Talk:John Byrne (comics)/Archive 2

A few suggestions for editors
It has been discussed and requested;
 * Editors please comment on your edits, in a clear manner.
 * If you feel there is an error, discuss it here first, or use sound judgement when fixing it, and provide source.
 * Please cite your references for edits here, before or after you make them.
 * Please do not be upset or make drastic changes, if one of your edits is changed. Instead, review this page and inquire about the source and reason.
 * Most of all, keep a fair mindset with other editors, especially anon's, as they may not realize there is a discussion page.
 * Refer to archived discussions, for any outstanding disputes.

Main article looks better, and seems to have very few disputed facts. Keep it up.
 * <> Who ? &iquest; ? 04:13, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The article may have very few disputed facts, mostly because it is filled with factoids, glutted with trivia, and emptied of substance. It's not an article about John Byrne, comic book creator, but about John Byrne, cantakerous guy who is inexplicably hired, over and over, to write or draw comics. The discussion on She-Hulk, a book that's remembered mostly for Byrne's fights with his editors, is about five times as long as the discussion of X-Men, which remains his most popular and influential work. It's a bad, bad article that's sourced mostly from inaccurate stuff that's been floating around the net the last few years (including several self-serving, factually defective Byrne interviews) and is conspicuously short on fact-checking. N. Caligon 11:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, then perhaps you should make some edits that reflect the facts. "Factoids" are facts.  I see the article as a comphrehensive summary of his work.  If Byrne looks "cantankerous", it's simply because he's had more public battles and left more books than other creators.


 * I understand what you are trying to say, maybe the article is bloated. I just focused on his career history.  But (a) other biographies and articles can get just as detailed with that kind of trivia, and (b) you have stated inaccuracies, but you haven't pointed out many specifics to us, so perhaps you should make an attempt to correct them yourself, or at least help us with the fact checking.   You seem to be the least biased of the article critics, IMO, so I'd suggest assisting us.  --JRT 12:18, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I tried to add some material yesterday, but it's vanished so tracelessly that I've got to assume it caught caught up in one of those "wiki did not respond" moments. I'll try again tonight. N. Caligon 16:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Article content discussion
Moved Temp changes to the main page. Have at it, all. Let's just be sure to label our changes and then discuss any disputes. --JRT 01:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at the rewrite of the FF section RodOdom 03:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have added a Biography section and that I request review its POV. I wanted to eliminate as much of the discussion of the actual comic book stories as possible and to just concentrate on his life. I included the mention of his family and his time at college. The only real new material is the paragraph of child hood influences (culled from the FAQ and posts on the JBF) and the note on fan debate. I came across the quote in the preamble to a CBR interview - it's a journalistic source and is as close to a balanced comment we we're going to find on this topic.

My reason for changing the heading depths is an attempt add a little more structure to the Career discussion. As that gets longer and longer people are going to want to skip large sections of it to the bit they're interested in. However, breaking it down does illustrate just how much of this discussion could (or would) be better off in the articles about those actual titles. --Jason Kirk 06:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've just added in some material from the "X-Men Companion" interviews, c. 1980, regarding Alpha Flight and the Byrne-Claremont partnership. This material is reliable and contemporaneously sourced, but it conflicts with Byrne's recent accounts and will be controversial despite being more accurate and better-documented than the previous versions of the sections involved. N. Caligon 12:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Source material previously discussed, see talk page archive. N. Caligon

I think much of the info in Jason's biography is worthwhile, but perhaps it should be incorporated into other sections of the article. I actually agree with N.C. that this article is fairly bloated, but it seems Wikipeidia encourages articles to be as big as possible. I wouldn't be suprised if some future Wiki admin took a look at this article and hacked it down to five sentences because the sheer size makes Byrne look like the most important creator in the history of comics! Take a look at legend Will Eisner's article to see what I mean. RodOdom 15:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I request feedback on the FF section rewrite. Otherwise I will assume no one has any problems with it. RodOdom 15:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Other than its missing any discussion of the most controversial storyline of the run, which is a small loss only in the most technical sense? N. Caligon 16:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Which storyline was that? --JRT 16:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The pregnancy/miscarriage storyline, ending in a story titled "A Small Loss." As far as I know, it's still unique as far as major comics titles go. N. Caligon 15:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll add that under the Sue Storm paragraph. Thanks N.C. RodOdom 15:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Legend imprint
I've edited the Legend imprint info to remove references to Byrne creating it with Miller. I've read an interview with Mignola where he mentions he brought Byrne into it, so I think it's disputable he created the imprint.

That change is certainly correct; Byrne wasn't one of the initial movers behind Legend. Legend didn't even exist when Byrne began Next Men -- assuming the cover stats at Byrne's site are accurate, the logo didn't even appear until JBNM 19. So I've fixed the paragraph up a little, since it implies all Byrne's DH work was published as Legend. N. Caligon 16:29, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jim Shooter
Regarding Captain America, I believe was Byrne who followed Stern's lead to leave the book. Also, there is more to those events. Take a look here:

http://p081.ezboard.com/fsterntalkfrm2.showMessage?topicID=213.topic

Please also take a look at the rewritten final paragraph in the section RodOdom 19:31, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: instead discussing the few panels in the return of Jean Grey, write about Shooter's interference in the "Dark Phoenix" story which led to Claremont deciding to kill of the character. That's far more indicative of Shooter's effect on Byrne's stories. RodOdom 02:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I remember from the time that Byrne left FF because the powers that be wanted The Thing back in the book in time for the 25th anniversary, #296(?), and Byrne refused and left the book halfway through a storyline. But I can't cite source, it's just my memory. Anyone else recall this? Hiding 06:43, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A user at the address 198.93.113.49 has been reverting changes without saying why. Is there any way the admins can get he or she to participate in these discussions? RodOdom 15:40, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Unless 198 breaks the 3RR, there isn't much that can be done beyond protecting the article again. Gamaliel 15:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. RodOdom 03:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Biography Problems
Some comments on Biography section:


 * A lot of these arise by me trying to keep the biography as short as possible - e.g. compared to the Career section. My comments are indented. --Jason Kirk 00:01, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1) It might be useful to clarify that Byrne has not used assistants later in his career. The current text might confuse people to think otherwise.


 * Changed to a more specific reference

2) The transition from getting married to management style of Jim Shooter is rather clumsy and annoying. It's as if Byrne didn't do anything between 1980 and 1984 or so :) And is Jim so important part of Byrne's life that we need to mention this here at all?


 * I've rephrased it to:In the early-1980s Byrne moved to other book at Marvel, including the Fantastic Four, but by mid-1980s..." The Shooter relation always seems to be mentioned in interviews about that time. What do other people think?


 * Byrne brings it up /constantly/. If he keeps brining it up, it's notable in the biography.

3) Is there source for "John Byrne's Superman". I don't recall that phrase being used much these days. Was it used earlier?


 * I guess it's just a phrase I'm use to using and seeing. A google search shows 2800 hits for "post-Crisis Superman" and 1800 hits for "Byrne Superman" (or permutations) so I still think it's important to stress the identification of Byrne with the reboot.

4) Image driven comics boom was not in effect when Byrne started his Dark Horse work. Byrne also continued to work for Marvel quite some time at the same time he was working for Dark Horse published series.


 * How about: In the early 1990s Byrne began produced several creator-owned books (as distinct from working on other people's characters) published through Dark Horse Comics and he eventually left Marvel to devote himself to these books.

5) It's a bit misleading to say that Byrne collaborated with Kieron on several of those stories. Most of Byrne's Dark Horse stuff was done by Byrne alone. Kieron drew the Torch of Liberty back-up series published in Danger Unlimited and also one one-shot TOL issue.


 * Changed to a more specific reference

6) It is not correct to say that after 1995 Byrne worked on "untold" stories. Wonder Woman, New Gods, JK4W, Genesis, Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Woman, HULK, Lab Rats, and JLA were in "normal" continuity. Doom Patrol, Blood of the Demon, and Action Comics are not untold tales either. (I'm not proposing that all these series should be mentioned here, the text just should be corrected.)

7) Sales of Wonder Woman (especially during the first two years) and Amazing Spider-Man were good. The same is true for Batman/Cap, Generations, and JLA. The non-specific comparison to popularity of earlier works is simply not correct.


