent”? If it was about Superman, I doubt it. Try to keep your arguments consistent, okay? Nightscream 10.8.05. 5:15pm EST

2005-09-16 Neutrality Warning

How on earth could the article at present not be seen as neutral and factually accurate? Unless I missed something. LightningMan 17:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a standard notice applied to articles when requests for other editors are made at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. The article at present is fine, but we will eventually have to restore the rest of it, and that is the part in dispute and which has to be examined. Gamaliel 17:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, can an article be said to be non-neutral when the subject continuously reverts it? Might be better to speedy delete it as vanity. Hiding talk 18:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
That's a good point. If Byrne has control over his own entry it's nothing more than a vanity page. I'm certain it shouldn't be deleted, but I honestly can't figure out why it shouldn't.--198.93.113.49 18:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Just because someone actually cares what is written about him, a factual article about him is non-neutral? Byrne didn't start this page and the fact that it attracts so much attention says to me this is far from a vanity page. LightningMan 19:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
If he cares so much why can't he tell us what's wrong with it. The only artcile he seems happy with is one that says nothing about him. This page has become a bibliography. It's not an encyclopedia article.--198.93.113.49 19:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Its current status is not permanent. It will be an article again once we complete our work. Gamaliel 19:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
"Neutral" means "warts and all", not "whitewashed of facts the subject finds regrettable" - SoM 19:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Neutral means not supporting or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest. Nothing about warts. LightningMan 19:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
On the contrary, intentionally leaving out the warts is extremely POV.--198.93.113.49 19:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
So is shoving in warts without relevance. And your point? LightningMan 19:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

We are not forced to choose betweent two extremes of POV (biased for or biased against). An NPOV article will be balanced, and balance cannot be achieved if any mention of any controversy involving Byrne is prohibited.--198.93.113.49 19:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you justify the relevance of a controversy section for me, please? LightningMan 19:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
No, not since it's already been done. If someone else has a question about it I'll gladly explain it again, but it's pretty clear that you just don't care.--198.93.113.49 19:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't here then. I am now. And if I really didn't want to hear it, I wouldn't have asked. LightningMan 20:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Are you kidding? You have been here participating in the very discussion you're asking to be repeated.--198.93.113.49 20:05, 16 September 2005 (UTC)


I haven't found the part where you justify a controversies section. LightningMan 20:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
A "Controversies" section is completely relevant because, for better or for worse, saying and doing controversial things is a part of John Byrne's public persona. If John were able to simply move from one company and/or project without talking about the why's and wherefore's, then the Controveries wouldn't exist. However, he's always quick to talk smack about whoever he's having a feud with, making it public record and, by default, part of his biography.Stephen G 23:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
So why not say "John Byrne is outspoken, which some fans and comic book professionals find irritating" and be done with it, rather than listing every single teapot tempest that ever happened? LightningMan 20:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I tend to agree in theory, but everyone's measuring stick is different. The "blonde latinas look like hookers" comment is something that, at best, I would only mention in passing. However, his professional and public feuds I feel are 100% relevant and worthy of spending time and details on. The problem is, John doesn't want ANY of this to show up on his Wiki entry, so people are going to throw everything at the wall and hope that, eventually, some of it will stick.Stephen G 23:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
If the professional animosities are found relevant, then deal with them historically during the timeline when they're relevant, rather than have a flashpoint section which will get edited over and over again. LightningMan 21:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, no matter how these are presented, John is going to continue to delete everything. I think that by placing it under the header of "Controversies" it actually helps since it separates the personality of the man from his work, which is really how he should be viewed.Stephen G 23:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
By placing it under Controversies, it helps John and others (including me) throw out the baby with the bath water. If any particular controversy is truly worth including in an article about the man, let it take its proper place in the chronology, rather in an inflammatory section. LightningMan 22:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
This would be great except for 2 things. One, other entries have a specific Controversies section - it's something Wikipedia users are used to and look for. To specifically avoid it in Byrne's entry gives him special treatment, which is totally unnecessary. Secondly, even if these were all incorporated into the timeline, John will simply delete them all. He has no interest in truth vs falsehoods on the Wikipedia - he just wants everything deleted, which simply isn't about to happen.Stephen G 23:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
If Justice Clarence Thomas can live without a Controversies section, dealing with stuff chronologically, then I am pretty sure the world can get along without a John Byrne Controversies section. LightningMan 23:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

And indeed, as a Supreme Court Justice, if someone wanted to add such a section to Thomas' article, it would not be unreasonable to do so. Wikipeida is a constant work in progress, and there's nothing preventing someone from eventually adding such a section to Thomas' article, perhaps to touch upon the accusation that Thomas has little legal voice of his own, and merely parrots the conclusions of fellow Justice Antonin Scalia. The idea that a section on the numerous controversies of a person's life needs to be "justified" in an biographical article on him is to ignore the fundamental reasons for an encyclopedia in the first place. Such a section doesn't have to be justified, because its justification is self-evident; it goes with the territory of an encyclopedia. To ignore obvious point is ridiculous. Nightscream 9.19.05. 11:24 EST

Just a note of appreciation to Gamaliel

I think you're doing a great job in a difficult situation. Hopefully you'll get a complete page that all can live with. LightningMan 19:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Gamaliel 20:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

"His old stuff was better"

I noticed that someone added a comment about many fans feeling Byrne's old stuff was better and it was removed. I can understand why it might be inaproriate, but it is a very common sentiment and one that Byrne has made mention of (and his reasons for why his new stuff is in fact better) on numerous occassions. Since it is a real issue that comes up a lot (I don't know why, but it certainly does) is there a reasonable way to work in into the article perhaps with a quote from Byrne explaining why he feels his new stuff is actually better or why he thinks some fans claim his old stuff is better when it is not? This might also be tied into Byrne's thought's (via a quote) on what Byrne thinks of people who claim he dones't draw backgrounds.--198.93.113.49 19:50, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

That's a good idea, though I feel that we should tackle the factual stuff before we venture into areas of fan opinion. I removed the sentence because 1) it was from a troll who also inserted a bunch of other vandalism and 2) it was clearly inappropriate for the intro paragraph. Gamaliel 19:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to your removing them. As I said I understand. But I do think something on the subject may be approriate in a different form. As for the order in which we tackle issues, you may be right but since this is on open editorial process and it's not very rigorously controlled sometimes I think issues just have to be taken in the order they com up for better or for worse.--198.93.113.49 20:08, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
And as an aside I would like to respectfully ask you to explain why it's okay for you to call someone a "troll" in this forum but I cannot call someone "a bitter old man". You may feel that your descriptions is accurate and therefore justified even though it is insulting, but I feel my description of Byrne was accurate and therefore justified even though insulting.--198.93.113.49 20:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Reworking the article

Let me propose working on this in a more organized fashion. I suggest we as a group focus on one part of the article at a time, starting from the beginning of his career. Once we factcheck a section we can place it back into the article, and of course revert anyone who removes it without discussion. You are free to ignore this suggestion or come up with another proposal. Gamaliel 19:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable plan to me.--198.93.113.49 19:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Step one: Pre-Marvel

Let's focus on these paragraphs.

John Byrne was born on July 6, 1950 near West Bromwich, England. His first exposure to the American superheroes that would dominate his professional life was at the age of six when he first watched The Adventures of Superman on the BBC. In Britain, he was able to read domestic comics such as The Eagle, as well as the occasional DC Comics reprint, but it was not until 1958 when his family migrated to Canada that he first experienced the full breadth of America comic books [1].
His first encounter with Marvel Comics was in 1962 with Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Fantastic Four #5. He later commented that, "the book had an 'edge' like nothing DC was putting out at the time." [2] Jack Kirby's work in particular had a strong influence on Byrne and he has since chronicled many of the characters Kirby created. This included a stint on the Fantastic Four that is considered by some to be second only to Lee and Kirby's run. Besides Kirby's influence, Byrne has also stated that his early artwork was heavily informed by the realistic style of Neal Adams.
In 1970 Byrne enrolled at the Alberta College of Art and Design in Calgary, but he left shortly before graduation to pursue a career in the comic book industry. At college he produced his first full-length comic story, The Death's Head Knight, as a promotional portfolio of his comic book art. That book was seen by a fellow Canadian comics fan, who put Byrne in contact with both the then burgeoning fanzine community, and Marvel Comics.
Whilst still living in Canada Byrne split his time between working for a local advertising agency and illustrating books for Charlton Comics. It was at this point that Byrne coined the phrase "Byrne Robotics" to credit a group of assistants he occasionally used for his Charlton work, the phrase later being adopted for the artist's official website ("Byrne's Robots", (March 2001), Comic Book Artist #12, pp54).

