Talk:John Buscema/Archive 1 (2005-06)

Photo of John Buscema
Reader Steve sent the following e-mail to the Wikimedia Help Desk:

I noticed that the French article on comic artist John Buscema has a picture of him that the English article did not. Here is the link: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Buscema

Capitalistroadster 23:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Can someone PLEASE change that photo drawing of Conan to an appropriate photo of John Buscema?--Hokgwai 00:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Avengers cover image
No offense to the individual who posted this cover, but I have to --opine that this particular image is a rather poor example of this artist's work. If anyone has a better piece to substitute, it would be appreciated (at least by me). I don't have a scanner, otherwise I'd download one myself. How about something from his late sixties Avengers run, Silver Surfer, or Conan?Odysseybookshop 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Template
This article is in desperate need of cleanup. It is filled with personal opinion and original-research essays. I removed the following, for example: One could characterize Buscema 1950s work as a period of gradual constant improvement; his work was continuing to improve as he left the field, which is somewhat different from other of his contemporaries (such as Williamson, Frazetta, Wood, Drucker, Toth, Heck, Ditko) who often experienced an earlier youthful artistic peak period.

No citations, lots of assumptions, last names tossed out at a general reader to whom they'd mean nothing ... on and on and on. The overall article is very much overwritten, has a conversational tone not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and has such an overabundance of images stacked one atop the other in a non-layout, it beggars the question of fair use.

John Buscema was a giant of the field. He deserves a real encyclopedia article. I'll do what I can, but it's too big for one person to tackle. -- Tenebrae 09:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Template 2
I don't necessarily see what is wrong with having the 20 illustrations (which are from a wide variety of sources) that give a good cross-section of his work, considering it is the work of a graphic artist. Objectives over the quality of the layout arrangement appear to me to be rather subjective. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skyelarke (talk • contribs) 23:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Proper layout under the conventions and rules of graphic design is not subjective. There are well-established principles both to what makes a page attractive, readable, and, in terms of things like newspaper and encyclopedia page layouts, balanced in term of illustrative weight. It's far from subjective. --Tenebrae 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough - but I feel that the basic design is OK - Even though they're all 'stacked' to the right, they're done in a presentable fashion (reasonably spaced out, aligned to relevant paragraphs, chronological, etc...) - Are there specific Wikipedia layout conventions and rules that state that having 24 illustrations aligned vertically to the right are contrary to layout conventions and rules? But if someone wants to improve upon the layout, that's their democratic prerogative - but all I suggest is to keep all of the illustrations, again for obvious reasons. As to fair usage :questions, I'd defend that point by saying that it is fair usage because the illustrations come from a good variety of sources, with many different creators, publishers, and copyright holders involved, so not one source is overly relied upon.
 * --Skyelarke 16:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Skyelarke, and welcome to Wikipedia! Your point is good, and certainly a John Buscema article of this length deserves more than three images.


 * The way things usually work in controversial cases like this is to get a community consensus of what the most important topics are that need to be illustrated, and once we get agreement we can find specific examples.


 * To kick things off, as you can see from my earlier edit, I've included JB's first cover for Marvel, and coincidentally his first Avengers cover. That's a pretty easy one as far as historical importance is concerned. Since The Avengers was one of his signature works, we could probably go with two Avengers covers (I'd suggest the one introducing the Vision, both since its historically important and because it already exists, at the Roy Thomas article.)


 * An image each of Conan and the Silver Surver (perhaps the famous cover of #1) seem like pretty clear inclusions. One of his early, 1950s page (such as either the extant Strange Worlds or Western/Dell Hercules page). An example of his advertising work, if one is available. Maybe his intreptation of the Fantastic Four, since we talk about him taking over that flagship from Kirby; some from the 1980s, maybe a Wolverine given that character's high profile; something inked by Tom Palmer, one of Buscema's more notable inkers; something from the 1990s (possibly The Punisher Meets Archie, both for the high-profile Punisher and to inject something a little different and distinct); Just Imagine Stan Lee With John Buscema Creating Superman, for something from another company that also shows JB's iconic status; and I'd strongly suggest Superman: Blood of My Ancestors (Sept.2003) if that's his final published work. Other possibilities are this Mephisto page from that character's debut. Thoughts?--Tenebrae 18:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I've found a 1976 publicity photo of Buscema from Magazine Management, Marvel's parent company at the time, here. Publicity photos are useable under Wikipedia's fair-use guidelines under  . Another thing we can do is ask permission to use an image from JB's official site, from this Tarzan site, or from this site's owner to use the fairly recent picture that he has. -- Tenebrae 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that's all fine and dandy, and most of the kind of image choices you've suggested were already there, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. I still tend to having more images than less. Additionally, a photo as well as an FF page, I can see how those two would be important.

