Talk:Judd Winick

Untitled
Bold text
 * /Archive 1: 2005

This needed cleaning up
This article had to be cleaned up.

Nightscream, I respect the fact that you are a fan of Judd Winick but there is a lot of information here that isn't relevant in a encyclopedia article, is covered elsewhere in a more appropiate heading, or is completely unverified.

I'm removing Judd's date of birth (not relevant and identity theft issues), most of the Real World section as there is a seperate article for this, and I am cutting alot of the other stuff because you haven't provided sources for it.

I've not added the criticisms back to the article because none of them were published or if they were no sources were provided. All the published mainstream press over Judd's AIDS/GLBT themes have been positive, the criticisms were fanboy/blog stuff and not eligible for addition.

Nightscream, I am aware that you are going to change this article again. Before you do so read the guidelines for Biographies of living persons and try to keep the POV neutral. You do sound like his cheerleader at some points.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.138.31 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 12 March 2006


 * Let me respond to these in order:


 * There is alot of information here that isn't relevant in a encyclopedia article, is covered else where in a more appropiate heading... Relevance is somewhat subjective. The information I included all came from Real World-oriented sources, or sources on Winick, and pertain to his career as a cartoonist, his time on the show, how his views on gays and AIDS were shaped prior to it, and as a result of it, and how it has since influenced his work. Hence, it is appropriate.


 * ...or is completely unverified.....and I am cutting alot of the other stuff because you haven't provided sources for it. Obviously this is false, since anyone who looks at that section at the bottom of the article titled "Sources and External Links" can see that I included sources, not to mention the numbered notes in the text.  The bulk of the information I included came from Pedro and Me, The Real World Diaries, and the episodes of the show. Aside from this, there are three (formerly four) website sources I linked to in the form of notes, a minority of the material I wrote.  One of them is CNN’s website (not reliable enough for you?).  Another is a website that gives the address of the Real World house where they lived.  Another was the source for one of the awards listed for Pedro and Me, which has since become inactive. A fourth was for a passage that elaborated on Winick making Mia Dearden the new Speedy, but I removed it and the passage. I spent many hours pouring over these sources when making my larger edits.  You can "verify" this by seeking out those sources to see that they corroborate what I included. Your statement, therefore, is unsupported.


 * Judd's date of birth (not relevant and identity theft issues.) This passage is just plain bizarre. How in the world is someone's date of birth not relevant in an article about them??? Just how do you figure this? And what in the world does identity theft have to do with anything? The dates of birth of loads of famous people are widely available in a variety of sources on the Net and elsewhere, including all over Wikipedia, and indeed, Winick's is in the article for The Real World: San Francisco. Where is the logic in saying that it is appropriate for an article devoted to the entire cast, but not to one focusing on that one cast member? Just where do you get this rationale from?


 * ...most of the Real World section as there is a seperate article for this And which article would that be? The one on The Real World? The one on the San Francisco cast? This argument is specious, as that material was specifically oriented towards Winick's time in the house, his relationships with Pedro Zamora and the others, and so forth. It's ridiculous to argue that an article on Winick himself isn't the most pertinent one for that material. Indeed, you youself didn't cut and paste that material into either one of those articles, did you? So which articles is it more pertinent to?


 * All the published mainstream press over Judd's AIDS/GLBT themes have been positive... So what? It is certainly the job of WP to provide differing points of view, so long as such views exist. It is not my fault nor WP's fault if reaction to someone's work is overwhelmingly positive. Our job is to provide material that is representative of what's out there. If what's out there is positive, then that's what we include. It is not our job to arbitrarily look for negativity if none exists, or to delete positive reviews if that's all that does.


 * ...the criticisms were fanboy/blog stuff and not eligible for addition. I don't recall including any criticisms. I seem to recall some that preceded my edits, but I don't think I myself included any. And I know for a fact that I included absolutely nothing that came from a blog, or fan source. If I’m wrong, then can you point to any?