 * The untold tales reference was really meant to about Hidden Years, Chapter One, his New Gods retcons, the GA Wonder Wonder, etc. That phase in his career really seems to have had a lot of "tingering" series and it's really one of the more noticable themes in his work. POV gets a bit sticky here. I've tried to make the phrasing more specific.


 * Byrne has tended to spend more time on series that appear to be less tied to current continuity. You can also use letter columns, critic reviews, internet and message board threads, and other statements as a barometer of how popular Byrne is.  I can bring up specific examples, just by searching for the threads.   Such as This one, This one, and This One.


 * While people have differing opinions, I think the various reviews and some of these long-time USENET posters (including yourself) can act as a measurement of opinion on Byrne's work. --JRT 02:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If you want to judge popularity of Byrne's work objectively you have to look at sales figures. The sources you cite are very subjective.


 * I consider dragging those old usenet-threads here to this discussion as a personal attack. I request you remove them here. It seems you somehow try to discredit my contributions to this page because of those old discussions. Yes, I like some of Byrne's work and I have discussed it in usenet. Is that a crime?


 * The weird thing is: Just like in those old usenet threads, whenever I managed to point out facts in the discussion, several people attacked me personally. Unfortunately, the same seems to be true here in Wikipedia. I'll consider to help with the article again after you remove the links to discussions that have nothing to do with the issues that I pointed are wrong in the Wikipedia article. Thanks. --Mikko 09:00, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Mikko, I'm not going to censor myself again to please you. I am not making a personal attack, but pointing out the fact that you can't ignore the fact that there is a vocal contigent who dislikes their work.  I too think Byrne gets a lot of bad press, and think a lot of criticism is unwarranted.  I tend to agree with much of what Pat O'Neill says in his posts.


 * But some of it probably is, and it exists, and it has likely affected a lot of his sales and fan opinion of him, especially lately. I'm using threads you've participated in to remind you that you have dealt with this contingent in the past, so you can't say he isn't controversial.  I'm also making sure you don't let your bias as a Byrne fan let you ignore at least the fact that Byrne's become less popular today than he was in his heyday, and that fans are fiercely divided about his work.


 * Rob Liefeld had good sales too, but take a look at his article. The articles aren't always going to put their subjects in the best possible lights.  --JRT 11:21, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Where in this page did I say the people who dislike Byrne's work do not exist? Where in this page did I say Byrne has not become less popular today than he was in his heyday? I'm only pointing out that the text in the article is not correct. The old usenet threads you have dragged here do not prove otherwise.


 * Did you read my comments regarding the Biography? I said (see problem number nine) that there has been discussions and debates. So why are you trying to prove me wrong by "proving" there has been discussions and debates? I did not dispute that. So, again, why did you bring the usenet threads here? My conclusion still is that it is a personal attack against me. You also claim I have a bias but you have failed to show what is wrong with my contributions to this page. That is another personal attack. What I state in "problem seven" is correct. My source is the Diamond sales charts. I'll help you with the rest of the article after you remove the personal attacks. See also: No personal attacks. Thank you. --Mikko 18:13, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I am simply trying to remind you by bringing up conversations you have had with those fans in the past, that there is a lot of disagreement on the success of Byrne's work. Sales alone aren't the total measure of success.  Chuck Austen did some X-Men but many consider him a bad writer.  Byrne has been criticized in the past.


 * I also never criticized his sales on the mentioned books. Byrnes sales have been good until very recently.  I am bringing up the fact that fan acceptance of his work has decreased in recent years, likely due to his opinionated nature.


 * Being critical of your viewpoint is not a personal attack. --JRT 20:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There is no need to remind me about old usenet discussions. I consider dragging old discussions here as a personal attack. They have nothing to do with the Biography problems I brought up here.


 * I removed the part that highlights your name, but the threads will remain. JRT  03:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of there being lots of disagreement on the success of Byrne's work in general, recent or otherwise. There might be. The old discussions you dragged here do not prove it one way or the other. So, what is your source? How do you measure the amount of disagreement? I believe you have to be much more specific in the Wiki article if you want to include information about success.


 * Mikko, It's based on discussions, both there and in other message boards around the net. You are aware, since you've partaken in such discussions numerous times!  Which is one of the reasons why I posted those forums threads.  The fact that they are really long and there are heated discussions show that Byrne tends to create divided opinions.  You can't ignore those elements.  --JRT


 * What is your source regarding "fan acceptance"? How do you measure that? How do you prove that the cause is "opinionated nature"?


 * The opinionated nature of Byrne is what I believe most people have a problem with. Byrne makes many statements on his forum that get sent out on the net.  Note that he has stirred up controversy by discussing things with Christopher Reeve, Jessica Alba, and by using the word "nigger".  I believe a lot of the bad fan reaction comes from his outspoken nature, and in some cases it's probably affected his sales.  The opinionated nature also affects his writing--by ignoring elements of a character's history that Byrne doesn't like, fans feel he is disrespecting the other creators.  These two elements, based on reading the fan comments, is what has angered people.  JRT 03:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Saying that Byrne's sales have been good until very recently is not correct either. There has been projects in the past that have not had good sales. Currently Action Comics penciled by Byrne is selling well.


 * I'm not trying to dispute that fact--and I didn't actually say that in the article. It's correct in general terms if you compare some projects to the past.  In some cases it's caused by the depresed market, but projects like Lab Rats was a dismal failure, and X-Men Hidden Years also a failure if you compare it to the other X-Titles.  JRT 03:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What is this "my viewpoint" you are criticizing? I'm simply bringing up problems there is with the article. You continue to attack me personally instead of discussing the problems I described. I ask again to remove the links to old usenet discussions. Wikipedia rules are clear: Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Mikko 17:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are letting the fact that you are a fan of John Byrne perhaps interfere with objective criticism and writing. Clearly, based on your discussions in the past, you realize that there are fans who dislike what Byrne has written and explain why.


 * Anyway, the Usenet columns are to show good examples of the criticism amongst fans, not to attack you. I removed the part that highlights your name, but I will not remove the links.  It is not a personal attack.  JRT 03:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ultimatums are tacky and counterproductive, Mikko. Contribute here if you want, or don't if you don't want to, but in the end, the decision is yours and no one else's. Gamaliel 20:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

8) Byrne used some computer graphics already during 80s for Superman


 * Changed to a more specific reference. Does anybody know the exact issue he started using computer models?

9) The "heated debate" sounds a bit weird. Yes, there is people who like Byrne's stuff and there is people who dislike it. There has been discussions and debates, but the text here still is not correct.


 * Okay, I've tried to tinker a bit, I think "John Byrne's work, particularly his later work, his opinions, and his relationship with collaborators has become a subject of interest and debate amongst fandom" is suitably factual. The tough bit is trying to explain the "These discussions have a tendancy to become far more polarized than those about other comparable artists"


 * Again, take a look at the threads as well.


 * One thing I think we need to avoid, Mikko, is writing the biography ignoring this, because Byrne tends to polarize fans. --JRT 02:22, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Mikko 22:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Superman
I have an issue with these two sentences:

"He also took a few shots at his former employer, by portraying a villain who could "create a New Universe" and looked a lot like Jim Shooter, as well as a Beyonder parody in Superman."

1) Legends was written by Len Wein. How do we know that the jab at Shooter was Byrne's idea?