They seem pretty solid to me, though one poster on Byrne's board says that the Superman show was on ITV and not the BBC. My personal view is perhaps there's a bit too much trivia in here that we can cut down. Gamaliel 19:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Byrne himself says BBC so I say we go with that unless have concrete envidence it was ITV. My only concern is with the sources which are on Byrnes website. Byrne could delete the references on his own site there by killing the links and eleminating the references. However, making copies of his pages is problematic because he claim copyright on everything he post there.--198.93.113.49 20:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
His birth and location of birth are dealt with in the short intro paragraph and while not in conflict gives two locations (in essence) for his birth. If the birth is staying in the intro paragraph, I'd remove it from the main body.
I also agree that there is mucho fat that a casual fan really wouldn't care about or find interesting such as what channel the show was on. Why mention it at all? I'd mention the move to Canada, as there are relevant Canadian associations that reappear later in his work output. But there should be some trimming. LightningMan 20:11, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I understand a desire for conciseness, but I think making an issue of the inclusing of "on the BBC" is over doing it a bit.--198.93.113.49 20:15, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome to think what you like, but I don't see the relevance of including the channel "The Adventures of Superman" aired on in the UK. And last I checked, I can say that. LightningMan 20:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Can we all agree on this as being NPOV and factually correct? My preference would be to remove the reference to BBC, since the network isn't important and it seems to be a small controversy. Does anyone else have any points of contention they feel need clarified? --Haborym 23:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Two other things. Could we replace Whilst with While? And rather than call the section "Pre-Marvel", how about "Early years" or something like that? LightningMan 00:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree on both points. "Early Years" is much better since this section would include history apart from working in the comic book industry. The only other solution is moving the final paragraph into "Pre_Marvel, and the size and breadth doesn't seem to merit that. --Haborym 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Pre-Marvel was only intended to be a talk page heading. Gamaliel 03:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've often seen "Early Years" in Wiki articles referring to childhood. How about "Early Career"? That would be more specific. Nightscream 9.19.05. 11:29am EST.

As the section starts with his birth and includes his childhood connection with Superman and the Eagle, Early Years, even if it makes you think childhood, is appropriate. LightningMan 16:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The double birth thing

I was being serious when I brought it up. The introductory paragraph specifies his birth location and then the first paragraph of this section gives a "near" location that is not the same. I would suggest that they at least match, if not have one eliminated entirely. I would be interested in what you, Haborym, have to say or anyone else. LightningMan 00:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Byrne's FAQ says "near West Bromwich". Marquis Who's Who (which IIRC takes its information directly from the subjects) says Walsall, as do a couple of pages I googled up, and our own article on Walsall. Walsall is in fact near West Bromwich (10 km), and barring a declaration from Byrne himself, who is inclined to be unhelpful, I suggest we go with Walsall. Gamaliel 02:52, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Comics creators on Fantastic Four, which features interviews with Tom DeFalco, lists Byrne's place of birth as "West Bromwich, Staffordshire, UK". As this is a standard table for each interviewee, I'd reckon that Byrne himself suplied the information. Timrollpickering 17:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite part one

Thoughts and factchecking on this would be appreciated:

Byrne was born in Walsall, England and his family moved to Canada when he was eight. His first exposure to the American superheroes that would dominate his professional life was reruns of American programs like The Adventures of Superman on British television. In Britain, he was able to read domestic comics such as The Eagle as well reprints of DC Comics. [3].

His first encounter with Marvel Comics was in 1962 with Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Fantastic Four #5. He later commented that, "the book had an 'edge' like nothing DC was putting out at the time." [4] Jack Kirby's work in particular had a strong influence on Byrne and he has since chronicled many of the characters Kirby created. This included a stint on the Fantastic Four that is considered by some to be second only to Lee and Kirby's run. Besides Kirby, Byrne was also influenced by the realistic style of Neal Adams.

In 1970, Byrne enrolled at the Alberta College of Art and Design in Calgary. He created superhero parody Gay Guy for the college newspaper, which poked fun at the campus stereotype of homosexuality among art students. Gay Guy is also notable for featuring a prototype of the Alpha Flight character Snowbird. While there, he also published his first comic book, The Death's Head Knight from ACA comics. [5]

Byrne left the college in 1973 without graduating. He began working for Charlton Comics, starting with the publication of ROG-2000 in the pages of E-Man. Byrne worked on the books Wheelie and the Chopper Bunch, Doomsday +1, Space: 1999, and Emergency!.

This included a stint on the Fantastic Four that is considered by some to be second only to Lee and Kirby's run. Even though it is complimentary to Byrne, I would avoid this sentence without attribution to someone. LightningMan 04:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
As much as I agree with the sentiment, I think that the "second only to Lee and Kirby" sentence could be dropped without sourcing. Also, the work featuring The Death's Head Knight was actually ACA Comix #1, from the same source "ACA Comix #1 cover. JB's very first published comic book art."
Not sure if this is workable in this context, though it's worth throwing in for a "will he ever return?" bit:
From Byrne's interview in DeFalco, Tom Comics creators on Fantastic Four (London; Titan Books, 2005) (ISBN 1845760530) pages 109-110:
[DeFalco]: Would you ever go back to Fantastic Four if you could?
[Byrne]: Probably not. Here's where I do my Steve Ditko impression and I say I never want to go back. My FF, whether it deserves it or not (and I make no personal judgment on it) has become legend. The thing I hear most is that it is considered "second only to Stan and Jack's run," and I go, "Yeah, sure." I just get nightmares whenever I think about going back to Fantastic Four and having to compete with my own legend. My first issue would just such so bad because it wouldn't be as brilliant as what I did before... even if it was exactly the same as what I did before. But the, what I did before probably wasn't as brilliant as people remember.
Feel free to point out if I need to provide further references for this. There's quite a bit of information in that book which can provide good references, both on his FF work and his early days. Timrollpickering 13:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
It's a good quote, but again it [greatness of the FF run] is something he's heard and therefore not attributable. Moreover, I don't know if we need to deal with the question of whether he'll return to this property or that property, because even if someone says they'll not revisit something, sometimes they do anyway. LightningMan 16:36, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggested rewrite part two

Feedback and factchecking would be appreciated: Gamaliel

John Byrne was born in Walsall, England and his family moved to Canada when he was eight. His first exposure to the American superheroes that would dominate his professional life was reruns of American programs like The Adventures of Superman on British television. In Britain, he was able to read domestic comics such as The Eagle as well reprints of DC Comics. [6].

His first encounter with Marvel Comics was in 1962 with Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's Fantastic Four #5. He later commented that, "the book had an 'edge' like nothing DC was putting out at the time." [7] Jack Kirby's work in particular had a strong influence on Byrne and he has worked with many of the characters Kirby created or co-created. Besides Kirby, Byrne was also influenced by the realistic style of Neal Adams.

In 1970, Byrne enrolled at the Alberta College of Art and Design in Calgary. He created the superhero parody Gay Guy for the college newspaper which poked fun at the campus stereotype of homosexuality among art students. Gay Guy is also notable for featuring a prototype of the Alpha Flight character Snowbird. While there, he also published his first comic book, ACA Comix #1, featuring "The Death's Head Knight". [8]

Byrne left the college in 1973 without graduating. He began working for Charlton Comics, starting with the publication of ROG-2000 in the pages of E-Man. Byrne worked on the books Wheelie and the Chopper Bunch, Doomsday +1, Space: 1999, and Emergency!.

Corrected first published work and removed "second only to Lee and Kirby" line, the only reliable sourcing I could find was a quote from Byrne himself attributed to unnamed fans. --Haborym 05:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing here that I personally know to be wrong. As historian Mike O'Brien has stopped by, hopefully he'll help with this effort. If not, at least I get to say Hi to him again. LightningMan 13:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the tweak, Gamaliel. I'm starting to feel like we're finally making a little headway here. Sorry to anyone whose comments I deleted, it wasn't purposefully done. Gamaliel restored them. He's my new hero. --Haborym 00:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've decided to be bold and add this section to the article even though it is currently vandalism protected. If there are any objections to this decision or any corrections or changes that still need to be made to that section, please let me know by posting here. Gamaliel 18:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The line In Britain, he was able to read domestic comics such as The Eagle'' should either begin In the United Kingdom or In England and there is an as missing in the this excerpt: as well reprints of DC Comics. . Byrne also worked roughly 11 months for an outdoor advertising company early on, [9], I'm not sure that rates a mention or not? If you need a reference for the Neal Adams influence, use the Goulart The Great Comic Book Artists one, in there Byrne mentions he spent five years trying to draw like Neal and then five years trying not to draw like Neal. Byrne has also mentioned Stan Lee, Claremont and Len Wein as influences on his writing. [10] Hiding talk 19:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I've added the missing 'as' and the Adams footnote. I'm not sure the outdoor ad company is all that important, but I can add it if people disagree. Gamaliel 19:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The outdoor information might make a good addition to a complete biographical book, but unless it played some role in getting him to the works for which is most known (other than keeping him alive), I am for leaving it on the cutting room floor. LightningMan 19:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Biography and Career sections

It seems there's a bit of redundancy here. What are everyone's thoughts on combining the two together? Gamaliel 19:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of combining them.--198.93.113.49 19:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Quite redundant. I can dig combining. LightningMan 20:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Under Attack?

Lots of drive by changes just to be "funny". I'd freeze the page until new sections that are hashed out on the talk page are ready to be added. But that's just me. LightningMan 20:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Why can't it just be put back?

I’m not claiming to be the “Wikipedia expert” or anything but what would be wrong with reverting the entry back to the point before Mr. Byrne first made his edit/deletions?

Then Mr. Byrne, if he so chooses, can dispute individual facts via the talk page.

It just seems like a waste of time, to me, to have the article completely recreated when a reasonable version of it already exists and is available to be posted. Especially when Mr. Byrne’s deletion of the items in question was against Wikipedia policy.