 * …you do sound like his cheerleader at some points. And if you could point to some of them, you and I could discuss it in a civil manner. Or, you could alter those passages to remove the POV slant that you perceive. Or both. Instead, you unilaterally and arbirarily BLANKED ENTIRE SWATHS OF TEXT. Not "some points". This sort of bait-and-switch tactic (blanking entire sections of material, and then referring to them as "some points") is intellectually dishonest. The "non-NPOV" accusation is one that I've observed being flung around quite indiscriminately by some contributors here who don't seem to even know exactly what NPOV means. One important sign of this is that they never point to specific passages and offer their reasoning as to why it's not NPOV. They just erase large sections of text, like a clumsy child with a gallon of White-Out. Indeed, this is precisely what one "contributor" did with a large contribution I made to Pedro Zamora's article. He was politely rebuked by others, and despite his uncivil behavior towards me, I tried to see his point of view, and actually rewrote and re-edited my edit to make the article smaller and to address his concerns. I could've done the same here. (I did remove part of the bit on the new Speedy.) But instead, you make wildly illogical and inconsistent arguments, and never once contacted me on my Talk Page or brought up one specific passage to illustrate this pejorative "cheerleader" accusation. You just wiped out hours of work I did on text that was perfectly appropriate, devoid of any POV that I can see, in line with WP:BOLP, and obviously sourced. That's not an edit. That's vandalism. If you have a problem with material that you think doesn’t conform to WP policy, then give SPECIFICS. Explain the UNDERLYING LOGIC of your position. Don’t just give vague, unspecific charges. If you want us both to improve this article, try putting down the sledgehammer and giving some actual thought to the sections whose wording you have a problem with, instead of applying a scorched earth policy to editing, flinging accusations that you cannot back up with examples, and making facile references to WP guidelines. Nightscream 08:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok here is some 'actual thought' first please stop your own uncivil behaviour and start talking to me rather than at me. Your article is unbalanced and non-neutral point of view. I appreciate that you have spent a great deal of time writing it but I and a great many other contributers are unsatisfied with it.


 * Far too much of the article is given to his experiences in the real world TV show and his GLBT experiences. He is a cartoonist and writer and most of the article should be about this.


 * The Real World piece should be in the article devoted to the television show a simple link to that is sufficient. I agree that his Pedro work/association must be mentioned but not so extensively. This does not read as a encyclopedic biographical article it reads as a press release.


 * I am aware of your previous deletion/revertion 'wars' on other articles, mainly the Wolverine comic, and don't want to get into one with you.


 * Please edit this article down to a reasonable length with the majority of it focusing on his professional work. The story about Winick's college professor for example is not relevant, it had no significant effect on his life or work, yet you give it more mention than his marriage or the majority of his work. Why mention it at all?


 * If you don't want to do this we can get try to get an unbiased 3rd party advocate to look at the article. Tell me what you want to do.


 * Marcus wall 12:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Far to much of the article is given to his experiences in the real world TV show and his GLBT experiences. He is a cartoonist and writer and most of the article should be about this. Wrong. The article should be all of the things for which he is prominently known. Remember, the operative word is "noteworthy", not merely what one person in particular knows him for or is interested in. There is no WP guideline or rule that states that the material in a subject's article should mostly pertain to his occupation. It should be for those things for which he is noteworthy. He is known both for his Real World stint and his comic book work. Much of his comic book work and his status as a GLBT activist are influenced by his time on The Real World (a point I already mentioned, but which your refused to respond to). Most people who watch The Real World, probably aren't familiar with his comic book work at all. This is why, for example, Tom Cruise's article does not merely mention his movie career, but also his 2005 antics, his relationship with Katie Holmes, his Scientologist status, and so forth.