--Skyelarke 01:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. Unless other editors offer different suggestions &mdash; let's wait a couple days &mdash; why don't you find/add what images you can that sound reasonable, and I can go in and do any copy-edit, layout, etc. things. First things first: Let's replace that historically unexceptional image in the intro with a photo of Buscema. Good to be working with you! --Tenebrae 04:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tenebrae,

The intro edits look good - There's still a few typos in your stuff -Is all that Superhero trivia necessary? (in the 60's). FYI - The tone of the article was intended to de-emphasize superhero trivia and 'Marvel Mania' and try to consider Buscema in the light of general art history and biographical terms. (Also, FYI, the entirety of the article was actually submitted to the 500+ yahoo JB discussion group, with a lot of long time JB collectors, for their input and it received very positive feedback).

For example, the purpose of the paragraph you deleted, was meant to place Buscema in the historical context of the period and using relevant contemporary artist for comparison purposes - the artists were carefully considered for chronological and stylistic reasons, so it wasn't entirely based on 'assumption'.

Moreover, in this case, due to the paucity of focused biographical material on Buscema and the fact that comic book scholarship is a lot less developped than traditional art scholarship, a certain amount of 'original' research is necessary, IMO, in order to give a certain direction and substance to the material due to lack of any precedants on Buscema.

Although the article does need some tightening up, hopefully you can consider the preceding comments when doing so. (i.e. I don't consider whosesale deleting to be serious editorial revision). --Skyelarke 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)--70.55.84.230 21:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for nice words! And I can say with confidence that everyone in WikiProject Comics would welcome a John Buscema expert to register and be a full part of the community. Come on in; the water's fine!


 * Check out The Five Pillars of Wikipedia, What Wikipedia is Not, and "Ownership" of Aricles. I only mention that last one since &mdash; and I know it was inadvertent, because there're a plethora of policies and it takes months to learn a critical mass of 'em &mdash; the phrase "The tone of the article was intended to..." really isn't the kind of thing anybody can really say.


 * Wikipedia articles are open to everyone who makes confirmable, verifiable edits with a neutral point of view, citing authoritative sources. Experts can quoted, as I'm sure you'll find in many fine arts articles here. But they have to be quoted from existing sources, because one of the prime tenets of Wikipedia is no original research. That doesn't mean things can't be put in historical context; heck, you can look at Will Eisner, say, for a way that perspective and authoritative comment can be placed within a Wiki article. I've helped with a lot of that myself!


 * It's great that "the article was actually submitted to the 500+ yahoo JB discussion group, with a lot of long time JB collectors, for their input and it received very positive feedback". But a Wikipedia article isn't for fans. It's for the general audience.


 * About the phrase ""superhero trivia" &mdash; Big John may have downplayed comics, but they were the biggest part of his living for decades and he contributed industry milestones. His importance to the field is incalculable. I'm not sure an objective observer wouldn't consider the biggest part of one's career undeserving of a commensurate part of one's biography.


 * Honestly, the article as it was was great for a Buscema site, or for an essay in an art magazine. Encyclopedia articles are different &mdash; more straightforward fact, without veering the reader to one opinion or another. We're not advocating for John &mdash; that's a fan site's job.


 * But I'll tell you this: Go to Wally Wood, and tell me John Buscema doesn't deserve an article as good as that!


 * I'm genuinely looking forward to your registering and joining the community, and to work with you on whipping this into shape! (I only wish I had more time; it's probably gonna be one paragraph at a time just from my humble end!)--Tenebrae 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Superhero minutiae - Well better extra info than deleting stuff, I guess. If you feel that a general audience needs to hear all about Betty Dean Prentiss, hey why not... The point I was trying to make is to have a balanced overview of all phases of his career without putting specific 'Marvellous' emphasis on one particular aspect.

The Wally Wood article - Sorry - it's nice, but it ain't there yet. Good up to the 50's - After that it kind of meanders with gaps and quotes that are digressive. Does it give a cohesive assessment of Wood's accomplishments, importance and impact?

Another point - Being objective and factual is one thing - I don't think that means that a Wiki article has to be a boring enumeration of names and dates. I think there's a distinction between opinion on one hand and necessay aesthetic analysis and commentary on artistic development on the other.

'...not veering the reader to one opinion or the other'... OK - but I believe the Wiki guidelines do advocate presenting different points of view as a way of maintaining neutrality - In that regard, I feel that it's better to add alternate viewpoints (which was why I mentioned the JB discussion group) than to remove everything that is perceived to be an 'opinion'. (Not specifically aimed at you, it's a general attitude that seems to be present in the various edits).