 * I'm pretty sure it was Byrne's idea, or at least co-idea. A character as tall as Shooter with his haircut, was seen wearing a uniform similar to star brand and having a SB Tattoo that "allowed him to create a new universe.  --JRT 02:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How do you know it was not just Len Wein's idea? RodOdom 13:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I can back up Legend was Byrne's proposal. If you accept my memory as source.  I'll try and cite a better one at some point.  Hiding 17:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * My question is how do we know that the idea to make fun of Shooter was not solely Len Wein's? RodOdom 18:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. You'll never get a definitive cite on that.  All you can do is present the fact that Byrne proposed the crossover and drew it, and that a character parodying Shooter appeared.  Hiding 19:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Rod, you can always ask Byrne on his board if that was his idea or not. And note it says he took a few shots, not wrote a few shots.  Even if he just drew it, the statement is technically correct--and given Byrne's very public beefs with Shooter and the Superman storyline, I'd say at the very least he wasn't just being an art zombie.  --JRT 19:47, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the person who made such an assumption has the responsibility to ask Byrne. Are you the author? RodOdom 20:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, DC traditionally has worked with "full scripts", meaning the writer Len Wein had to tell the Byrne exactly what to draw. RodOdom 20:52, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Like I said, the statement is still correct, since by drawing a Jim Shooter looking supervillain, he did take a shot at Shooter. If Byrne didn't want to take a shot at Shooter he wasn't required to make the character look virtually like a duplicate of Jim Shooter wearing the Star Brand costume and tattoo.  He had the power to make the character look like anything.  He definately took shots at him as an artist.


 * Saying "the author has the responsibility" to ask Byrne is not really valid, since we all are authors. I'm not going to register at the Byrne board just to ask a question when the fans there are openly hostile towards the Wikipedia entry as well.  Being a registered user who posts often, it should be easy to get an answer to that question.


 * That reminds me though, I probably have to add stuff about JB taking over Star Brand, Shooter's New Universe title. --JRT 21:13, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * You're playing around with semantics JRT. The question remains, whose idea was it? And most probably Byrne will not be cooperative with either you or me. If the factual basis of it cannot be establised, it shouldn't be in the article RodOdom 21:39, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * At this point I'll have to ask the rest of us to weigh in here. We know for sure Len Wein "took a shot" at Shooter. How sure are we that it was Byrne's idea too, instead of simply drawing what was asked of him? RodOdom 21:45, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Um. We don't even know for sure Wein took the shot.  You can't say he did if you're questioning the fact that Byrne did, by the same logic you use.  Like I say, all you can do is present the fact that a miniseries crossover Byrne proposed and drew took a shot at Shooter.  Now my memory of press releases of near that time suggests that Byrne provided the story for Wein to script, which would imply that the art came prior to the script. Hiding 23:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No I am not "playing around" with sematics, since I was the one who originally wrote the sentence. The fact is he drew it.  So it's going to remain, in one form or another--if we decide to trim the article it would probably go under a controversies or criticism section.


 * And Byrne has answered your other questions. I suspect you are trying to put the burden on me to prove it because you want to minimize any controversial stuff in the article, just like you did when you demanded I cite sources.  But I'll change it right now.  --JRT 23:08, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't put the burden on you. You put the burden on yourself when make assumptions. True, you don't know if Wein was behind it. Just as you don't know for sure if Byrne was behind it. Yet you go and write it. Is that NPOV ? RodOdom 00:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * He participated in it. That's all I said.  --JRT 01:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, semantics. RodOdom 02:59, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Shooter/Legends bit is now in the Shooter section. Added the important context that Shooter was disliked by many, not just Byrne. RodOdom 01:21, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I removed that--that properly belongs in the Jim Shooter article. I reworded it, some of the specifics aren't important.  --JRT 01:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * "some of the specifics aren't important" Coming from you that is indeed ironic ! RodOdom 03:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, but I did change it again. I mentioned the criticism of Shooter, but in a NPOV towards shooter.  There are not "Dozens of professionals"--if there are, provide me a list of 30-40 so that statement can be accurate.  For purposes of the Bio, it's about JB's specific beefs with Shooter, not those of others.  Also note that it wasn't only The Hulk that Byrne was complaining about Shooter's interference, there were also last-minute plot changes to FF, etc.  --JRT 18:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2) Which issue of Superman did the beyonder parody appear? RodOdom 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It was Superman #11. Ben DeRoy appears and seduces Lois Lane.  The character is drawn to look almost exactly like the Beyonder, wearing a white jumpsuit and having the addition of a scraggly 5-oclock shadow.  It turns out its Mr. Mxyzptlk in a human disguise.

Art Style
Interesting and useful addition. But you just know it's one of those sections that going to get a lot of opinions. The second and third paragraphs are problematic - I don't dispute the intention, but describing the inking as rough is a POV. It may be a widely held POV, but we need a reference or quote, to establish it. Has Terry Austin or any other pro said anything substantive about Byrne's work that can be quoted.


 * A good place to bring up something that hasn't been discussed here yet, the major change in Byrne's work when he becames a penciler-inker. He said in several interviews that he didn't work in the conventional mode, but instead produced very rough pencils (at best) for whatever editorial approval was required, then essentially "drew" the book in ink -- at one point using fine-point felt-tip markers rather than standard inkers' pens and inks. This was very negatively received, and may have marked the beginning of Byrne's commercial decline.  (Not coincidental, I think, that DC wouldn't let him do Superman this way.) I don't think the roughness of his inks, at least pre-Superman, is at all subjective. He produced work that was technically adequate for the reproduction/printing processes used on the monthly comics at the time, but in higher-quality formats, like the FF "Visionaries" TPBs, the roughness is conspicuous. N. Caligon 15:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I was trying to describe what can be perceived as a rough style, in an objective manner. His line-work was either "shakey" or "rocky" when he inked his own work in the early FFs.  I don't think this is a subjective statement--maybe I am using the wrong terminology.  I just know his line-work wasn't as smooth at that time.  --JRT 18:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Manga reference reminded me of a JB quote from the Charlon Comic Book Artist interview: "One of the strangest of all the reactions to my very early professional work, to me, was the number of people who said they loved it so much because I was obviously inspired by the Japanese Manga works, and Japanese animation. Which was very odd, since all I was trying to do was draw like Neal Adams, and I had seen only one Manga (whch one of my College profs brought back for me from a 'field trip' to Japan), and had seen one of the animation." Later in the same interview he comments on the artistic freedom to experiment at Charlton, "I very much doubt I would be the artist I am today, had not had that fairly loose foundation upon which to build."


 * The idea that Byrne's earlier work had strong manga/anime influences was often expressed in the late 70s/early 80s. I'm surprised Byrne rejected it. My period zines are packed away, so I can't elaborate. N. Caligon 15:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And before I forget again - does anybody have any better ideas for examples of Byrne's work other than those currently displayed. For a very long profile of an artist we've got a low number of picture - Alex Ross gets four and his page is a fraction of the length of this one.
 * Specifically I think that the top image should be replaced with the X-Men alternate future cover (141?) with Wolverine in front of the poster with the crossed out faces. That top image should be the most recognisable and iconic Byrne image possible.
 * The Superman 50th anniversary Time Magazine cover could be a good inclusion.
 * We've noted his use of computer models and slanted panels. Which are the most typical examples we can use to illustrate those?

--Jason Kirk 05:23, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The material I've added regarding the Eagle and the French influence is from Ron Goulart's The Great Comic Book Artists, St. Martin's Press, 1986, p.18. Full quote:

"I spent five years trying to draw like Neal Adams, and then I spent five years not trying to draw like Neal Adams," he's said. "And there was no point in any of that I spent any time trying to draw like me. So I sat down one day and said, 'How would I draw if I didn't draw like Neal or not like Neal?' "  He feels his newest look shows some influence of the French artists. "I've always liked that look. Of course, my earliest influences are British, the old Eagle stuff. . . . The basic drawing is the same.  It's the line quality, the use of light and shade that are changing."

Note, Goulart doesn't provide ref for this quote. Hiding 08:12, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Generations
The article makes it sound like Gerations 2 sold poorly. I agree that 3 tanked, but didn't 2 sell fine.--198.93.113.49 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opinion vs. Fact on Art
His facial features tend to be plain,

opinion


 * No, plain facial features as opposed to detailed features. You can compare this.  I'm going to reference Understanding Comics and try to revise this, but there are ways of measuring this stuff, it's not all "in the eye of the beholder".  --JRT 14:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

opinion the writer isn't even sure of

the fan criticism comes the smooth elements found within such facial features. However, his art in comparison is more distinctive than that used by typical manga artists.

according to you


 * Please compare the styles of Manga artists with Byrne. At the very least, Byrne has more linework then what you would find in a typical manga issue.  --JRT 14:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He tends to exaggerate some features, such as giving characters large glasses or distinctive facial hair, but it usually does not extend into severe caricature, unless he is working on a parody storyline.