I agree.
Unfortunately, we've had a pronouncement from on high that we've got to wipe it out and start again, using a standard that no other Wikipedia article, even the now-Featured Articles started from.
Me, I don't get it. - SoM 22:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
God forbid you ever get famous and have anonymous Tom, Dicks, and Harrys with too much time on their hands infuse what could be a good article about you with irrelevancies. I have never found any version of the Wikipedia article fair primarily because of the insistance on the Controversies section, which appears to only serve the purpose of giving people who have a personal axe to grind against John Byrne a public place to do so. I also cannot understand how people cannot understand why John would want to challenge this stuff, especially when he is alive and available for fact checking. LightningMan 22:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

John may be alive and available for fact checking, but he has no interest in doing so. Therefore, we're left with his public message board posts and various online and print interviews and articles to draw facts from. Problem there is, John refuses stand by any statement he's ever made in print or online. If he doesn;t write it himself, it's not a fact, even if it's a direct quote from something he did write in the past.Stephen G 23:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

He has no interest in doing so? Then why is he here deleting the crap? He is on line a good portion of every day in the same damn place and has answered just about every question one could think of, which may, in fact, be part of the problem. LightningMan 23:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
In a place which is - quote - "strictly limited to fans of John Byrne" - unquote - and which has aquired a reputation, with good reason, for Byrne and his mod(s) capriciously deleting any post which displeases him in any way and banning on a whim - SoM 13:55, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
He's here DELETING the entries, not making CORRECTIONS. And sadly, the majority of what he's deleting is factually correct, oftentimes sourced from those posts you refer to on his own forums. Or at least it was until he made an issue of it on his forum, essentially calling out all the trolls to come and screw with the entry.Stephen G 23:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not defending his actions. Frankly, were our positions reversed, I'd just sue this place and be done with it, honestly. (Something to remember if I ever warrant an entry here.) But you have to admit you know why he's come here and filleted the article, even if you don't agree with it. LightningMan 00:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
No, I don't know why since the first time he deleted everythnig he was clearing out nothing that was incorrect or even nasty to him. John just hates not having control of everything said about him, going back at least as far as the early days of AOL when he'd constantly make demands on AOL admins to delete entire threads if he didn't like what they were saying about his art or whatever. As for suing Wikipedia, there's absolutely no grounds for it. Anything truly libelous is deleted as soon as it's noticed, and those posting such remarks tend to be banned if they can't control themselves.Stephen G
All the talk about suing Wikipedia would seem to be a violation of the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. *Dan T.* 02:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Dan, I did not threaten to sue Wikipedia. A careful reading what I wrote says that is what I would do if I were in John Byrne's shoes. He hasn't threatened to do so and I am not threatening to do so. If anyone else takes anything else I wrote that way, I suggest you read it again. If I did not believe there was a purpose or point to Wikipedia, I'd be reading about my beloved baseball team right now. LightningMan 16:54, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Man, I'd really love to see a lot of the original entry back online. Quite a disappointing move by Wikipedia. This won't go down well in the blogosphere. -- Nick Douglas 05:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny, I thought the blogosphere liked fact checking and accuracy. LightningMan 06:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Jokes are not opinions.

Lot of people take for expressions of Byrne's opinions things that are only jokes. The reason is that lot of anti-Byrne are doing their best to make people think that he's a jerk. A good exemple of that is the "Blonde latino hooker" case: Byrne was only answering the thread about Jessica Alba playing Sue Storm in the FF movie with a quick joke. She just had played a blonde hooker in Sin City (or maybe it'll be more accurate to say striper) hence the joke. That never was meant to be an offence to the latinos. Funny, i see that there's already a "Stephen G." here. Stéphane (the french for Stephen) Garrelie (Stéphane Garrelie 00:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC))

How is this quote a joke? "Personal prejudice: Hispanic and Latino women with blond hair look like hookers to me, no matter how clean or "cute" they are. " Again, I think that this stuff is worthy of being a part of the man's biography since he says it in public as a public personality. 24.205.22.29 02:12, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Simply because it's a ref to Nancy from the sin city movie played by a blond Jessica Alba, like Sue Storm.(Stéphane Garrelie 02:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC))

And Anyway it was said on the tune of a joke. a quick joking answer. Not an attack against a minority. People take that faaaar too much seriously.(Stéphane Garrelie 02:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC))

The entire post, in reference to a photo of Alba dressed as Sue Storm- "Personal prejudice: Hispanic and Latino women with blond hair look like hookers to me, no matter how clean or "cute" they are. Somehow those skin tones that look so good with dark, dark hair just don't work for me with lighter shades. Like I said -- personal prejudice." No joke, no mention of Sin City (where Alba plays a stripper, not a hooker) which hadn't even been released yet. The post set off weeks of arguments and controversy not only on the Byrne boards but across the blogosphere and message boards over whether or not Byrne was racist, hence it's relevance in the biography of the man.

But we already had saw the trailer of Sin City, and yes the beautiful Jessica Alba plays a striper not a hooker (see my first post, I mentioned it.). I think there was a ref to sin city in the Byrne Joke. And it was obviously a joke. "personal prejudice:" "to me" "like i said -- personal prejudice", this alone shows that it's not presented as an absolute truth. "Hispanic and Latino women with blond hair [...]. Somehow those skin tones that look so good with dark, dark hair just don't work for me with lighter shades." this part is an esthetic judgement from someone who is (maybe it would be good to not forget this point) an artist. It not a racist attack. "Hispanic and Latino women with blond hair looks like hookers to me" this part is an obvious joke. Maybe not very tasteful, but is it really necessary to always be politicaly correct? What the net made of that after is another matter. The problem if you present this in a bio of the man is that, like the use of the word "nigger" ("N-word" pffft!!!) it would be considered like a racist statement. Do you realy think that the man who had so many inter-ratial love relationships for his characters in the series whith Claremont (Misty Knight/Iron Fist), (Logan/Mariko), or the ones he wrote alone (Miss Hulk/Wyat Wingfoot), and currently I thing we can hope for something between Detective Sandra Kinckaid and Jason Blood, do you think that a man who co-plotted such stories when there were not so many minority characters in comics and no interacial couple at all if my memories don't fool me, and still does this today, is a racist? No way. What you would include in the bio is what many posters in various comics boards thought that it was when some other people presented this to them in the first place as being racist. which means that the comment would be biased. Is it relevance or not to the bio of the man? frankly I'm not sure that it's important enough to be in a bio; but the real problem IMO is how it would be presented. If there were Byrne's post and the various interpretations from the fans obviously presented as interpretations, it could be interesting. But would it be relevent to the bio of a man who is a comic book artist and writer, and not a polemist or a politician? Do you imagine the place that would be necessary to give a fair statement of the whole case? It would focus the attention of the readers on something that is secondary, to the detriment of his work. Maybe it would fit more to another article called "Fandoom and comics creators" with a link to this in the Byrne article, but nothing more.(Stéphane Garrelie 11:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC))

It's heresay, BTW, Alba was not blonde in Sin City (I just did an image search, so I withdrawal the statement in italics), and I think the likelyhood of JB being a rascist is about the same as him being a cannible, more than Byrne Bashers will ever have of getting a life, but significantly less than what most people consider worthy for being considered as fact.


I don't think it's relevant to an encyclopedia entry about John Byrne to put in his comments about latino women with blonde hair looking like hookers but I think it's totally ridiculous the spin loyal Byrne fan Stéphane Garrelie is using to try and explain away his comment. Nowhere in his comment does it appear to be a joke or a funny shot at Sin City and if you read the whole thread Byrne actually defends his words as being his personal opinion, nowhere does he say that it was a clever nod to Sin City. It wasn't a quick, jokey answer as Garrelie would like you to believe and that's the problem with this whole thing. If people at the Byrne board want to accuse everyone of trying to make Byrne look like a jerk here, they are also guilty of trying to put the most positive spin on every instance of bad behavior Byrne has shown over the years. An agenda is being demonstrated by both sides.

The man also has a history of writing and creating gay characters, but has at times in the past shown he's less than tolerant of them in real life. One example of this was an interview in which he cited Bob Layton as his least favorite inker because he makes all Byrne's men look like queers. So, yeah, specifically due to this dichotomy between his professional work and his personal public statements, I believe it's relevant to his biography. As for the term "personal prejudice," it's not code for "this is a joke." (google the term - http://www.google.com/search?=en&q=%22personal+prejudice%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8) It means that Byrne has, on a personal level, a prejudice against blonde latinas. Is it racist? I'm not sure that it is. But it did spark a controversy that lasted over 25 pages of postings on his messageboards alone, and never once did he come out and say it was a joke based on Sin City or anything else. That's something you and others are bringing to the table after the fact.Stephen G 19:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I want a citation for the interview where he said Bob Layton was his least favorite inker because he makes all Byrne's men look like queers. If you can't produce it, I want a retraction.
As to personal prejudice, before the word became code for bigotry it meant "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation" (from Wordnet.Princeton.edu ). Thus all he was saying was that he is not partial to blonde Latinas. Last I checked, he had that right. LightningMan 20:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Byrne said the substantial equivalent of that in an relatively early fanzine interview (AH or TCJ, probably the latter), although it wasn't quite so baldly stated. Pretty close, though. If I remember it right, he claimed to be passing along someone else's comments, but his approval of the comments was clear. N. Caligon 22:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all I'm not a "spin loyal Byrne fan". The Byrne board is only one of the boards on which I post, and not the first on which I registered. To say everything I didn't register until very recently because before Blood of the demon I wasn't a fan of his post-1995 work. BotD is IMO the return of Byrne to a very interesting level of quality. Second point: the Sin City source is my analysis of this joke, nothing more. Third point: what makes it a joke if you read my long post is not "Personal prejudice", it's "Hispanic and latino women with blond hairs [always] look like hookers to me" and such a sentence after Jessica Alba playing a blond striper in sin city doesn't seems un-linked to this movie. just my opinion. But it was an obvious joke in the context of posters making comment about Jessica Alba playing sue storm after having played Nancy.(Stéphane Garrelie 20:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC))

If my memories don't fool me Byrne said "makes all men looks like WOMEN", not "like queers". But I have to check the board to be sure.(Stphane Garrelie 20:32, 17 September 2005 (UTC))


You're wrong Stéphane, go back and look at thread again and you'll see Byrne was the first person to jump into the thread to let everyone know his "personal prejudice" there was no joking around in that thread. Somebody just started it to tell people Jessica Alba had been cast as Sue Storm. I don't remember anyone thinking what he posted was funny. Nice try though, keep spinning. Your impression doesn't change what really happened and since you are the only person to make that connection I find your motives highly suspect. I'm also looking at the interview Byrne did in the Comics Journal #57 and here is the direct quote about Bob Layton, "It's like everything is greasy and slimy....and all his men are queer." Please double check just to satisfy your own curiosity but you can't spin this one, since I can easily scan the page in and show everyone.