But a lot of passages do have specific references behind them - I just didn't include them - I'll try provide the notes for those...--Skyelarke 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "All about Betty Dean Prentiss" ...LOL! Good point! That particular one sentence I think's OK since it was the return of his '40s "sidekick", but that graf with all the specific issue numbers is going right out into a footnote where it belongs!


 * I think in my zest and zeal on this Talk page I lost one main point in the wallow of all my words. We can absolutely quote "Writer so-and-so of Comic Book Artist called John Buscema, '...the best artist of his generation'" or whatever. We just can't say it ourselves.


 * Finally, right on that being dry isn't the same as being factual. Hell, look at Will Eisner or Atlas Comics (1950s)! I'm with you, man. (So are 70.55.84.230 and Skyelarke the same? If so, glad you joined our little group!) --Tenebrae 23:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tenebrae - Yes User:70.55.84.230|70.55.84.230 and Skyelarke are one and the same - I got nothing against putting in detailed comic book credits - I just feel that adding explanatory information on topics not specific to John Buscema is better served via the internal link system - (i.e. Why not create an brief entry for John Verpoorten, etc...)although this is just my opinion and is merely serves as a suggestion -

Re : We can absolutely quote "Writer so-and-so of Comic Book Artist called John Buscema, '...the best artist of his generation'" or whatever. We just can't say it ourselves.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion - my opinion on that is that a certain moderate amount of thoughtful, rational, viewpoints can be expressed by individual wikipedia contributors if they are justifiable conclusions based on factual information presented and clearly presented as being so.

I like Wikipedia because I've found quite a few biographies on filmmakers and musicians that are concise yet comprehensive and well-researched, and have a popular tone that avoids overly pedantic or stylized expression that one finds in more specialized sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyelarke (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 December 2006


 * RE: "a certain moderate amount of thoughtful, rational, viewpoints can be expressed by individual wikipedia contributors if they are justifiable conclusions based on factual information presented and clearly presented as being so."


 * But we can't! LOL! Honestly! That is one of the biggest, biggest Wikipedia no-nos! But let's forget that it goes against the no personal opinion and no original reasearch or essays rules. It's just more authoritative and gives John his due if we say what needs to be said but attribute it to published, expert sources.


 * Not just the law &mdash; it's a good idea!


 * Any my God, it's not like there aren't plenty of authoritative sources we could quote! So c'mon, let's get crackin'. (And you did see I removed or moved a bunch of Marvel minutiae, right?) --Tenebrae 01:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tenebrae,

The text you tagged as 'no personal opinion' does not actually state 'no personal opinion' at all -

What you call the 'no original research rule' is not in fact a RULE, it is a policy and is meant to discourage 'material that appears to advance a position — or ... would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."' (It's not as if the article is stating that Buscema invented the Hulk or that Buscema is in reality a pseudonym for Herb Trimpe,...)

Re: ':Not just the law &mdash; it's a good idea!' I agree that it is a good idea - but honestly, it is not 'THE LAW', what ever that's supposed to mean...

Re: Marvel Minutiae - (I got nothing against it per se, it just that it's been amply covered in other articles) I think you removed too much! Relax, lighten up - A few paragraphs on the Avengers, Silver Surfer, and Sub-Mariner are important after all...

It's just that calling Betty Dean Prentiss Subby's 'love interest' is 'a biggest, biggest no-no' as it's speculative opinion not based on verifiable evidence and constitues a radical piece of 'original research'. I think it would be better to call them 'just good friends'.LOL

So I'll start going through my notes and and gather up the proper references. Skyelarke 15:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. Let's ref it up. And you're right, I'd meant to link to Neutral point of view, which is one of the five pillars.--Tenebrae 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I've made first pass through the 1950s, adding factual information from GCD and removing much disallowed personal opinion. We need to cite authoritative sources, which I'm sure we can do. Right now, I'm concentrating on grammatical and other technical changes, adding facts, and clean up and formatting. After finishing with that, I (and I surely hope other editors as well) will go through and add comments and quotes from colleagues, historians, etc. --Tenebrae 17:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added my sources in the references section, will be following up with notes.

By the way, the Two-Gun Western #5 cover is by Joe Maneely - It's the ther Two-Gun Western series with a Buscema cover : http://www.comics.org/details.lasso?id=8539 --Skyelarke 02:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Got it -- two different Two Gun Western #5s! I thought it looked like remarkable improvement in just a year! GREAT catch!


 * I've got Alter Egos and Comic Book Artists with Big John articles, and I'll start incorporating bio material as I can. --Tenebrae 04:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey cool, there's a lot of great stuff in there - I've started putting in the footnore references...--Skyelarke 21:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Great! I've been too busy to edit for the last several days, and have only been able to slip in for some quick copy edits just now, but I promise I'll help more soon. Keep up the good work, brother!--Tenebrae 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)