''Where is the "analysis" in this? This whole paragraph is just your opinion so I'm taking it out.''--198.93.113.49 14:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's analysis. He has tended to exaggerate facial features such as glasses or distinctive styles of facial hair.  It's worthwhile in an article about Byrne to discuss his art.  --JRT 14:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's worthwhile if you can stick to the facts and avoid putting in you own opinions and calling it analysis.--198.93.113.49 14:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You two need to find another way to resolve your disagreement, other than the current revert war. How about requesting mediation? ike9898 15:15, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Why not rephrase: ''Whilst fan criticism of Byrne's artwork has tended to focus on the similarities of his facial features, this is a minor criticism and is felt by other fans to be subjective. It has also been suggested that Byrne has a tendency to exaggerate some features, such as giving characters large glasses or distinctive facial hair, but it usually does not extend into severe caricature, unless the storyline demands.'' I have to confess, I've felt Byrne's been drawing the same face since I can remember, and it is a common criticism. Hiding 16:01, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's an improvament, and I'd be happy to leave it that way for the time being if it was put in the article, but I'd hope that it would eventually be improved upon. I personally don't like the "some say.... but some say..." articles because they are vague, unencyclopedic, poorly documented, and even though sometimes they very accurately describe the situation there's potential for abuse. As for my own peronal opinion, I don't have so much an issue with Byrnes faces so much as the fact that he gives everyone the same cheesy smile and has about a half dozen hairstyles that he uses repeatedly. But the popular criticism seems to be "he draws one face" so that's the one that belongs in the article.--198.93.113.49 16:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sometimes I think that this issue is clouded by just how recognisable Byrne's art is. I would suspect that most of us would be able to spot a Byrne face from mile off - it's a very distinctive style (in the same way we'd probably spot a Perez or Swan head). The matter of debate should then be how much variation he introduces within that style to differentiate between faces. A quote from the JBF you may be able to mine: "Most artists recycle the same "heroic" faces, male and female, and I will admit when I was beginning my career I had a very limited catalog of these. There was not a whole lot to distinguish between Danny Rand in IRON FIST and Warren Worthington in THE CHAMPIONS, for instance. But this was something I worked hard to overcome, expecially after a (previously quoted) discussion with Dave Cockrum, wherein he mentioned that one of his goals on LEGION OF SUPERHEROES was to individualize the character's faces to the point that "they could all be naked" and still recognizable." . The post in this thread may also help explain his POV.


 * The plain faces thing is IMO the tip of a larger issue. Byrne seems to use - for lack of a better term - economy of detail. By that I mean that he uses a lot of detail (be it backgrounds or facial) only when be believes it is necessary for the story and not as a matter of routine. An example would be a large highly detailed establishing splash of a building, then a similarly detailed picture of an office, but for the "close up" of the people talking within that office he'd drop most or all of the background to focus just on the talking heads. A lot of artists do this, but it always appears more noticable with him.


 * The more I look at his art and the more I understand the influences he cites. His work does seem to be a very distinct blend of Adams and Kirby. The Kirby influence is especially strong in his FF when he's inked by Joe Sinnott and later during his Fourth World period when his own inks appears to delibrately duplicate Kirby's own inking from the New Gods. The biggest difference between Byrne's own inks and other peoples is that he, even from the 1980s FF days, uses a thicker line. He art has evolved since then. It's grown bolder and his only personal style has become stronger. It is such a distinctive style that it can be subdued or even radically altered depending on whose doing the inking (contrast inking on Action, that on Blood, or Ordway's on JLA). And has his style has become stronger it has alienated fans who fondly remember the neat and classic lines of the Byrne/Austin X-Men art.


 * How to rip out the POV and rephrase that in an encycopedic format is another issue. --Jason Kirk 17:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you do a good job of desribing the issue and also tying it into the "Byrne doesn't draw backgrounds" criticism which stems from the fact that sometimes he doesn't while at other times he does backgrounds with tons of details. I thinks you make an interesting observation about "economy of detail". Though I'm not sure if I agree or not. Sometime he seems to leave them out for no reason other than perhaps he's in a hurry. I always wondered if he wasn't rushing to make a deadline since if Byrne missed a deadline he'd probably have to kill himself. But you are right that sometimes he does incredibly detailed background. Like you I'm not sure how to get any of this into the article.--198.93.113.49 17:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I used the term "Negative Space" to define his art regarding faces and backgrounds. That's probably the best way to describe his art quirks without judging it.  --JRT 02:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a nuetrality dispute tag on this page?
If there is a neutrality problem it won't be resolved if it isn't made clear what's supposedly wrong on the talk page.--198.93.113.49 17:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It was added by Mikko I believe. His disputes are above.  He also stated factual errors, but I don't believe there are any.  I've tried discussing it with him.  --JRT 17:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * He put the factual error tag back up but I reverted it. He's supposed to create a disputed section on the talk page and describe what he thinks is wrong if he puts a factual dipute tag on a page. We should not have to waid through all of his old comments to try to figure out what he thinks is factually wrong. He he can't bother to start a disputed sectino explaining why he's tagging the article factually inacurate then I see no reason for the tag to stay in the article. I've left the neutralily dispute tag, though I still not sure what the issue is their either.--198.93.113.49 17:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * He's creating it now. Along with several dubious tag templates.  --JRT 18:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Controversies
Okay, I believe if we have this section, it should more or less indicate why fans and detractors have strong opinions about him. Either because of his reportedly arrogant nature, his disputes with other creators, or the fact that he has strong visions about characters and his changes cause a lot of fan reaction.

What I don't think is cool is just posting a list of his inflamatory quotes. I'm not sure what those three really have to do here in a WP article. They probably should go in WikiQuote, but if we did this for everyone, you'd have tons listed for each U.S. President. --JRT 17:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. That he's made those quotes isn't disputed, but to quote them with mentioning the context, the reaction to them or the defense of them is just as inflammatory as the quotes themselves. --Jason Kirk 17:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you feel that they lack context then add context.--198.93.113.49 17:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think both of us are asking you what's the point of adding them. --JRT 18:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * They are factually accurate; they are significant in that they generated considerable controversy.--198.93.113.49 18:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Not sure factually accurate is appropriate for WP, should we vote on it?


 * Factually accuarate and significant.


 * That doesn't mean it's appropriate. Did he lose fans because of these statements?  It seems you edit out stuff that praises Byrne but not stuff that criticizes him.  We should consider if such inflammatory quotes belong here.  --JRT 19:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * accuarate and significant does mean it belongs here. If you find the quote inflamatorty then take it up with Byrne, he's the one who said them. It's not you job to censor anything from the article that you personally find inflamatory. --198.93.113.49 11:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you are posting specific quotes that really don't affect his career or history. I would object to such items being posted in any biography unless they had a real significant impact.  This isn't about censorship, it's about posting specific quotes that don't really deal with the article.


 * I have no problem if you want to link directly to the quotes--I'm not trying to censor the quotes. However, give us an explaination why this is significant within the article other than it's factually accurate.  I'm certainly not about censorship of facts, but I'm concerned about how appropriate this is within the article.  Three quotes given in the last year don't seem to have much of a biographical impact, or even an impact on his sales--Byrne has always been "politically incorrect".


 * I have opposed die-hard Byrne fans skewing things, I also oppose Byrne critics or detractors skewing the article as well, and I think posting those quotes in full is just trying to do that. Those quotes are recent and are similar to other strong opinions people like Peter David and Erik Larson have stated.  Should we start posting quotes in the main articles of Political Candidates and other people?  I want the article itself to have integrity.  --JRT 13:57, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Disputed
1) Biography: "Several of his more revisionist works were not as broadly well received as his other more successful work and some fans disliked his treatment of plots that had been introduced by writers other than the character's creators." This needs to be more specific. What are the more revisionist works? What are the more successful works? What treatment of what plots?