Your welcome to scan it. And please sign your posts (~~*~~) just remove*. I saw the "makes all men look like xxxx" on the net. on his board I think. not in a magazine. The fact that many people took the "blond hispanic hoooker" thing seriously doesn't mean that it wasn't a joke. (Stéphane Garrelie 21:26, 17 September 2005 (UTC))

Here is the link to the Alba/Sue Storm/hispanic hooker thread: Albabyrne Make your own opinion people. I hold on my own that it's a joke+the esthetic judgement of an artist and not a racist attack against a minority or even the beautiful Jessica Alba. The controversed post is page 1 post#7 (EDIT: post #4 was an error.). For a more serious approch of what Byrne think check his many posts page 9. Stéphane Garrelie 22:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a joke... not to mention it's not actually funny. Maybe its being retconned into one ;) The follow-ups, that a blonde Alba was a bad choice for Sue Storm and that people shouldn't play what they don't look like (acting's long history of having white men play women, blacks and asians notwithstanding) seem to confirm the non-jokiness. Auz 11:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I never said It was funny. If you want my opinion it's a bad joke, but it's still a joke. On the other hand you're right about the rest of the thread. for an exemple the page 9 that I recomand is very serious and present the real opinion of Byrne and his ideas on that matter. The Joke is only the controversed post#7 by Byrne p.1(and not post#4 like I said- my bad. error corrected). Stéphane Garrelie 23:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. Nowhere in that whole thread did Byrne say he was making a joke. If he didn't like the casting of Jessica Alba as the Invisible Girl all he had to say was she didn't fit the part. Making the comment that "all latino girls with blonde hair looks like hookers to me" is a derogatory comment and the fact that you can't see that doesn't change the meaning of his statement. Once again I will say that I don't think this stuff needs to be put into an encyclopedia entry about John Byrne but I do find it strange that you think what he said was funny.

You still forgot to sign? "Funny", thats another question. What I said was that Byrne said that on the tone of a joke. a quick joke. For what he really thinks check his many posts p.9. I've already said that but it seems that you choose to ignore its existence.Stéphane Garrelie 23:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Full quote regarding Bob Layton from an old issue of TCJ - "This is going to sound really silly, but I actually feel physically ill when I look at Bob's stuff. I really do. It's like everything is greasy and slimy. You know those things you hang from your rear-view mirror that are made out of rubber and you touvch them and they feel greasy? That's how Bob's stuff looks to me. And all his men are queer. They have these bouffant hairdos and heavy eye make-up and an upper lip with a littel shadow in the corner which to me says lipstick. Even the hulk. I will never forgive him for what he did to the Hulk's face in the annual we did together. A lot of the other stuff I liked, but the Hulk face, and the Angel's face - the Angel. God! I remember my father looking at the state of the finished inks and there's a shot of the Angel standing there with his hands on his hips saying hello to somebody and my father said, "Well, this guy's queer." "No, he didn't look queer in the pencils, Dad." Now, if the man said this in an interview that was printed in a magazine, explain to me why it shouldn't be allowed to show up in his biography when discussing the curious dichotomy between his usage of gay characters in his stories and his real world reactions to and comments about gay people.Stephen G 02:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The Answer is that there is no "curious dichotomy" in regards to John Byrne's usage of gay characters and his real world reactions. It is a non-existant issue that has nothing to back it up. It is, basically, just rumoring and you pushing an agenda. If this were the most comprehensive listing of John Byrne ever, if this were a multi-volume study of his life, one could debate the issue you brought up, and find that, in fact, based on time and geographic location, the terms he used were not meant in a derogatory way, but rather a discriptive way. First - if you read your above quote, Byrne is not saying that "queers" are "greasy and slimy"; rather he notes that Layton's art is "greasy and slimy. AND all his men are queer." Two separate points. Next, he's not suggesting a moral problem with the nature of homosexuality, which, in fact, you'll note is a theme of his life and work - accepting homosexuality - but rather, he's describing factors of Layton's inking that give non-homosexual characters a homosexual look. "bouffant hairdos and heavy eye make-up and an upper lip with a littel [sic] shadow in the corner which to me says lipstick." You'll note that these are qualities that were added by Layton's inking, that were not there before. And they were characteristics that Byrne regarded as being common to the homosexual community. He did not suggest that Layton had some sort of agneda to make the characters "homosexual", but that the end result of Layton's inking, was that the characters looked, in fact, homosexual. But he used a term, now out-dated, "queer". The fact of this thing is that you can try all you want to make a mountain out of this molehill, but the facts and a careful study of the situation does not yeild the results you are looking for. [Mike O'Brien] 2:28pm 18 September 2005

Which issue of TCJ? Pardon me if I want to read it myself. LightningMan 06:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The issue of TCJ in question is The Comics Journal #57, published 1980. --Haborym 07:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

JB talked about that on his site too some time ago I don't remember if he said "queers" or "women" this time. Anyway you seems to think that there is a dichotomy between his usage of gay characters in his stories and his real world reactions and comments about gay people. You're wrong. If you're familiar with the John Byrne Forum you know that as a counterpart to the "The boys will be boys" thread, there's a "The boys will LIKE boys" thread for his gays fans. About the usage of the word "queers" in this interview let me remind you that it is an issue from 1980 at a time when the "Politicaly Correct" wasn't the rule. That's not an attack against the gays, it's only the use of a common word from someone who talks frankly and still behaves correctly whith the homosexuals. Do you never use the word "queer"? Do the homosexuals themselves never use it? They do. Enough with the politicly correct. More frankness from everybody will be better. What is important is how you acts towards the people of a minority, racial or sexual, not the use of such or such word when it isn't intended to hurt people. Be careful in using it OK, but don't be a biggot or someone who's always afraid to say something bad when he speaks. Stéphane Garrelie 15:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

John Byrne created one of the first gay characters in comics, he gave permission for the gay/bisexual members of his board to start the "Boys Will LIKE Boys" thread, which is up into the late twenties of pages, he has numerous gay/bisexual members of his board (myself included), while I have suspected for a while that Byrne may have had prejudice against homosexuals in the past (I got this impression by reading "Gay Guy"), I believe that he has more than compensated for past misdeeds.
He has mentioned on at least one occassion of himself meeting up with friends in gay bars (this came up a while back when there was a discussion about a gay superhero team, and how a gay superhero team could actually all be gay, the idea came up of them all being in a gay bar, then a meteor strike or something of that sort happening, giving them super powers, John Byrne then brought up the point, that some straight guys enter gay bars at times too, citing himself as an example) and it seems quite unlikely that a homophobe would a.) have friends who he would meet up with in a gay bar and b.) even enter a gay bar.
Honestly, I feel the likely hood of Byrne being homophobic is as likely as him being rascist, and what I said about that was "about the same as him being a cannible, more than Byrne Bashers will ever have of getting a life, but significantly less than what most people consider worthy for being considered as fact." — Jacob Secrest

Above quote

I believe the above Comics Journal quote does not actually give evidence for an intolerance towards gay people. I believe it belies an intolerance towards Layton's inking and how that changes the look of Byrne's art. I believe that citing the interview in an attempt to justify the position of due to this dichotomy between his professional work and his personal public statements, I believe it's relevant to his biography. is original research. Hiding talk 20:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes he talks of Layton's inking, not of the gays. Bob Layton being my second favorite inker after Terry Austin, I can't agree with JB on this point.Stéphane Garrelie 12:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is another John Byrne quote from the Comic Journal #57 interview, page #82 "I'm very Victorian, Very Victorian. I have come into the 20th Century sufficiently that people don't have to get married and that faggot-queers-homos can live together as long as they don't bother me" See, I think this quote proves John Byrne has no problem with faggot-queers-homos so can we drop this and just focus on quotes that he made about his fellow co-workers. I don't think even Lightning Man would have a problem with that.-Bill Bittinger

I would kindly ask the unsigned poster above to leave me out his (or her) unsigned postings unless they have something directly to do with something I have said or done. LightningMan 20:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you say, Lightning Man. Do you still want us to retract the quotes taken from the Comic Journal interviews, Lightning Man? He has appeared in 3 other issues, is it ok if we submit relevant quotes from those magazines too? It's your call, Lightning Man.-Bill Bittinger

Bill, if you read what I wrote you will see that I called for a retraction only if it couldn't be sourced. It was sourced. How about we work the article? LightningMan 23:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree Lightning Man, I think we can all help to write an entry that will please everyone.-Bill Bittinger

A clarification

I did not mean to put forward some sort of impossible standard. The previous version of the article was filled with unsourced rumor and innuendo, and of course that's inappropriate. I do admit that this is a bold experiment -- we have a strong complaint (NOT, by the way, a legal complaint) and an article which is weak on sourcing claims which are controversial.

