Talk:John Byrne (comics)/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title:  Calm down? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Already Calm 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Radical experiment 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ridiculous edits 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Expanded biography 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Byrne's career section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Its current status is not permanent. It will be an article again once we complete our work. Gamaliel 19:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: "Neutral" means "warts and all", not "whitewashed of facts the subject finds regrettable" - SoM 19:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neutral means not supporting or favoring either side in a war, dispute, or contest.  Nothing about warts.  LightningMan 19:31, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, intentionally leaving out the warts is extremely POV.--198.93.113.49 19:36, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So is shoving in warts without relevance.  And your point?  LightningMan 19:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Would you justify the relevance of a controversy section for me, please?  LightningMan 19:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I haven't found the part where you justify a controversies section.  LightningMan 20:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2005-09-16 Neutrality Warning 

message: 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)
replies: text: Thank you. :) Gamaliel 20:00, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a note of appreciation to Gamaliel 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: "His old stuff was better"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The double birth thing

message: 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. .
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."  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". 
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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, , 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.  Hiding  talk 19:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Suggested rewrite part two

message: 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)
replies: text: I like the idea of combining them.--198.93.113.49 19:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Quite redundant. I can dig combining. LightningMan 20:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography and Career sections

message: 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)
thread_title:  Under Attack? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Above quote

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It would be an even greater help if you...worked the article.  LightningMan 04:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  To summarize 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Action 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Try the X-Men Discussion Page.  LightningMan 21:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, two days ago nobody responded. so i came here--Jaysscholar 21:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Note that we are already working on factchecking and NPOV-ing the article. Gamaliel 18:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I Understand John Byrne's Concerns 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just Some Clarifications 

message: 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)
thread_title: Art Style Section

message: 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)
thread_title:  honest living 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  crude inking?