 * Not here it doesn't - that's the point of the detailed career discussion below it. Put a bracket saying - see discusion on DC Phase II and Marvel Phase III - if you really want to, but the biography should be kept clean of discussion on specific works.--Jason Kirk 19:37, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If it is not possible to be specific this should be removed from biography and discussed only in the career discussion. What is stated in the Biography is not true in general, it is true only in some specific cases and that's why those specifics should be mentioned. --80.95.138.62 20:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, that's not neccesary. As long as a clarification as to what the overview refers to is made, an overview is fine in an article. Hiding 21:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Overview is fine as long as it's not misleading. For example, would Superman reboot qualify as "revisionist"? I guess so. But it's also one of the best selling work of Byrne's, so the statement is simply not true unless it is made more specific. Mentioning generic dislike of some fans is POV unless you mention that some fans also liked the treatments. --80.95.138.62 21:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No. It's implicit in the wording of the text. There is no POV. It's a presentation of the situation. Hiding 22:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

2) Creator-Owned Projects: The non-specific popularity comparison to non-specific image creators should be removed. It is irrelevant and it implies that Image predates Next Men, which it does not.


 * Lack of specifics and irrelevance are not factual inaccuarcies. Also it would take you all of one minute to add "Image does not predate Next Men" to the artcile if you think it is unclear.--198.93.113.49 18:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that I have corrected one or two sections of the article before but those changes have been reverted without discussion. Now you have removed several dubious tags along with some corrections I made. That is vandalism. Adding dubious tags is not vandalism.


 * Not all of the issues I state here are factual inaccuracies, but I feel some of them are.


 * I'm not going to add the dubious tags back. I don't expect you to do it either but I think you should at the very least implement the typo-corrections I made to the article. --80.95.138.62 19:22, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. And some of the issues you raise are valid, but I see know reason why they cannot be fixed. If you put the factually disputed tag back up I'll leave it alone for now since you have five disputes and they are one the talk page were they can be addressed.--198.93.113.49 19:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3) Creator-Owned Projects: what is the source on Next Men having similar feel as X-Men to some fans

4) Creator-Owned Projects: The text implies that all fans that were disappointed about the fate of DU were "less thrilled" with Babe. I think you should simply compare the sales of the two titles.


 * The Capital City sales estimates from The Second Standard Catalog of Comic Book show DU and NM more or less level and Babe selling slight less. The impression I draw from the raw figures is that there weren't people just buying one JB book - rather it was the same slowly shrinking group that was buying all JB creator owned work. --Jason Kirk 03:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5) What is the source for: "By stating that his creator-owned work wasn't successful enough for him". To my knowledge Byrne has never stated that all of his creator-owned work wasn't successful enough for him. He has said so about DU. I dispute that he said so about the others so can you provide a source for this?

6) DC Phase II: I think it is not correct to say that Wonder Woman and JK4W had good sales. WW sales were quite good for about two years, but otherwise this statement is too positive.


 * It's actually fairly accurate for WW. It had a big jump at the start, a bit of the standard settling and then stable and solid figures. When he left the figures actually fell. Sales were about 70-80% those of the Flash - a strong placing for the WW title at any time. The Second Standard Catalog of Comic Book doesn't list any figures for JK4W. --Jason Kirk 03:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

7) I think Byrne did not retcon origin of Etrigan. It is more correct to state that he restored Kirby's origin. This being unpopular with fans in general is not correct. You might want to state that some fans liked it, but some fans didn't.

8) Spider-Man: Byrne was hired to write and draw Chapter One. After that he was hired to pencil Amazing Spider-Man. He did both assignments at the same time. Before those assignments he also wrote some Spider-Man issues.

9) Spider-Man: What is "singular vision"? This sounds like original research.

10) Instead of ignoring Busiek's Spider-Man Byrne did ignore Busiek's Amazing Fantasy issues that were set between AF #15 and ASM #1.

11) What is the source for "generally poor reviews"? I recall there was also some favorable ones especially regarding the issue Erik Larsen drew. Perhaps you should just state that the sales were not good?

12) X-Men: What is the source of storylines moving too slowly?

13) X-Men: "he ignored some of the established backstory for characters done over the years (via retcons) such as Magneto's motivations." This implies Byrne ignored backstory of several characters. What are the other characters? I think the Magneto issue is not described with NPOV. You should state that Byrne handled Magneto as he was handled at that period in the continuity and that some fans were disappointed that later retcons to Magneto's origin were not explored in the series.

14) Art Style section is heavily POV. Mainly negative opinions are stated (along with some facts).

15) Art Style: "He later described himself as "a Frank Miller sponge," and told several interviewers of his desire to incorporate influences from Miller and Gene Colan into his style." What are the sources for these?

16) Art Style: "Byrne's original work was very rough and his drawings emphasized a lot of curves over straight lines." This sounds like original research. What is the "original work" referenced here?

17) Art Style: "His original style of inking his own art lacked the smooth lines achieved when others inked his work, as can be seen in his run on The Fantastic Four." This sounds like original research.

18) Art Style: "His inking style was generally seen as crude by comics fans, especially during the times he used fine-point markers rather than standard inking pens." This sounds like original research. 19) Art Style: "After he left Marvel to handle the Superman revamp at DC, he typically worked with strong and experienced inkers like Dick Giordano and Karl Kesel." How experienced Kesel was at that point? It should be noted that Byrne inked the covers himself and later also co-inked Action Comics with Keith Williams.

20) Art style: "A common criticism of his work at this time was that he drew large panels without backgrounds in order to increase the number of pages he could turn out." What are the sources of this?

21) Art style: What does "low on the 'picture plane'" mean? You should provide some explanation regarding this.

22) Art Style: "Today, Byrne often handles all aspects of his books except for coloring." This is not true. Today, Byrne writes and pencils DP, plots and pencils BotD, and pencils Action. He doesn't ink nor letter his current books.

--80.95.138.62 20:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

1) Doom Patrol is one to start on. That's a revisionist work that isn't selling as well nor is it as well received. His succesful works for comparison would probably be generations, as that's the most succesful in this stage of his career.  The later run of West Coast Avengers was also controversial amongst fans of the title for treading on the Englehart work with The Vision and the Scarlet Witch. His reworking of Superman to exclude Superboy is a source of huge consternation amongst LSH fandom, and basically rewrites thirt years of LSH storylines.  It's fair to say Byrne's always been a reviser and a controversial figure in fandom, and I'd support a trimming to that effect.  I'm not sure what work is referenced in the time period the quote covers, um, didn't he rewrite Wonder Woman's continuity?  I'd stopped reading by then.

2)Rewrite to, Byrne's creator owned projects were well received and sales were high, although they were soon eclipsed by similar creator owned projects from Image Comics. I have half an idea that Byrne's creator owned stuff was in response to Miller's. Hiding 19:24, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds better. I'd not use the word similar because it might imply that the series themselves were similar. I still don't understand why Image needs to be mentioned in this context at all, though. I'm also not sure it is correct to imply that sales on all projects were high. --80.95.138.62 19:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Try similarly creator-owned and put Byrnes initial creator-owned. AThe point of the Image ref is probably to place a market context on the works, leading into the abandonment for poor sales.