 * The story about Winick's college professor for example is not relevant, it had no significant effect on his life or work, yet you give it more mention than his marriage or the majority of his work. Why mention it at all? If you actually took the time and care to actually read the article, you'll see that it was a high school teacher. Not a college professor. As for having no signficant effect on him, you are clearly either engaging in a deliberate falsehood, or again indicating that you didn't read the passage, since it specifically states how it influenced his beliefs, which again, pertain to his relationship with Zamora, and his later comic book work. He obviously thought it important enough to depict it in Pedro and Me. All this makes it signfiicant. All we have to the contrary is an arbitrary opinion by you. And what does this have to do with his marriage? Is Winick most noteworthy for his marriage? The simple fact is that I do not know of many documented noteworthy facts about his marriage, so what am I supposed to do? Artificially inflate the passage about his marriage simply because of some arbitrary idea on your part that it should be larger? For that matter, why are you arguing this if you already stated that most of the article should be about his work as a cartoonist?


 * I gave you the opportunity to cite specific passages that did not conform to NPOV, and once again, you refused to do, preferring to stick to vague assertions that you do not back up. I also refuted much of the other comments in your last post, and you were not able to respond to that as well. So, one more time: If you want to engage in a civil discussion about specific passages that you feel are POV, then please do so. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, then please stop causing trouble here. And if I were you, I would cease making childish allusions to past "edit wars". Given how poorly my opponents' behavior came off during the disagreement over the Wolverine article, which included numerous insults, personal attacks, ad hominem arguments, hypocrisy, and outright lies on their part, I'd hardly think that you'd want to hitch your wagon to them, particularly if you want any credibility. Nightscream 19:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, my contention is not that any specific facts you have added are false but that the article itself is unbalanced. There are minor facts that have been added and given undue prominance and important facts that have been trivilised. The article reads as a press release not a biography.


 * Given Winick's views and past work there has been a fair bit of homophobia and critism on one side of this editing dispute and a lot of fanboy praising and slanted POV writing on the other. I tried to resolve this by paring down the previous article to bare facts and personal history but you don't want to accept this.


 * I have requested a 3rd party advocate to arbitrate. They should be contacting you in a few days. Please cooperate with them and give them your side of the argument.


 * Marcus wall 18:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Again you evade my points, which is to simply name examples that support your assertions. Now you're speaking as if I said that you asserted that there are specific facts that are false, which I never said. You said that the article is NPOV. All I said was, cite specific passages. Now you're again shifting the point to one of factual falsity, which I never stated or implied was your position. Why do you find it so difficult to respond to my statements directly?


 * As far as minor facts being added, and important facts being trivialized, I have already answered both of this concerns: As far as the former, I have pointed out how the facts you consider minor are not, as they influence his views, his relationship with Zamora, and his comics work, and that Winick himself cited them as such. As for facts being trivialized, again, how am I doing this? Can you name an example? How is it my fault if I haven't mentioned or given enough space to a fact that I simply don't have much detail on? If you know of any details that would give greater weight to some aspect of the article that you feel is deserving of it, then my answer is the same: Add it!


 * You did not "pare down" the article. Putting aside the fact that there was no "homophobia" in the article that I could see, much less "fanboy praising", what you did was delete entire sections of the article, for completely arbitrary reasons that have more to do with your own personal sense of aesthetics than with any WP policy or guideline, as I have clearly shown.  The fact that you have been unable to refute this directly proves this further.


 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nightscream (talk • contribs) 12:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Criticism
How does someone as controversial as Judd Wynick not have a criticisms section? Mark Millar does, but he doesn't?? 24.130.61.61 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Because fanboys delete it every single time one is added.
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.92.184.84 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Millar doesn't have a "criticisms" section either. And I think it's spelled WINICK, right?


 * Well, I'm a fanboy, I guess, and I restored the criticism (though I removed on bit that was unsourced). The person who removed another bit from a Comics Journal writer was Stillletttto500, who stated in his Edit Summary, ""Someone griping on a blog doesn't merit inclusion."  In the first place, criticism is legitmate, regardless of whether an editor considers it "griping", which is just his POV.  Second, the Comics Journal isn't a blog, but a major publication of the comics industry.