It seems fairly straightforward to me: we build it back, referencing what we can, leaving the rest out. Whoever wrote it the first time must have gotten the information from somewhere, and we can find them and find the sources and cite the sources... or if we find that the original author added opinion beyond what is in the sources, we can fix that too. --Jimbo Wales 01:20, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

A lot of the previous stuff was written by a user named JRT. I did challenge him on a lot of the material and he claimed he was going by memory from magazines from a decade or two ago. Also he reserved the right to cite an industry gossip column. Jimbo, is a gossip column a legitimate source for Wikipedia? RodOdom 02:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The decision of whether or not a particular source is valid is an editorial judgment left up to the community. But "going by memory from magazines from a decade or two ago" is absolutely not a valid way to write about any controversial issue, much less one that impacts on a person's reputation. It could be fine to cite an industry gossip column (assuming various things about the credibility of the publication), but it should be cited (page numbers and all), and if there is substantial complaint about the validity of the column (for example if the publisher has repeatedly lost libel lawsuits or whatnot), this should of course be noted. But the details involve careful editorial judgment.
I think we can safely say "It is a shame if the article has to be much shorter because we had to delete a bunch of unsourced rumor and recollections from the past, but we have an intellectual obligation to get it right, and this is more important than having a nice looking but sloppy article. --Jimbo Wales 14:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
I got it. Thank you sir. RodOdom 17:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe at this point that John Byrne will be satisfied with ANY biographical article about him that is remotely critical of him, even if factually correct? If the sky is blue and John Byrne thinks it is red, he will delete any reference to sky whatsoever. If Wikipedia is not going to stand up to him for vandalizing his own article, then maybe the original unedited article should be posted in a forum where Byrne CANNOT tamper with it. --Edward J. Cunningham 151.200.57.137 0:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo did not say that John Byrne gets to approve the article here. In fact, he's said quite the opposite. How about forgetting that he filleted the article and help rebuild it. LightningMan 06:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Difficult while the article is protected, as it is now. And he may not get approval rights over it, but we should always remember that you have asserted that he ought to have sued Wikipedia over it; and various voices on his own forum were discussing the desirability of forcibly shutting Wikipedia down for its "evils", and Byrne himself spoke favorably about a news article about patients getting sued for criticizing their doctors online, saying that it's about time people on the Internet are held accountable. The whole atmosphere promoted by the Byrne crowd tends to "Be extremely careful what you say, because we might just sue your butts off." A bit ironic given that Byrne himself seems prone to shooting his mouth off about anyone and anything he wishes, and has even been threatened with libel suits for it on occasion. *Dan T.* 13:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
No, Dan. I didn't assert that he should have sued over it. I asserted that were I he I would have sued over it. Nothing about what he should do and everything about what I would have done were I he. Reading is fundamental. I am not "the Byrne crowd." And I am the only one here who brought anything regarding that up. Byrne's board is not relevant to what happens here.
More importantly, you can help rebuild the article. Gamaliel put the first paragraph of the old article up for review in a previous talk session. So far only two people (last I checked) said anything about it. Anything you want to put back, put it in talk, let it get critiqued and sourced and judged for relevancy and NPOV, and at that point if it's passed the tests, ask for it to return. The Neal Adams and Eagle references returned. Others can to. But not as long as people kvetch about things instead of working the article. LightningMan 15:57, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
What POINT is there working with you guys when John Byrne and the rest of his fans apparently believe that the fact that he was born near West Bromfield, England to be controversial??? Edward J. Cunningham 02:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if people who go around saying that they would sue Wikipedia, under any circumstances, shouldn't be banned as counterproductive and potentially harmful individuals under the Wikipedia:No legal threats policy. Certainly, such sentiments are evidence of a mindset that is antithetical to the proper spirit of this site. *Dan T.* 16:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Maybe your energy would be better directed toward, oh, I don't know, working the article as opposed to getting me banned. LightningMan 17:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I would say that repeatedly vandalizing a Wikipedia article because you or the artist you admire cannot tolerate any perceived criticism about him is certainly worthy of banishment. Edward J. Cunningham 02:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Let's focus on the article. I don't even have a Wikipedia page (although I do have an IMDB listing.) LightningMan 04:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Edward J Cunningham is missing an interesting point: Based on his posts seen here, it's clear that he has an agenda of pointing out the negative about John Byrne. Now, a factual encyclopedic entry about John Byrne should include many aspects of the man, and not be a whitewash, I see no evidence that Cunningham wants anything but the negative aspects, and thus is showing a bias and an agenda, and is certainly fit for the type of "bannishment" that he is suggesting of "Lightning Man". However, another option presents itself: "Focus on the article". With that out of the way, let's move onto the point of the negative points. The idea has been (crudely, I might add, and more to the point of showing people's agendas more than any sort of quest for truth) suggested that all sides of John Byrne should be laid bare here for this to be a truly factual document, and thus, comments about Byrne insulting people, using rubber stamps, refusing to sign comics while using the toilet, shouting back at his hecklers, etc etc, are, according to some here and on other parts of the internet, clearly needed. However, if, in fact, the goal of adding these is to paint a clear picture, and to create a TRUE PICTURE of John Byrne, the man, the artist, the public persona, then when these stories are brought up, they should have some clear fact base, (cite sources, and hearsay is, I hope we can all agree, not a source) and should, in the interest of truth, have all aspects of the incident, both sides of it, etc. Otherwise, you are just using this supposed depository of information to attack a man, the whole reason this debacle has reached the point that it has. There is no TRUTH or INFORMATION in posting rumors or "bad stories" about a person, and no encyclopedia, which this site aspires to be, would print such nonsense. What's worse is the idea that somehow, the stories become legitimate when presented as part of a bigger arguement; for example - "John Byrne has a history of causing trouble for himself, such as the time when he..." - by adding that qualifier to the beginging of your statement, you are not suddenly legitimizing the statement, you are just adding a qualfier to your agenda. What's more, this whole concern, about getting all the warts into this article, would be a more legitimate quest if those behind it didn't have a long history of trying to besmirch John Byrne's name repeatedly on various forums, message boards, etc. It has been pointed out that John Byrne himself is to blame for this, as he is the one saying these horrible things, yet those who perpetrate the idea of how horrible they are are truly the ones who are making a situation out of it. The reaction to the comments is often as revealing as the comments themselves. One understands that a white-washing does no justice to the situation, yet on the other hand, a clear agenda to defame someone is just as foul. Those who are interested in some sort of truth, then persue TRUTH. Otherwise, resume your scribbling on bathroom walls, but do it in the proper forum for that, which should not be anything that aspires to be an Encyclopedia. - Mike O'Brien

To summarize

To summarize:

  • The current state of affairs is not permanent.
  • Byrne does not get final approval over the article.
  • If Byrne or anyone else vandalizes the article they can and will be reverted.
  • Jimbo has removed the article until we fact and POV check it.

None of this will change because we keep arguing about it. I'm not going to stifle the debate about these points unless it veers into personal insults, but I think hammering on this over and over again is utterly useless. Byrne will not retract his complaints because you complained. The article will not go up as is because you complained. Right now the trolls on Byrne's message board - and Byrne himself - are pointing at this page and saying "Look, we were right all along, Wikipedia is full of trolls and idiots", while the reasonable people on the board (some of whom have come here to help us) who defended us look bad, as do we. This is not the best Wiki has to offer on display. Some of you are angered by the "special treatment" you think Byrne is getting, and while your complaints are somewhat justified, all is being asked of you is that you fact and POV check the article. Considering that is exactly what we're supposed to do with every article, that's not such a huge hurdle to overcome, but I guess you'd rather argue about Jessica Alba. Gamaliel 20:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I, for one, have no problem with putting in meticulously sourced information as requested. I've even got a number of Comics Journal back issues around, so I may be able to come up with a few sourced facts. But it still gives me a bad taste in my mouth to see Byrne boosters bandy around talk of suing Wikipedia, or otherwise trying to destroy this site. From the looks of his own forum, it would appear that Byrne has an "inner circle" of sycophantic fans akin to the Ayn Rand cult of the '60s. *Dan T.* 20:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
They are not going to destroy anything. The only thing they can do is distract us from the job at hand, which they have accomplished. Gamaliel 20:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't think that everybody on the Byrne forum is against Wikipedia. I use it myself sometime, and have learned interesting things about comics creators. Things that I think accurate. The Byrne article was problematic and the existence of the anti-byrnians imature trolls can explains some parts of it. Anyway I like the Wikipedia idea and I would like to thank you Gamaliel for coming on the JBF to talk with us of this problem. I only hope the new Byrne Article when finished will be accurate. Thanks again for trying to do your best.Stéphane Garrelie 23:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that every person on the JBF is against this entry either. You do need to realize though that these "imature trolls" you've blamed for the vandalism of this article include those on that forum, and even Mr. Byrne himself. I'd not expect, or even hope for, those who inserting inflammatory statements to help edit this page, but now we're left with very little help from those who know Mr. Byrne best, the members of his forum. Mr. Byrne himself expects a standard for his article that is unprecedented in other articles on Wikipedia. I fully support an article that is factually correct with an NPOV, but Mr. Byrne's edits down to a single paragraph, with no discussion added to the page, is NOT productive. Nor is someone going through the entire discussion page to BOLD random words in other peoples contributions. This article needs a concensus not nitpicking at sentence structure. --Haborym 23:55, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
How about we work the article, like you yourself have started to do, and put John Byrne, his board, and everything else behind us? LightningMan 00:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
It would be a great help if John Byrne and fans of his like you only deleted items that are factually untrue or slanderous ("John Bryne is a convicted child molester") and not items that ARE true ("John Byrne was born on July 6, 1950 near West Bromwich, England") or true but merely unpleasant to Mr. Byrne. ("A conservative stance on neologism and language usage [10]. This caused controversy (e.g. [11]) when, shortly following the actor's death, he objected to the use of the word 'hero' to describe Christopher Reeve because, while Byrne considered Reeve courageous, he felt that heroism required a concious decision and Reeve had no choice over his accident [12]. Of course, Reeve had a choice in how he handled his condition and his message after the accident.") Edward J. Cunningham 00:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
It would be an even greater help if you...worked the article. LightningMan 04:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I use Wikipedia, but I take everything here with a grain of salt, and usually if possible, fact check. — Jacob P Secrest