 * But the books weren't "well-received" -- fan and critical reaction was lukewarm at best, and sales weren't all that good. 2112 sank like a stone, and Next Men had respectable but not outstanding sales.  The rest of his Dark Horse stuff never had better than mediocre sales.  N. Caligon 19:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it is fair to say the sales were good at least initially. 2112 was a one-shot graphic novel and it was reprinted several times by Dark Horse. --80.95.138.62 20:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll have to beg to differ too. I think Byrne's Next Men had solid sales. 2112 was, I believe under ordered, and it was definitely in demand when its importance to Next Men became known. What's your source. Hiding 21:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Partly from memory, partly from whatever old zines I didn't pack up and store, partly from old computer files of sales data from various stores and related tables. In no particular order: Yes, 2112 was low-ordered.  It was seen by most dealers as priced above market norms at the time, and was very conservatively ordered. It sold quickly, but there was very little demand for it after its initial shipment.  Byrne has had enough of a fan following that it's been economical for Dark Horse to do low-volume reprints of it as existing stocks sell down. I suspect that it was feasible for Byrne to do only because so much of the artwork was salvaged from the abortive Byrne/Stan Lee graphic -- if it were really successful, you'd have seen more graphic novel work from Byrne. ::::: JBNM had "solid" sales, yes, but not outstanding sales. It looks good next to other Dark Horse books at the time, but mostly because so many Dark Horse titles were niche-market black and white books. Sin City (B&W, yes, niche, no) mopped the floor with it, and kept selling well after the initial releases.  My best analogy: back in the day, Miller's Daredevil and the Claremont/Byrne X-Men were seen as a pretty close 1-2. No race at all between Sin City and Next Men. Hey, early ShadowHawk outsold early JBNM by a factor of at least 5, probably more.
 * I view JBNM as a market failure by comparing it to what other creator-owned properties by fan favorites did. I don't think it's fair to expect it to rival the "motion of the moment" in its day -- I wouldn't be fair in comparing it to Spawn or Youngblood -- but it didn't do Savage Dragon numbers, it didn't do Ronin numbers, it didn't do the numbers Chaykin's prestige-format books did, it barely did Concrete numbers (for Concrete's color issues). N. Caligon 22:34, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised. I was manager of a store at the time it came out and it was a very strong seller for us, we'd shift a hundred copies of it compared to 4 for Concrete.  I also thought it predated Sin City as a series.  I don't have any press from back then myself, but I'm sure it was a top twenty title for the early part of the run before sales fell off.  I would still say it was well received, although it got squeezed out by Image and probably the storylines were too slow moving for some. However, I'm not going to argue beyond my experience. Perhaps the problem is in that sales fell off over the run, and that needs to be compressed.  Yes, 2112 was very expensive for it's format, but there was some demand for it once it's relevance was known. I thought Ronin predated it by a long way? However, I don't even know why I'm still here. Hiding 23:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No particular order. Sin City and Next Men were pretty much contemporaneous; at one point the initial stories were running simultaneously in Dark Horse Presents. Ronin was much earlier, the Concrete color books later; they're picked out as examples of non-Image  one-creator titles.  You could easily be right about the very beginning of the JBNM run, the first issue in particular -- it was what I call a "raccoon book" -- shiny stuff on the cover, with an eye on collector-speculators as well as readers.  But if the sales were that good, they didn't last -- midway through the run, Byrne was hiding the issue numbers on the cover and pretending each story arc had a new #1 book (common practice at the time, but also a sign of weak sales). I dealt with stores that didn't order (the real) #1 that heavily, and never sold out of it. N. Caligon 00:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No, Sin City and Next Men weren't entirely contemporaneous or like for like. Sin City was never an ongoing publication.  The first storyline was serialised, and then there was a gap before the first limited series A Dame To Kill For came out.  Like I say, the problem is in trying to compare the book to similar in the market place at the time.  I think Hellboy might have been contemporary, but again that went the Limited Series route.  I think it has to argued that sales of Byrne's Next Men, where respectable, even if they did not match the phenomenal sales acheived by Image, which, after all, had major industry coverage. However, since there seem to be people who want an exact source on every single statement in this article, the best thing to do might be to say that whilst sales on the book were acceptable, they were soon eclipsed by similar creator owned projects from Image Comics, and eventually Byrne cancelled the title due to the changing market place and tiredness with the project.  That's all citable. Hiding 08:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I just dug out the The Second Standard Catalog of Comic Book, it has Capital City sales figures and later Diamond sales figures (or more correctly CBG's estimates). They list Next Men's sales figures as peaking at 37k during 1992 and then following the all too familiar comicbook slide to a stable-ish 16-18k during 1993-1994. Point is that towards the end they were stable. Sin City's figures aren't listed, but SC: A Dame to Kill For did about 22k an issue in 1994 with 30k for the start and end issues. For comparison Wonder Woman (pre-Byrne) was doing 8-10K during the same time and X-Men were doing 130-150k. (Add ususal warning about sales estimate + different size of the direct market + CapCity didn't have the same reach as Diamond + etc + etc). Just looking at the estimates it looks like Next Men had a strong start and then suffered from the same sort of slide that you'd get for any new middle of the charts title nowadays. By the time it hadd leveled off other newer creative projects were starting at the top of their own curves - Savage Dragon's drop in sales from it's initial peak is actually very similar to the Next Men's. --Jason Kirk 03:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, that's it, I've requested page protection again. We obviously need to do some more talking, especially about NPOV and controversies, or what's appropriate. --JRT 19:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there is no reason to protect the page. It is better to discuss the stuff here and edit it. I think usage of dubious indicators on the page would help also. --80.95.138.62 19:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3) Any publication of the time, it was widely reported.


 * Cite one specific source. I think some readers did predict Next Men to be like X-Men, but it turned out to be very different series. Do you really dispute my dispute? --80.95.138.62 19:58, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * & enough to back the claim made in the article.  I believe there was also a threatened law suit from Marvel over the similarities of the name and the prominence of the X on the cover, although I think that petered out. Hiding 21:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's two people making accusations and they don't even back up their claims. Is it really enough to generalize that opinion to be the opinion of the fans in general? I agree about the name and lawsuit Marvel supposedly considered. --80.95.138.62 21:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The original disputed text has gone now, but you wanted a cite on some fans. Two fans can constitute some fans.  I know myself it was a common complaint in the press at the time. Hiding 21:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

5) The best quotes are from here: "When I set "Next Men" aside, it was intended to be for a hiatus of no more than six months, and probably as little as three. Unfortunately, my timing was off, and at almost that precise instant, the marketplace collapsed, and I realized that, in the turmoil that followed, a book like JBNM would probably vanish without so much as a ripple." "Retailers who did not order it killed Danger Unlimited."


 * These quotes are fine. What is stated in the article is not, unless you provide a source. --80.95.138.62 20:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not overbothered either way. If you want to rewrite to reflect that source, go for it.  Rather than dispute everything, why not try to make common ground, or edit on the basis of sourced material? Hiding 21:00, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I would not like to edit lots of stuff and then have everything reverted next week. I think I will wait for comments of others first or if somebody else does the edits. --80.95.138.62 21:12, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Then why dispute it? Hiding 21:52, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I disputed it because I think it is not correct. I want to discuss these first here because it is entirely possible that I'm wrong and there is a source for this. Also, it's getting late here and I need some sleep :) I consider doing some edits when I have time. Meanwhile, have fun! --80.95.138.62 22:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a lot easier if people provided sources, personally.

7) a restoration of previously retconned work can be termed a retcon itself. Hiding 19:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks N. Caligon
Just wanted to thank you. You're doing a much better job with the rewrites and keeping NPOV than any of us seem to have been, as well as keeping the article consise. --JRT 20:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising the page
JRT. Quit vandalizing the page. There is no point to your censoring information which you have acceted is accurate and significant just because you don't like it.--198.93.113.49 14:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It has nothing to do with me not "liking it", but whether it's appropriate. Wikipedia should not be used to sent a point of view.  You've seen me, I've argued with Byrne fans who have tried to White-Wash the article, I'm arguing with you now because I believe you're trying to use it as a soapbox.  --JRT 14:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not POV. They are exact quotes. The only POV they represent is John Byrn's. If you particpated on any pages instead just this one you'd know that Wikipedia is full of pages which include quotes from the subject of the article. Even controversial ones. See Ann Coulter and Michael Moore or any of thousands of other bio pages on Wikipedia, and stop vandalizing the page.--198.93.113.49 14:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Coutler and Moore's livings are made from making controversial statements, so the quotes there are appropriate. I object to the quotes not for content purposes, but for the article's purposes.  I have linked to a few of the quotes for now.  I want a few others to chime in to see what they think as well --JRT 14:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Those were just two examples. You could also look at the John Rocker page where he is quoted as saying: "It's the most hectic, nerve-racking city. Imagine having to take the 7 Train to the ballpark, looking like you're riding through Beirut next to some kid with purple hair, next to some queer with AIDS, right next to some dude who just got out of jail for the fourth time, right next to some 20-year-old mom with four kids. It's depressing." And he made his living as a baseball pitcher.--198.93.113.49 14:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't really have objection to the quotes, but as I've explained here and above, I am concerned as to the relevance and accuracy, or your personal intentions in adding them. Have you added any positive or neutral quotes, or just the really inflamatory ones.  Also, the quotes for Coulter and Moore come under quotes, not controversies.  --JRT 14:51, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you have no objection to the quotes the stop removing them. If you don't like the name of the section then change it.--198.93.113.49 14:56, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you concerned with making a good article, or just dumping the quotes in and preventing them from being erased? And please stop making personal attacks.  --JRT 15:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, this revert-war is getting beyond a joke. 198.93.113.49 and co - if we held a poll on this talk page over the relivance of the quotes would you be willing to abide by the vote? --Jason Kirk 16:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Notice posted at [] regarding User 198.93.113.49's violation of the 3-revert limit. N. Caligon 16:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And just to clarify, N. Caligon and I are NOT the same person. --JRT 16:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Handling Quotes
While I think the addition of quotes is okay, we should consider (a) them going into a quotes section, (b) Wikifying them with Wikiquote, and (c) Getting a good deal of quotes, not just the most hostile.