 * Even more bizarre, another user, 208.251.92.67, not only deleted entire swaths of text from the article, but even deleted the article's accompanying photo of Winick, which comes across to me like vandalism. He also added the factual accuracy tag, which disputed "Winick's credits as a comic., whatever that means.  There was no clarification in his Edit Summary, nor has he apparently attempted to engage in conversation over that tag on this Talk Page, despite the fact that the tag refers to "the relevant discussion on the talk page".  I restored the material he deleted, and removed the tag. Nightscream 07:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're both right. The Comics Journal is not a blog and is, in fact, a major industry publication. However, the criticism came from an entry on a blog (Journalista!) attached to the magazine's website and was not, to the best of my knowledge, actually printed in the magazine. Does that make it less legitimate? Actually, in my view, it does, but not enough to make me want to excise it from the article. I suspect that part of the concern may be that adding a criticism section leaves a back door to allow homophobia to enter the article. --GentlemanGhost 18:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I utterly agree a criticism section needs to be added, it is not my position to add why, that should be researched and thought out by others who know more about the writer/history, but if i may add, i personally dislike his writing style and consider his work to be a poster or platform to distribute his own views and raise awareness for issues. it may be argued all writers/artists are guilty of this. I myself tried to enjoy his work when he was writing green lantern, i am a green lantern fanboy... but there was only so much of his agenda i could take and it resulted in me stopping my green lantern purchases (considering GL is my all time favourite title, i currently purchase no other titles and own over 450 GL comics) when he moved to green arrow, a title i was purchasing at the time, agaisnt my better judgement i gave hima chance and could not enjoy his style and discontinued reading the series after 6 issues. a shame really... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.175.143 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Article length
I removed the article length banner from the article, because the editor who placed it there did not bother detailing any examples of unnecessary material, or begin any discussion at all here on this Talk Page. In addition, the article does not exceed the 32 KB limit, and as far as I can see, the only material in the article is that which relevant to his life, his Real World stint, and his work. I'm willing/obligated to entertain arguments and opinions to the contrary, so if you want to place the length tag on the article, please provide them.Nightscream 04:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article goes into painful detail about who said what on a television show. Wiki articles are not fan sites - fan sites are specifically excluded from Wikipedia. The limit on article size should be taken as a maximum, not a goal to be reached by every subject. The person described is not Robert Redford or John Lennon - he's a guy who had his 15 minutes. There's nothing wrong with giving him an entry, but "Winick also became close to Ling..." and all such play-by-play is entirely unnecessary.

References are provided to allow the interested reader to delve into that sort of detail should they choose. MarkinBoston 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, let's try to keep a discussion in one section; I don't think it's necessary to start another when this is the continuation of the section I started above.


 * As for length, I do not see any detail that is "painful", nor anything resembling a fan site. As fr the limit, I did not say it was a goal to be reached by every article, and as I mentioned, this article has not met that limit.


 * Your personal views on Winick's prominence versus other celebrities are not pertinent to issues of article length. The article's length is determined by the available information on the subject, and its relevance to that subject, and what it is noteworthy for.  It is not determined by the personal aesthetics of editors who feel that one person less important than another should arbitrarily have a smaller article.


 * If there are specific passages you feel can be edited out, then name them, or make the edits. The only one you've mentioned, about his relationships to Ling and others, is directly relevant to his time on the show, and the relationships he made on it, as they affected his work, how he was perceived by viewers, and for that matter, determined the person he eventually married.  Thus I don't see how it's justified to not mention it.