Action

I think the article should specify that, on his first run on Action Comics, he was both writer and artist, but this time around he is only the artist. DS 17:03, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

We're still a ways away from that part of his entry, but if the article gets that detailed, that would be fair enough. LightningMan 19:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

mefi

This article has been featured on Metafilter! --goethean ॐ 17:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Great, another group of uninformed people bitching about this. Does anyone have a metafilter account who can post the true story? Gamaliel 17:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Truth is subject, everyone has a side, so everyone sees "truth" differently, howevery, Metafilter's "article" makes no attempt at an objective point of view, none what so ever, I personally feel that while it is absurd to suggest that Byrne should get final say over his wiki article (I also don't remember anyone saying he should), however, the article was filled with obvious bias by the original authors, so therefore I feel a revision is more than welcome. — Jacob P Secrest
Gamaliel, six words: What the **** did you expect? - SoM 21:26, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I guess I was thinking that people would use the information society for, you know, actual information. Silly me. :) Gamaliel 05:19, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Lying in the Gutters

Rich Johnson's mentioned this too, along with a few other links, headline "JOHN BYRNE VS WIKIPEDIA"

http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2252 (links haven't been copied, see the original for them):

It's what all the message boards have been talking about this week.

It does seem odd that by John Byrne's sledgehammer approach to tackling something he felt personally offensive and factually incorrect, he has only exacerbated the very problem he was attempting to correct.

Here are some very unflattering examples.

Let's invent some kind of sickening homily to illustrate this. Um. I know, "You open more doors with an open hand than a clenched fist." That'll do.


SoM 21:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Let's work the article and forget all of this other stuff. LightningMan 21:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
How is it even POSSIBLE to "work the article" when John Byrne and fans like you will refuse to allow Wikipedia to post the facts about Byrne's career?? Edward J. Cunningham 02:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Gamaliel has posted a section of the article to be worked. That's how to work the article. LightningMan 04:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I also read something about this on "Preachin' from the Longbox" http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/longbox/index.html
You know, if one tenth of the energy being devoted to gossiping about this entry were directed toward working the article, the whole article might be back. LightningMan 13:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

hey i was wonndering if we could start a timeline for the x-men (and other comics but i like the x-men so lets start there). there is one for the marvel universe but it is very loose in my opinion. if we can get one specific to the x-men that would be great. another option is doing one for every character seperatley. that might help for the more complex characters like wolverine.--Jaysscholar 06:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

While this may be a worthy endeavor, this is probably not the best place to talk about it right now. LightningMan 13:57, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
somebody suggested i tell u guys here since a lot of comic book fans congregrate here. where do u suggest i post in order to get a project going?--Jaysscholar 21:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Try the X-Men Discussion Page. LightningMan 21:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I did, two days ago nobody responded. so i came here--Jaysscholar 21:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I Understand John Byrne's Concerns

It is not reasonable to expect that people should have to check non-stop whether a Wiki article about them is NPOV and factually correct or not at a given second. It would be three full-time jobs at minimum (24h per day).

I tried to spend a small part of my summer vacation to point out the huge number of issues with the previous version of the JB article here. Part of the text was factually incorrect, part was POV, part was both. I collected incomplete but large lists about the issues.

Most of my comments were dismissed because apparently I was "biased" based on several year old discussions posted elsewhere that had absolutely nothing to do with the issues I posted here. I admit I gave up.

I'm glad the Wiki "admins" involved are now trying to improve the quality of the content. I have to wonder why it took so long, though?

Unfortunately, I'm not that optimistic about the future of this article. There's always a couple people who want to try how much POV they can get away with by claiming their goal is NPOV article.

I think it is inevitable that in future the content of Wikipedia will be more and more moderated instead of edited by anyone, anytime, in any way they wish. --Mikko 81.197.107.125 17:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The reason it "took so long" is that there are millions of articles to watch over, and we work on a volunteer basis. If you want to pay me, this will get done a lot quicker. With that said, if you have any specific suggestions for this particular article please let us know. Gamaliel 18:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't have the time to work on this article in any useful way. My specific suggestions for this article is to keep it factual and NPOV even if it means a lot shorter article than before. Please consider also the POV of the sources you use. For example, I would not classify Comics Journal articles as automatically NPOV. (I consider Comics Journal as one of the best comics magazines, but it's a magazine about art and art tends to be POV.) So, be careful and good luck :) --Mikko 81.197.107.125 18:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Note that we are already working on factchecking and NPOV-ing the article. Gamaliel 18:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just Some Clarifications

As one of the chief writers of this article, I have a few quick things to say.

1) The original article was IMO very well researched. Please do not dismiss it as "remembering things from magazine articles from years ago". Whenever anything I wrote delved into opinions, I always strived to maintain a NPOV and would present both sides. I never wrote a "bad" article. I did remark that Byrne was controversial, but as you can see from all the response, he pretty much /is/ controversial. I was careful to present both sides.

I should also point out that others helped me with this, including another Byrne Robotics member, who did a really good job with the Controversies section, making it NPOV. I even opposed others who tried to include a lot of Byrne's blunt quotes, which I felt was a little one-sided. But I also opposed people who wanted to say "it's only an opinion that he's controversial". Well, judging by the amount of Internet buzz that happens whenever Byrne makes a controversial statement, I see this as a fact, not a minority opinion.

2) Sources: My sources include DAVID ANTHONY KRAFT'S COMICS INTERVIEW #25, and another two issue's who's numbers escapes me--can anybody help with the issue numbers? One was an short interview with Patrick Daniel O'Neil regarding his proposed stint on X-Men, and was also printed in Wizard Magazine, this was in 1991. I would also usually use John Byrne's own FAQ and statements on his message boards, using the facts, so how can that level of detail be bad? When doubted, I even tried to error on the side of Byrne's view of the facts. (You may also want to e-mail DAK at powerhouse@rabun.net for specific issue numbers--he might even be able to provide Wikipedia with the issues or the text if you need it). Also note that Byrne has had columns on-line, in (I believe) Hero Magazine, and in his own Next Men books.

I apologize if I didn't do as good a job as quoting, but if you ask comics expects, you will see that the details of his publishing history are accurate. I should point out that much of the facts in the publishing history are pretty much covered by the primary sources, the comics themselves.

3) I am opposed to triming it down because "it's not as big as Jack Kirby's or Will Eisner's". The lack of content in those biographies can be rectified when or if somebody decides to expand upon it, which they should. (I'm waiting to read Biographies next year of Kirby and Charles Schulz and thus hope to expand on those entries as well). I just happened to have read a lot of interviews featuring Byrne. Wikipedia CAN deal with minute details because it's not limited to a 12 volume set of leather volumes.  ;-)

As far as controversies go--I believe that part is fair, and it is also useful to anybody doing research on Byrne--say someone discovering Byrne's work wonders why the Internet has a lot of "trolls" towards him. I can see the article being trimmed to remove that if it's too dragged down in minutae. As far as including details of his projects--Byrne has been a bit unusual as he has left a lot of books due to editorial differences, leaving him with a lot of interrupted runs or early departures (FF, Hulk, Avengers/AWC, She-Hulk, Superman), and those researching his work may want to understand this.