My objection to 198.93.113.49's entry was the following:


 * The quotes were created under a new controversies page, not as a NPOV quotes.
 * The quotes had less to do with anything involving Byrne's career, just his general opinion. If they involved his opinions on comics, I probably wouldn't have objected.
 * The quotes were mostly inflammatory, and taken mostly from a message board, not public interviews or articles.
 * Having reviewed Byrne's career and statements, I believe fandom is more divided over what he writes than his political opinions. Whether Byrne thinks Jessica Alba looks like a hooker with blond hair or not isn't as meaningful to the article as what his views on characters and comic fans are.  I certainly don't think any of these quotes has hurt or affected his career.  That's why I don't think the quote examples he gave were relevant for inclusion.
 * 198.93.113.49 additions appeared, at least to me, to be a bit biased towards criticism of Byrne, rather than maintaining an NPOV, and he has not participated in the discussions as much as the others. He had erased other edits when he thought they were "opinionated" that defended Byrne, but nothing that was opinionated towards criticism.  His reluctance to discuss the matter in detail is why I objected to their inclusion.
 * I am willing to accede to a majority on if the quotes are relevant, but it needs more discussion.


 * In response to JRT's list above - As a John Byrne fan I don't really want to see the quotes included. But as a Wikipedian (even as an inexperienced one) I'm not so sure. These are the type of things that will set off weblogs and message board, they will be discussed and commented upon, often with the "have you heard what he's said now" mentality. As such they are a significant factor in how a lot of fans perceive Byrne and so they should be covered. I do agree with that the quotes as they were presented are inflammatory, but their existance cannot be side stepped. Instead I'm going to post up a slightly expanded and more heavily cited version of that section that attempts to briefly articulate why he says those things. --Jason Kirk 01:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Understood, yours is a lot better, and puts the quotes in context rather than just pulling them out. I have added a few paragraphs trying to provide a balanced viewpoint of what appears to be the major criticism of Byrne from fandom and critics.  --JRT 02:14, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another couple days of work on the "controversy" section like the last two, and we'll have a nice article about John Byrne, cranky guy who has something vaguely to do with comics. Really, there's more in this page now who finds Byrne annoying, and/or why, than there is about the substance of his comics work. More to follow, if the cable guys get my netconnect stable this weekend. N. Caligon 19:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Better to have a polished NPOV section on the "crankyness" than to have to deal with each new editor wanting to reinstate or include similar sections. In an article of this length that section fits whereas it wouldn't be right for a far shorter article (like the original forms of this article). And yeah this article could really do with having 80% of the content gutted out, but you just known that it'll be reverted by another editor who saw it as vandalism. --Jason Kirk 20:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It could use some trimming, I realize that. I do think we have to have something in there, especially since there is misinformation on both sides--many Byrne fans would like all of it purged, but detractors overemphasize Byrne's flaws with sweeping generalizations and their own emotions.  My goal in expanding this was to (a) cover history and (b) address these issues.  I'm willing to accept trims, of course, but it probably has to be at least one paragraph.  That's also why I tried to add "Artistic Style" to the work.  --JRT 21:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * What areas should be trimmed? My summary paragraphs or the detailed quotes from Jason, or maybe a bit of both.  --JRT 21:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * How about starting with "Byrne holds very strong opinions on many comics industry issues, and discusses them regularly, sometimes heatedly, on his Byrne Robotics forum [link].


 * Some of his public comments have been viewed as unusual, even inflammatory -- for example (s) ........... (with links); . In response to one comment, artist/columnist Brandon Thomas ..... (w/link); give second example of response.


 * Byrne is therefore generally viewed as having a reputation, as columnist Rich Johnston said, "for making remarks that, however well argued or defended, have caused people offense, whether they were aimed at them or not."


 * Three relatively short paragraphs that cover the waterfront, separate the more outrageous stuff from opinions that are more commonly held, and comes to a reasonably neat summation. N. Caligon 23:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The quotes were created under a new controversies page, not as a NPOV quotes.
 * I don't see how that matters. The thing about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit it so if something is in the wrong section it can be moved to the correct one as easily as it can be deleted.
 * And we can omit something that doesn't belong until it right as well. --JRT 23:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

''The quotes had less to do with anything involving Byrne's career, just his general opinion. If they involved his opinions on comics, I probably wouldn't have objected.''
 * This is, frankly, one of the weakest arguments I've heard for deleting something. The article is about John Byrne, and I think there is more to the man than comics. For that matter what does his place of birth have to do with his comic book career. Perhaps, it could be argued that where he is from has an influence on his writing, but if that's the case it could be argued equally well that his opinions have an effect on his writing.


 * The point was that the contributor in question just added the quotes, made no attempt to put them into context, and made no attempt to discuss why the addition was made, then started making personal attacks when others disagreed with his input. --JRT 23:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The quotes were mostly inflammatory, and taken mostly from a message board, not public interviews or articles.
 * I take issue with the idea that these quotes are inflammatory. I don't post on John Byrne's forum, but I have certainly lurked there. And I while I will not try to read JB's mind, I cannot help but wonder what he would think of the idea that these quotes are inflammatory. People can say what they will about the man, but no one can say he doesn't stand by the things that he says. As far as I know, he never once shyed away from any of these comments. I remember that he did take issue with people misrepesenting what he said. For instance some people took to saying that he said "all" hispanic women looked like Hookers. One of the best ways to demonstrate what he actually said is to quote him so I think removing the quotes only creates an opportunity for continued misunderstanding.


 * It was the context of the person making the edit that I objected to. --JRT 23:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The trouble is that we're thinking of this as a print article - it isn't. The hypertextual media means that the original source in its host context is readily accessible via a link. If a specific issue is included I believe it's fairer and even more neutral to note that he commented on a subject, point to that comment via a link, and then to note how people reacted to it with a further link to their commentary -- just as I did when I wrote those bullet points.


 * I would argue that without context those specific quotes are inflammatory. As you said yourself people misrepresented what he said, but a lot of those people - or at least his detractors - printed the whole quote and still misunderstood it . It's because people react that way that I think that the most contentious quotes cannot be allowed to stand on their own. From a NPOV: the story isn't just that Byrne said X, rather it's that Byrne said X and people reacted Z. --Jason Kirk 04:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

''Having reviewed Byrne's career and statements, I believe fandom is more divided over what he writes than his political opinions. Whether Byrne thinks Jessica Alba looks like a hooker with blond hair or not isn't as meaningful to the article as what his views on characters and comic fans are. I certainly don't think any of these quotes has hurt or affected his career. That's why I don't think the quote examples he gave were relevant for inclusion.''
 * I'm not convinced that this is true, but suppose that it is. What does it matter? Can't the article include both matters?
 * I have been leaning towards N.Caglion's view that the article needs to be balanced, and should not become a laundry list of all of Byrne's controversies. As one who is trying to balance things out here, I may not agree with all of his specifics, but I do agree with many of the trims he made.  --JRT 23:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Not all laundry lists are bad (keeps my shirts clean). If Byrne's views/opinions are not articulated then there is little point including mention of them. "He was critical of the comic book industry" tell us nothing more than "he has opinions." --Jason Kirk 04:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

''198.93.113.49 additions appeared, at least to me, to be a bit biased towards criticism of Byrne, rather than maintaining an NPOV, and he has not participated in the discussions as much as the others. He had erased other edits when he thought they were "opinionated" that defended Byrne, but nothing that was opinionated towards criticism. His reluctance to discuss the matter in detail is why I objected to their inclusion.''
 * I agree, but they don't seem any more biased than your own position. I don't know what it serves to remove the quotes in question.
 * I must be biased for neutrality then. ;-)  I been battling others who wanted certain elements omitted.