 * Placing a tag on the article is an indication that you have specific edits in mind. If you have any, then make them, or mention them here, and we'll see if they're valid, and/or if we can compromise on editing the article. This is what I did, for example, with the article on the pilot episode of Firefly.  I didn't just place a tag on it without beginning a discussion on the Talk Page. Thanks. Nightscream 07:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This article does appear to be quite long, particularly with the shortage of references. A lot of the information can be kept, but much of it is either wordy or unreferenced, so we need to condense. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 07:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And I find myself echoing Chris' sentiments. We can condense and we have to find references and citations for the info. Tabercil 12:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed per above. Uncited biographical info has to go, per WP:BLP.  Also, yeah, the article is in dire need of condensing.  Ford MF 18:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, the info dealing with his Real World stint and his relationship with Pedro comes directly from the episodes, The Real World Diaries, and Winick's book, Pedro and Me. If there are particular passages that you want tagged with source notes, just let me know, and I'll add them, including the page number. Thanks. Nightscream 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While that might be true (and if you are able to cite uncited info, why isn't it done already?), that still doesn't address the issues with how absurdly bloated the article is. Ford MF 20:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I wouldn't quite say "bloated", but there are segments that can certainly be put on a diet without losing any information. I'd pull out a fair chunk of the information about his "liberal" leanings but not lose it altogether. I'd also say push about 90% of the Real World info into the Real World article, but that article currently has no information about the actual events during the season (see The Real World: Los Angeles or The Real World: New York for what I'm referring to here). Tabercil 23:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I did not tag each passage when I wrote it is because I wrote it years ago, before I adhered to the citation policy as I do now. I was still learning many of WP's policies, and would just list the sources in the External Links section. Now, however, I always reference every piece of info I add to articles that requires it. As soon as I get a chance, I'll try and add the specific cites to the article. However, it's absurd that 90% of the Real World info should be removed and put into the RW article, and I've engaged in this argument before. The information relates specficially to Winick's relationship with his housemmates, especially his roommate Pedro. It should remain. I'll try and edit the other stuff, though. Nightscream 16:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To add to what everyone else has been saying: I came to this page without a clue as to who Judd Winick was. I'm a prime example of a "typical" WP user, as I came here simply looking for information on a name I'd heard. I almost never post on the talk pages, but this unholy mess made me so angry---I understand some of you really like JW, but this article is ridiculously overwritten. I shouldn't have to read pages of material on the inner thoughts of his housemates re: his relationship with his future wife, his amazing ability to instantly ditch any and all preconceived notions and biases, etc, etc. Tell me who the guy is, what he's done, what he's know for---this is wikipedia, not a freaking fan biography. Not to mention that I came here trying to find out why a friend was calling him a "hack", and there's NO information here on why he would have done that. I dunno, but this page is NOTHING like the rest of wikipedia, and it was not only jarring, but incredibly frustrating to read. Kyraven 13:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to second this comment. I came here for exactly the same reason, and I was just as disappointed and appalled at the article's writing, length, and (lack of) quality.  This article contains too much subjective language, too much "soap opera" detail (particularly in the "Experiences with 'The Real World'" section), and no mention of any possibility of controversy surrounding Winick's work.  All of the important detailed biographical information is completely buried in extra sentences and expressive language.  This article needs to be about half its current length, and sentences should be terser and more efficient with their language.  I'm also a 'typical' Wikipedia user.  I have read many biographies here before this, but none were anywhere near as poorly written.  Please, someone fix this.  Jace Harker 21:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I decided that anything in the Real World section that is unrelated to Winick's relationship with Ling or Zamora is really unecessary here. How about changing the section to: "Winick was part of the Real World-San Fran cast, met his wife, met Zamora, learned about AIDS, and when Zamora became too ill to continue, took his place, yadda, yadda.". The important parts of his life are these: Real World-San Fran, met Ling, Met Zamora, started speaking for Zamora, Zamora's death and his AIDS education speeches afterwards. Anything related to Rainey, the HIV question posed by the producers, the large lists of Zamora's AIDS complications.....all of these are unrelated to Winick's biography. It's just not vital to an article that we know that Winick didn't like Rainey because of a T-shirt. It never comes up again, it serves only to introduce that Winick is Jewish, which could be done earlier, and it's not important enough for inclusion.