--JRT 19:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Step two: Marvel

I haven't had the time or energy to do anything besides this paragraph so far. One reason is because I'm getting hung up about what and how much to say about the X-Men, and how to verify what happened behind the scenes. As always, comments, etc. are appreciated. Gamaliel 21:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Byrne's first story for Marvel Comics was "Dark Asylum" (written by David Anthony Kraft), published in Giant-Sized Dracula #5. He began drawing Marvel's lower-selling titles, including Iron Fist, The Champions, and Marvel Team-Up. For many issues, he was paired with writer Chris Claremont. In 1978 he joined Claremont on the Uncanny X-Men and their work together would make them both fan favorites.
I'm working on sourcing, but I'm not going to go too far into "behind the scenes" right now. I agree that there are some conflicting sources that will be tricky from this point onwards. It seems simpler to get the basics down before heading into the controversies quagmire. There's a massive amount of Marvel work here, Fantastic Four, Alpha Flight, Captain America, The Hulk, Indiana Jones, so I want to get my ducks in a row with dates and such. And I wanted to let Gamaliel know that he isn't alone! --Haborym 07:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
This looks good to me. I apologize for not working more this week, but the Cleveland Indians are in a pennant race. LightningMan 16:07, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. Gamaliel 08:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotection

I'm going to risk unprotection. The vandalism (much of which seems to have been generated by a single thread on the newsarama board) will probably not recurr as the vandals have had most of a week to find some bright shiny things to play with. Also, I'm kind of curious if Byrne will try deleting the article again. If anyone objects to the unprotection or the vandalism resumes, please protect the article again or get another admin to do so if I'm not around. Gamaliel 08:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that. I'd been wanting to add the distinction between his two runs on Action Comics. DS 05:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Since you've unprotected the vandalism has returned. I would suggest protection even after the article is back to a decent size, as there are a few individuals who just cannot help themselves where John Byrne is concerned. LightningMan 12:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Lightning Man, I owe you an apology. For one thing, you were not the person who deleted the biography section, and second, the example I kept using to show how wrong Byrne fans were to constantly delte entries from this article---"Byrne was born near West Bromwich, England"---was not itself accurate. So to an extent, John Byrne and his followers were right to correct these entries. More importantly, it was wrong of me to personally attack you the way that I did. You are the most vocal of all the John Byrne fans here, which is why I kept responding to your posts. In a larger sense, I was hurting my own argument, which Stephen Gerding articulates far better than I did. It is one thing to correct something at Wikipedia that is not true or slanderous, and another thing to delete something that IS true, simply because you do not like it. That is why I did not "work the article" as you suggested. Why even bother when it has been decided that John Byrne's conflicts with his editors---which determined whether he worked at DC or Marvel---is not relevant to a discussion about his career? I could go on about this, but to do so would treat this place like a message board. So perhaps you or somebody else would be willing to discuss with me privately by e-mail what is wrong with this version (which I did not write)? I am willing to post my e-mail address here but I don't know if that is against the rules. Edward J. Cunningham 01:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC) P.S. If Gamaliel (who has been doing a very good trying to do the right thing) or any of the other Wiki people think this post is uncalled for (although it is meant to be an apology), please feel free to delete it.
So perhaps you or somebody else would be willing to discuss with me privately by e-mail what is wrong with this version (which I did not write)?
While I appreciate the spirit in which this was requested, I have decided that for a number of reasons, I would rather keep my analysis about the specifics of the article here and confined to the version we're supposed to be working right now. Your apology, while appreciated, is entirely unnecessary. LightningMan 13:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Unlike what another poster said, I do not want ONLY negative things to be written about John Byrne. This is something postitive about Byrne which I would like to see added, but there is no place for it in the current expurgated version: "John Byrne's use of She-Hulk in Fantastic Four is widely credited with making her one of the more popular female characters in the Marvel Universe. For his part, Byrne has always maintained that the lion's share of credit for revamping She-Hulk belongs with Roger Stern who was writing Avengers shortly after She-Hulk joined the team." If I can find the appropriate references, would this bit of information be appropriate for the John Byrne article? Edward J. Cunningham 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure it would. That's a pretty fair statement. Let me go a step further: I believe there's no point in fixing the old article line at a time - the article was not composed in a NPOV way, and sublte as it may be, is slanted against Byrne. Now, what's been going on lately? Where we do bit at a time, and come to an agreement on it? That's been working just fine. The original was a flawed document to begin with, and fixing it makes less sense than just starting from scratch. Now, allow me to appologize to you; if, in fact, you're here to add your considerable wisdom about She-Hulk and John Byrne's contribution to the character, than by all means, I was rash in judging you, and I'm sorry. I think at this point, just by giving the history page a casual glance, that there are those people who clearly do have an agenda, and will misuse Wikipedia to make their bizarre points. This is not the average entry; it's like a Clinton or Bush entry, one where fans and enemies will go to greath lengths, above and beyond what is called for in this type of setting, to slander or whitewash their hero/enemy. Standard practice for a internet forum or message board, but only destructive behavior on something that aspires to be an encyclopedia. Anyway, thanks for allowing this to come around to a decent level of conversation. Look forward to hearing your input on She-Hulk. - Mike O'Brien

Art Style Section

I'm not digging this at all. For one thing, why should there even be an Art Style section? Salvador Dali doesn't have an art style section, and he most certainly has a style. Next, "the Byrne has admitted" line is not NPOV. Admitted is a loaded word and implies that someone made an accusation. "He tends to favor large panels" is only accurate as of a certain date. With his run on JLA, he has moved to a different method, having many panels on a page, which he has found has sped up his art. As for the McCloud Triangle thing, who cares? The first and last paragraphs should have attribution. And finally, what happened to working the pieces here before they went up? A big thumbs down to this section. LightningMan 05:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


Re : Art Style and the Entry in general

As a long-time Byrne *AND* Wikipedia fan, I've been following these events with interest. I was impressed with the original entry when I caught it a few months back. Re: the Art style section : I disagree completely with Lightning man. One of the key features that impressed me with the original entry was the in depth writing and analysis. Why would it NOT be interesting to read a paragraph or two on Byrne's art style ? Why NOT get a frief glimpse into the Mccloud triangle ? Byrne's artwork doesn't exist in a artistic vaccum. To contrast and compare is always a helpful way to get perspective on issues. in that sense I think that the Mccloud triangle was a both an enlightening, important, and interesting item to include. To put topics and items into perspective seems to me to be one a cornerstones of achiving a more neutral outlook on it. The more perspectives and viewpoints, the better. What the Dali entry does or doesn't contain is irrelevant. Other entries can be expanded at any time. If a topic is of interest or colourful or relevant to enough people, the entry will reflect that. I also find it interesting that a someone like lightningman, who I take it is a fan (like myself) would say "who cares" regarding art analysis, the McCloud issue etc. I found it interesting. Looking at the entry as a whole, I personally think you should revert back to the realier, in-depth entry and simply revise the parts that are found inaccurate.

It's important to point out that as far as I could see, the original entry never proclaimed certain viewpoints as facts, but simply reflected viewpoints of certain segments of fandom, or colleagues, etc.Any adult, thinking, reasoning person needs to be able to handle differing viewpoints. It's called free discourse. Like or not, Byrne has been a controversial figure in the comics community for decades.