I am willing to accede to a majority on if the quotes are relevant, but it needs more discussion.
 * Well, it looks like its been discussed quite a bit, but it problably does need more. You'll have to count me out though. It's silly edit wars like this one that keep me from contributing much to Wikipedia. Why don't you just find some neutral and positive quotes and create a seperate quote section from all of the quotes. Tons of Wikipedia articles have quotes sections. They're often the best parts of the articles because they present an honest account of the subject unfiltered by the inaccuracies and bias that creep in when editors try to describe a person in their own words.--Heathcliff 21:09, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I felt it was similar to the controversies section--don't add it unless you can construct it well. I mentioned WikiQuote and the standard quote practices and I get "so why don't you move it".  I feel a quotes section will work well if we can think about it and plan it first.  --JRT 23:18, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A further note about Quotes
Something I've just realised is that the John Byrne Forum, where a number of these quotes come from, has an auto delete feature for all threads over a year old (a relatively standard housekeeping measure on some forums). So if you're linking to an old thread as a citation you may want to keep that in mind. --Jason Kirk 5 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

Sarcasm
Well, it wasn't just sarcasm, and it technically was NPOV, but it certainly deserved removal. I was trying to illustrate the point, though, that Byrne vowing never to work for Marvel's current management is a non-event. He's not a market force any more. N. Caligon 20:00, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Recent revisions reverted -- details
Examples of problems:

Superman revert: Byrne and Wolfman were talking to DC independently about "reboot" of Superman (DC had in effect put out RFPs regarding Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman); Wolfman approached Byrne only about combining elements of their proposals.


 * But it was Wolfman that brough the RTF to Byrne's attention and suggested he send in a proposal. --Jason Kirk 3 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

Weisinger-era whimsiness was written out at least 15 years earlier, when Julius Schwartz (editor) and Denny O'Neil (writer) took over the property on Weisinger's retirement.

Doom Patrol: argument, from what I've seen, is not particularly between fans of the Morrison version and others, but is mostly between those who object to writing the classic Drake-Premiani run out of continuity, with the side effect of tangling up the Titans continuity (and some others). I never understood why DC didn't have the Monitor yank the "missing" members of the Patrol into Crisis (or just use the post-Crisis reboot to tweak the final story enough for them to survive), but that's not relevant now.

Frankly, the rewrites aren't well-written ("debued"; "learnt"; "supervillian"). And several comments are subjective/POV.


 * Ouch! But in retrospect fair. --Jason Kirk 3 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

The sales figures I mentioned are solid, from the Diamond/ICV lists, and the bases for comparisons are clear. "Blood" may only be on its third issue, but its sales can be compared to other DC #s 1-2-3, as well as bottom-of-the-line titles (like Firestorm) that are further along in their runs.

Finally, I agree that some citation is necessary for the Byrne broke his contract story. Given the level of detail added, there should also have been some mention of Byrne taking over AOS, the end of Action as a Superman teamup book, etc.

So I've reverted the page back to the 6/25/05 version, and am adding back the relevant corrections people made in the interim. Not that that version should be let stand, but it's a sounder starting point. N. Caligon 29 June 2005 15:58 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the rv'd Superman material to a (hopefully) higher standard and have taken into account a number of your points from above. That contract business still bothers me. I tried googling for details and I found usenet posts saying it was DC who broke the contract or that he never had a contract in the first place. I thought about including "departed suddenly (allegedly breaking his contract by not giving DC prior notice)", but it looks a little subjective if we don't actually say who's doing the finger pointing.--Jason Kirk 3 July 2005 03:25 (UTC)

Sales on recent projects
I can't see how one can call Action's sales "good," since they're below what the book was selling a year ago. Selling out at the distributor level means only that sales are slightly higher than dealers anticipated. As for other books being in danger of cancellation, that's likely so, but is still a subjective interpretation of DC sales figures, not backed up with harder info.


 * Aren't sales on most comparable comics down on what they were a year ago? Timrollpickering July 2, 2005 20:55 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about that, and the point of putting a supposedly fan-favorite artist on a book ought to be boosting sales. Byrne didn't give the book much if any boost. It's up from sales shortly before he took over -- but Adventures of Superman looks to be up about the same %age. If anything, the Byrne Action appears to be selling slightly worse, compared to Adventures, then it did before he took over. I don't think you can reach any solid conclusions from the early data, but it does seem fair to say that, relative to the sales pattern on the Superman family of titles, no great change looks to have happened. N. Caligon 2 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)


 * If we can't reach a solid conclusion about Action then it shouldn't be included. There's no point mentioning its sales until there is actually something to report. Doom Patrol hasn't leveled off at all healthly so that's worth noting. Blood of the Demon is more problematic. It was always going to be a niche book and it's retained a good fraction of it's audience (fractionally speaking) between #2 and #3. If it continues to level off without dropping much more it could be fairly safe (within the Manhunter and Gotham Central bracket). Too early to tell. --Jason Kirk 3 July 2005 01:42 (UTC)

Sales on older projects
Added info on sales of FF and X-Men at time of Byrne takeover of FF. Source is Byrne on his message board, FWIW, but it's consistent with what I remember from reports at the time. N. Caligon 00:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's also consistent with the circulation statements. The Standard Catalog of Comics Books is a great source for this, capital city figures, and later diamond estimates. Circs were 300k plus during the 1960s and slowly dropped to 178k in 1978. The 193k figure is for 1981. The previous two years had circs of 267k and 243k, but Byrne did some art in 1979 before taking over writing for part of 1980. There was a grap at the start of 1981 and Byrne returned in August of that year. The circ peaked in 1984 at 269k and was 251k for his final year in 1986. The 1984 circ for X-Men was 378k. --Jason Kirk 02:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

removed snarky comment about richards & strange
I've removed the following sentence from the "Marvel phase 3" section:

It is unknown why he never established a blood relationship between Reed Richards and Stephen Strange, both of whom are white males with graying temples.

Though I agree with the sentiment, it seems to be mostly a cheap shot and unnecessarily distracting. Manticore 20:29, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The Marvel Bibliography Section ...
... is missing a "Lost Generation" listing. The work, however, is mentioned in the article.

Lost Generation was published in reversed numerical order from issue 12 which was cover dated March 2000.

Additionally, I draw your attention to the fact that John Byrne is attempting to "set the record straight" about his article on Wikipedia. He is having difficulty getting through. Seeing as this article is about him, perhaps a little facilitation is in order.

Jesusgarcia 19:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

From www.ByrneRobotics.com

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7809&PN=1&totPosts=9

--

Posted by John Byrne

Does anyone know how to contact whatever Powers may Be at this online "encyclopedia"? For a couple of days now, between other, more important concerns, I have been trying to delete from the entry about me all the nonsense that goes beyond encyclopdic reference and enters the realms of opinion, rumor and borderline libel, and the result is that the page has been "locked" against my editing, on that grounds that my attempts to delete lies and troll-fodder constitute "vandalism". To add insult to injury, I have even been sent a little "message" from someone calling herself{?) DragonflySixtyseven, telling me I should not be trying to delete "actual fact"! "Actual fact" is what I am trying to get the "entry" to actually contain! I have made several attempts to find my way thru the labyrinthian coils of the administrative section of Wikipedia, but to no result. (And how about that ability they have to send the users "messages" to which the users cannot directly respond? Makes AOL seem like a bastion of sanity and decorum!)

Any ideas?

--

Posted by Todd Hembrough

Wikipedia is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation.

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Home

Contact information for the principals is below. Seems like a lawyerly letter to the Board of Trustees might get someones attention.

Good Luck JB,

Todd

Wikimedia Foundation Postal address

Wikimedia Foundation Inc. 204 37th Ave N, #330 St. Petersburg, FL 33704 Phone: +1(310)474-3223 email addresses

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation can be contacted by email at board@wikimedia.org. Wikimedia's founder Jimmy Wales can be contacted at jwales@wikia.com