"

 One MO' time for the kids in the back... 

JUST can’t let go of a few items, huh?

Okay from the top:
1) My info on the GLAAD awards and the EISNER Nominations came from Winick’s website. BUT is that’s not good enough…

2)  I did a quick GOOGLE ( WINICK and GLAAD AWARDS) and found various articles to that effect. Here’s one that mention awards from 2001 & 2002

http://www.psicofxp.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-105929.html

here’s the link to the GLAAD awards in 2003 ( they don’t archive back further then that)

http://www.glaad.org/media/release_detail.php?id=3393&PHPSESSID;=84e84fd40ccf1d3ee7499d7ff630ca43
 
and a photo from 2003

http://www.glaad.org/publications/resource_doc_detail.php?id=3396&PHPSESSID;=84e84fd40ccf1d3ee7499d7ff630ca43

3) the Eisners was more difficult because were too many sites and not a definitive archive. I punched in ""Winick and Eisner awards"" into GOOGLE and got over 500 hits. Some mention his nominations in articles ABOUT him, some site specific years in articles ABOUT the Eisner nominations. It doesn’t look like his website is lying…

Now, onto some specific comments:

""Furthermore, I saw the article more pro-gay than anti-gay. I think the previous version of the article attempts to put Judd in a rather ""heroic"" role by saying that he pushed boundaries and was willing to shrug off industry standards to get his point across. It may have had a POV issue, but I don't think that it was homophobic. I would be careful about throwing that word around, being that you are suggesting unbiased claims. Practice what you preach, and all that.""

Forgive me jumping the gun on mentioning ""homophobia"", but the article REALLY didn’t read as positive or heroic when: 
1) It focussed  –almost ENTIRELY—on the issue of Winick writing about gays.
 
2)Tossed some interpretation that he made Robin( of Batman and Robin) into a crossdresser ( which he didn’t. it was JOKE. It’d be like accusing MONTY PYTHON of promoting "" lifestyle choices"" by having them dress as women all the time)

3)Adding/allowing an erroneous comment from another comic book creator. (MIKE Miller, later changed into the a false statement by FRANK Miller)

4) And lastly, make mention of "" gay groups"" who took issue with, disagreed with, etc, Mr. Winick’s portrayal of gays. No evidence t that fact was given and it appears that the VAST majority of the gay community doesn’t have a problem with him.

All of THIS, didn’t really come off as an endorsement, a slap on the back, or in much of ANY way that he was being applauded for making a stand.

""I would add two points: (1) The article should definitely include some discussion, albeit NPOV, of Winick's penchant for gay characters. He has consistently used his writing to present gay characters and homosexual issues to young readers. He hasn't made a secret of that, either. The article should be neutral, but that fact is a critical facet of Winick's career. ""

I don’t agree. It COVERS the issue already. You’re asking for an opinion. I’ve been told, several times, that THAT isn’t the point of this site.

Also, ""Winick's penchant for gay characters"". Why JUST talk about gays? I mean, is it because  he get PRESS about them?  He’s got LOTS of other people in his comics. But if you’re mentioning GAYS because it’s gotten media coverage, then THAT is already IN the article. No need to expand on it.

""He has consistently used his writing to present gay characters and homosexual issues to young readers. He hasn't made a secret of that, either.""

1) What’s all this stuff about YOUNG readers? Comics, and even his book were aimed at ALL readers? Are you trying to slide in a sideways comment that Winick is targeting children? And secondly, in the 3 times I’ve heard Winick talk about this subject he always comes back to the point that he includes ALL types of people in his stories. Diversity is the goal.

In general you seem VERY intent on shining a different light on this issue. One that falls into opinion and editorializing.
 The facts are covered. It’s there. It’s done.

(2) He is not considered ""one of the top writers"" in comics. Frank Miller, Grant Morrison, Jeph Loeb...there are plenty of names at the top, but Winick's has never been among them. I've never read a claim otherwise, either  so if this article is going to allege Winick's prominence, you'd better include some sort of citation. 

Well, 1) It doesn’t say he’s the MOST prominent writer in comics like a Frank  Miller, Neil Gaiman,  Grant Morrison or an Alan Moore. It’s says ONE of the top writers.
To that fact, He’s one of only about 30 writers signed exclusively, he writes top titl