In Summary, no serious Wiki entry on him could leave that aspect of his career out, IMO. That's neither biased, nor libel, nor unfounded. I believe strongly in the Wiki concept. And thus I would hate to see it get watered down by outside pressure or strongarm tactics. I believe Byrne's silence when asked for specifics in this matter is very telling. I'll be happy to contribute to further discussion or help if needed. --JLPicard 06:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you could have responded in my section instead of starting your own section. Next, why this level of attention for Byrne compared to anyone? Whether or not something is interesting is less important than if it is relevant. That John Byrne was "killed" on Law and Order is interesting but has no relevancy. The McCloud triangle is to me uninteresting and at any rate irrelevant.
Next, why reversion instead of reworking the article? If everything stands up to scrutiny, it'll get back anyway, so why not work the article? Is it because, now alerted to how people with an axe to grind have mutated it, people who want a straight article may now express their voice? Is this threatening somehow? Why is it if I complain it's a strong arm tactic?
Also, viewpoint is anathema to what is supposed to happen in an article. NPOV is the idea, even when it's complimentary to the subject. Viewpoints from anyone tend, in fact, to fail the concept of NPOV. As to Byrne being controversial, Byrne is only a controversial figure to those intent on wanting to say Byrne is a controversial figure. To most, he is a guy that draws comic books.
What other entries contain is, in fact, quite relevant, in terms of balance and merit. While space here is not an issue, for John Byrne, a writer and drawer of comic books, to have a much larger entry than Dali, Clarence Thomas, Stan Lee, or Howard Hughes, shows obsession and a lack of perspsective on the part of the article writers. My contention is that a lot of what has been poured into this article is minutia that only the most fanboy of fanboys cares about.
In summary, a serious Wikipedia entry wouldn't be cluttered with irrelevancies simply because an editor found them interesting. It would be better if the article was worked as Gamaliel said it would be and a consensus reached. The art style entry was not worked in this way, is minutia, and could easily be pared to its opening and closing paragraphs (pending attribution) or done away with entirely. LightningMan 11:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe I either added or expanded the portion regarding McCloud's triangle, and the reason for doing so was that the section was already in existence, and since McCloud offers a definition of Byrne's style, is verifiable and adds to the article, I added it. Note that the fact that Byrne has a section whilst other artists don't should not be an argument in either direction. It may be that other articles aren't as well written or that it is harder to source views, something which is a requirement. We can not ourselves describe Byrne's art style, that is POV. We can, however, record how others have described his style, and then perhaps debate the notability of the source. I would argue that McCloud's Understanding Comics is a highly respected work in the comics field, is used when teaching the field in schools, and on that basis stands up as a source to use when describing art style. See Wikipedia:The perfect article, which states:
  • ...acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject
  • ...reflects expert knowledge
  • is well-documented
As to your view on how a wikipedia entry should look, note, that is only your opinion. This is a wiki. Anyone is free to edit. The only demands made tend to be that information is sourced and is not original research. Note this also explains why some articles are longer than others. I don't think comparison with other articles is therefore relevant, we should not reduce all articles to stubs simply because we have articles which are stubs, which is the logical conclusion of your argument. Rather we should expand all articles from stubs. Note also that we should include m,aterial which may well be of benefit to our readers, not be guided by our own notions of trivia and useless information. A well sourced section on Byrne's art style will benefit many, especially people researching for interviews, biographies and even general readers who wish to broaden their knowledge. As to making comparisons, Wikipedia:How to write a great article tells us to:
  • look for analogies and eventual comparisons to propose.
Note also your point in comparing to Dali's entry, which lacks a style section, is quickly countered with a glance at J. M. W. Turner, which does.
Whether Byrne is just a man who draws comic books is beside the point. By that rationale, to some Robert Lawson and Charles Ives are unheard of, whilst Kylie Minogue is just a singer, Brian Close a cricketer and El Lissitzky a Russian. A Wikipedia entry should be as informative as possible.
I will try to find time to work on providing the sources for the first and last paragraphs, as I again believe I added them, and had thought I sourced them.
As to the point regarding whether Byrne is controversial or not, he has been asked relevant questions in interviews, notably [11]:
  • CBI-N: You are however very vocal with your opinions and have been known to engage in public debates with your fellow creators. Do you think this is something the readers/fans would be better off not privy too?
  • JB: Silly question. Why would I do it if I thought it was a bad idea?
  • CBI-N: Do you understand why fans think of you as a controversial figure, and do you see yourself that way?
  • JB: I understand the mechanics of it, but I don't think it makes any sense. "Controversial" is such an empty term in this context.
Other usages of the term with regards to Byrne are at [12] and [13] and this I believe could form the basis of an encyclopedic mention of the fact that some view Bryne as controversial. Hiding talk 13:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Because a section exists is not justification to bring in such minutia as McCloud's scale. The subjectivity alone of such a scale makes its inclusion pointless.
Moreover, you concede to the description of style as being POV. Quoting someone else's description of style is still POV. Just because you source a POV doesn't make it NPOV.
As to it being my opinion of how a Wikipedia article should look, well of course it is. And yours is your opinion. And my repeated pointing out of how other articles work and handle these sort of things, does, in fact, have a point, which is that the Byrne article is receiving and has been receiving special "treatment", not only from the subject but from obsessive comic book fans who have a grudge against him. The art section is overwritten and not NPOV and failure to include it would not at all make the article a stub.
On the necessity of an art style section, you prove my point by trying to refute it. Salvador Dali does not have a style section, but lesser artists (both Turner and Byrne] do. If it was not felt warranted for Dali, why on earth is it necessary for a guy who draws comic books. It is minutia passing itself off as scholarship.
As to his controversiality, as you can see, he doesn't agree that he is controversial and in my mind, as I have said on this page before, the controversy lies in a small segment of comic book fans, which is a small segement of the population as a whole in the first place.
And again, the challenge was put out to rebuild the article, not revert it, and yet very few people, including JRT, are actually willing to do it. There is plenty of ranting and raving about what Byrne did to it, plenty of pleading to put this section and that section back, but not a lot of sourcing, not (other than you) a lot of defending these numerous forays into minutia in the name of completeness. LightningMan 14:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Please do not misunderstand me. I did not state that the description of an art style is POV. I steted that our description of an art style is POV. It is also original research. Sourcing somebody else's opinion is recording a fact. The worthiness of that fact depends upon the source. Agian I invite you to discredit Understanding Comics on that basis.
As to opinions on how an article should look, please note mine is sourced from Wikipedia guidelines and policies themselves. Can you source your own arguments likewise? And please do not believe John Byrne's article is getting special treatment. A quick glance at Category:NPOV disputes should disabuse you of that notion.
I think your definition of Turner as being a lesser artist in comparison to Dali is somewhat inane. Are you aware of who Turner is, and what his legacy is? And as I said above, there is little to be gained in comparing articles. This is a wiki. No article is ever complete. Therefore no article is a standard which can be applied to other articles.
As to controversiality, you should perhaps read the quote again. Byrne concedes he is thought of as controversial. He merely refutes it as nonsensical.
As to the challenge, to quote Jimbo:
  • It seems fairly straightforward to me: we build it back, referencing what we can, leaving the rest out. Whoever wrote it the first time must have gotten the information from somewhere, and we can find them and find the sources and cite the sources...
Feel free to point out how we are doing anything different from that. Whether you like a sectionor not is not part of the challenge. It is whether such a section can be sourced and verified. Hiding talk 14:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see saying that "controversial" is an empty term is a concession of anything on John Byrne's part.
You're welcome to your opinion of my opinion regarding Turner.
Sourcing somebody else's opinion is recording a fact. No. Sourcing someone else's opinion is recording an opinion.
As to sourcing my opinions on what constitutes an article, I am not writing an article about writing Wikipedia articles. I am voicing my opinion, which I have the right to do.
You ask where are you doing anything different than working the article, I merely point you to your lamentation for the return of the article previous to Jimbo's request. The time for kvetching about that is over, or at least it should be. LightningMan 15:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't see saying that "controversial" is an empty term is a concession of anything on John Byrne's part. It's the part about understanding the mechanics of it which is the concession. Calling it empty headed is part of the refutation.
Sourcing someone else's opinion is recording an opinion. No, it is recording a fact. The fact is that McCloud published an analysis of the form of comics, within which he charted art styles. To follow your argument to its logical conclusion would mean that there should be no reporting of any scientific theory, any reference to someone being named Time Man of the Year, any references to alleged offences, any references to religion and so on. For further clarification see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which states:
  • the easiest way to make your writing more encyclopedic is to write about what people believe, rather than what is so. If this strikes you as somehow subjectivist or collectivist or imperialist, then ask me about it, because I think that you are just mistaken. What people believe is a matter of objective fact, and we can present that quite easily from the neutral point of view.
I am not writing an article about writing Wikipedia articles. Ah, but you are voicing an opinion on what a Wikipedia article should look like, which therefore behooves you to source policy or guidelines in support of your opinion, since it is these and not our own opinions which matter.
I merely point you to your lamentation for the return of the article previous to Jimbo's request. Please then quote said lamentation, as I can not find it. And please do not accuse me of kvetching, that is somewhat unneccessary and untrue, as I am sure you can agree. Hiding talk 16:29, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

honest living

Mr. Byrne has every right to take the position he's chosen. Unfortunately, he can't win against a sea of haters unless he ignores them. Wikipedia is the guilty party here.

Who here (discounting blatant trolls and vandals, whose "contribution" is quickly reverted) has made any claim that Byrne does not have the right to pursue an honest living (as a comic book artist or in any other chosen profession), or to hold whatever political or philosophical opinions and positions he wishes? Nobody that I know of. Of course, others have the equal right to express negative opinions about his works or views, and he has the corresponding right either to respond in kind or simply to ignore his critics. *Dan T.* 20:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

crude inking?

I can't follow this whole discussion since I haven't seen the article as it appeared before Byrne made his deletions, but I can comment on the (brief) article as it appears now. I think it is nice and accurate, with just one exception. It says: "His inking style was generally seen as crude by comics fans" - this is something I would like to dispute. Back when Byrne was on top of his game, every comic fan I know agreed with me that Byrne himself was by far the best inker for his own pencils. Many people consider FF #243, for instance, Byrne's best work. Yes, Dick Giordano and Karl Kesel looked pretty good on Byrne's pencils, but the reason they were there were twofold: to save Byrne time, so he could do more pencils, and to put DC's mark on the work using their own well-established top inkers. At least that's the way I figure it.

Of course, in later years Byrne's art has deteriorated a great deal, and now he does need a good inker in order to look rally good. The Nelson inks on the current Action Comics are making Byrne's work look far better than it has in years.

Other than that I'd just like to say that I think Byrne is probably the single most important U.S. comics creator other than Lee & Kirby, and I would like to see this acknowledged in any reasonably objective Wikipedia article about him. He has worked on almost every significant character, done consistently good work (well, up until Wonder Woman anyway), and used a superior art style that has enthused millions of comic book readers and influenced a generation of comic book artists, for all practical purposes defining the gold standard of what mainstream superhero comics should look like.

John Byrne has tried to be a Jack Kirby for the modern era, and the way I see it, he has generally succeeded. Unfortunately he has not been able to change with the times, and in the '90s and '00s his art style has become simplistic and self-indulgent, and his stories have often lacked the excitement and intelligence of yore. Furthermore, his uncompromising, bad temper has caused him to become known as a bitter old man who, again just like Kirby, has failed to keep up with the changing times.

- Tue Sorensen

You must be joking about Byrne's inking. It was almost universally criticized in published reviews. Byrne described his working methods in at least two published interviews as creating rough layouts, then moving directly to finished inks, without ever doing full pencils. He admitted using marking pens rather than standard inking pens (in part because the lower technical quality wasn't apparent in comics produced by the then-standard printing process (plastic plates, newsprint, old-fashioned coloring, etc). But the lower quality was noticed, and it's reflected in the conspicuously awful quality in some of the recent Marvel TPBs of Byrne's FF work. To nobody's surprise, lots of the regular posters on Byrne's massage boards (No Typo!) blame Marvel rather than Byrne's original methods. & if you think Byrne is third only to Lee and Kirby, you've never heard of Eisner, Simon, Joe Kubert, Kanigher, Siegal, Shuster, Hamilton, Fox, Schwartz, Beck, Kane, Swan, Anderson, Craig, Gaines, Wood, . . . . . . . N. Caligon 16:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Agenda much? The complaints on Byrne's board about reprinting of the work by Marvel had nothing to do with the inks, but rather the fact that the pages were clearly photocopied... to the point where you could see the pages behind it coming through. Your words make it clear that you have a clear anti-Byrne agenda, and bias, and should not be participating in any sort of serious historical discussion of the man.

Mike O'Brien

Other books have been reproduced from photostats or other non-original sources and don't look as bad as the FF reprint does. The low technical quality of the inking was noted often in the comics press at the time the books appeared. And it's just too bad that you don't like Byrne's own words being referred to. They're certainly interesting. You could fill a few pages with the different stories he's given about how the Alpha Flight series came about. N. Caligon 21:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)