Also, WP standards for low-end celebrities states that the year of birth only should be given, to prevent ID theft problems, and I know this has come up before--it needs to change, and stay changed. But when I showed back up today to make more edits, Nightscream had already added back in things I'd taken out yesterday. Can you give us your reasoning for keeping this article at this inflated size, for such a low-level celebrity? Not only is it hard to read and filled with non-biographical information, but it seems overly concerned with the thoughts and feelings of people who are not the subject. Please respond. Kyraven 13:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything related to Rainey, the HIV question posed by the producers, the large lists of Zamora's AIDS complications.....all of these are unrelated to Winick's biography. In your opinion. Given that Winick mentioned these things in detail in Pedro and Me, my conclusion is that they are relevant.


 * ...it serves only to introduce that Winick is Jewish... It serves to illustrate his relationship with Rainey, and provides a clear example of why their relationship broke down.


 * Also, WP standards for low-end celebrities states that the year of birth only should be given, to prevent ID theft problems... First, can you point to me where it states this? (Thanks.)  Second, Winick obviously is not worried about ID theft, because he has his exact dob on his website.  Given that, and the fact that it's on his imdb page, it is perfectly appropriate to mention it here.


 * But when I showed back up today to make more edits, Nightscream had already added back in things I'd taken out yesterday. Can you give us your reasoning for keeping this article at this inflated size, for such a low-level celebrity? Yes, I did add a couple of things back into the article. It's called collaboration, and it's how WP works.  The article is not "inflated", since I left out most of the stuff that you edited out.  Most of what I added were merely source citations that only show up in the References section.  Things that show up in the actual body of the article are minimal, as any comparison between the edits shows.  Your accusation is an exaggeration.  Lastly, article size has nothing to do with how prominent a celebrity is. Thanks. Nightscream 15:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The article needs to be paired down considerably unless third party sources can be found to support claims made in the article. I have tagged te article accordingly. If no sources are forthcoming that are unrelated to the subject within a reasonable period of time, the material will be summarized appropriately. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Night: Here's your cite, which actually addresses several of your wishes: WP Biographies of Living Persons. You should look especially to: "Using the subject as a self-published source" - it states that "the article is not based primarily on such sources.". Thirteen of your eighteen source references are to Pedro and Me, or Winick's personal sites (yes, IMDB counts). For example, you cite the book as the reason for keeping in the discussion of Rainey, while I repeat---it's an isolated, non-turning-point event in his life. It is appropriate for the Real World page, perhaps, but here it's a little off-topic. You might as well put in the name of a flavor of ice cream he doesn't like, or that someone was mean to him in middle school. It's just not important enough for what should be a short bio. And a link to Zamora's bio can cover his illness, a mention that he had HIV/AIDS and was ill covers him quite nicely--there's no need to go into it, except for the impact it had on Winick. I'm just trying to get the article back on track as a one-topic writing here--I'm not "accusing" you of anything.

To answer your direct question, see the heading "Presumption in Favor of Privacy", under "Privacy of Birthdays" on the same page---it may be published elsewhere, but I don't know that he's quite notable enough to justify keeping the full date---where's the harm in only noting the year? It seems a fairly harmless, sensible change to me.

Also, can someone who is more familiar with the subject add back a criticisms section? As there are two of us, at least, that came to WP solely to find out what the controversy surrounding him might be, can someone add this information? I'm still in the dark. :) Kyraven 16:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First, Thanks for pointing out the policy to me, Kyraven. I will be reading that, and making a point of adhering more closely to it.  I am curious, though, as to how this should affect inclusion of material.  Should all of it be deleted if it comes from the subject?  Just some of it?


 * How is imdb a "personal site"?


 * As to the matter with Rainey, this is my take on it: First of all, Pedro and Me is only one source for that matter. Rainey's behavior toward his roommates is documented via the episodes of the show.  As for the issue with the swastika T-shirt, it does not come from Pedro and Me.  It comes from The Real World Diaries, and those sources are cited for that material.   As for whether it is a "turning point", since when is this an criteria for inclusion?  If it is, then you can eliminate most' of the material in the article (his doing T-shirts, his doing the Idiot's Guide series, living in Boston for a time, etc.), and for that matter, most of the material in most biographical articles on WP.  The reason the material with Rainey is relevant is because Winick's appearance on The Real World is the primary medium through which most who are familiar with him first came to know him.  Because Rainey's relationship with others was a focal point of that season, it is reasonable that some of it should be mentioned.  Since the swastika incident is mentioned in The Real World Diaries, and Winick mentions Rainey's overall obnoxiousness and homophobia in Pedro and Me, it is reasonable to include this bit of info, IMO.


 * D.O.B. That policy you directed me to admonishes not to use public records regarding d.o.b. Does "public" mean "government-owned", or what?  Because if the subject himself has publicized his dob on his site, then what's the problem?  Where's the harm in just noting the year?  Well, I didn't say there'd be "harm", but to me, it just seems obvious that a bio article should have the subject's d.o.b.  Maybe that's just me.


 * I would favor a criticism section, so long as it is sourced. I forgot that there used to be one here.  Someone deleted it because they disputed the sources or something.  If you look through the version of the article from about December 2005, you should be able to find it. Nightscream 03:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really getting a bit out of hand---everyone but you agrees that the page needs to be adjusted. I'm just trying to make that happen, but it seems like you've been blocking any attempt to do so for years. I'm really hoping that you are honest in your questioning, but as time goes on, it seems more like nitpicking aimed at getting us to give up. Can you at least admit that the page is out of place when compared to the majority of other bios, lacks 3rd person sourcing, and that it needs to be fixed? Then we can all move on with a joint goal in mind. You seem to be conveying to me, at least, that you are the person I need to "go through" to make these changes, but we're joint editors, and I think I've given more than enough proof for the claims I'm making, and others have backed me up. Please work with us on this.

As to your questions:
 * The policy simply states that you MUST source from more than self-reported bios. The article, as it stands now, is almost entirely sourced to a book Winick wrote, or his personal pages, as I've already stated. IMDB counts because it is driven by self-reporting, see IMDB Self-reporting help. If you can't support the stories from the article by more than from these sources, we have to delete much of the material. It's just not solid enough alone.
 * As to the material itself, we seem to be hitting a wall in our definition of "important". Winick is famous for the Real World, AIDS education, and comics---I can't understand why anything more than that should be in the article. This isn't a full book bio, it's not a fan page for people who want to know the man in-depth. It's a WP article, it's not meant to cover every event in his life. Push a cite to the page of RW-SF if you want to discuss his relationship with Rainey, the details of Zamora's life, etc: they fit in well there. This page is about Winick, not the show---and the important part of the show is his relationship with Zamora and Ling.
 * Public records do not apply to the point I was making. I think you may have mixed up what section I was trying to send you to---here's the part I cited: "Wikipedia includes dates of birth for some well-known living persons where the dates have been widely published, but editors should exercise caution with less notable people. With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth." Kyraven 14:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I just thought I'd chime in here, although I don't have much intention of making major changes myself. I agree with Kyraven on the significant changes that need to be made. In addition, the language and content should be modified as follows:
 * Generally, in my opinion, things in this article that do not belong in a Wikipedia biography include:
 * descriptions of how someone felt and their motivations;
 * descriptions of what someone thought about something.
 * Things that do belong include:
 * things a person did, i.e. actions;
 * things a person said or wrote, i.e. direct quotes.
 * The author Umberto Eco said, when asked which of his characters he identified with, "With whom does the author usually identify? With the adverbs, obviously!"  We're not supposed to identify with any of the subjects, we're supposed to be objective.  Get rid of most of the adverbs, and many of the adjectives as well.

It's late and I don't intend to get into specifics now, however, if I get really bored in the next couple of days I'll make some changes to illustrate what I mean.

I do disagree with Kyraven on one point, however. I think it's perfectly reasonable to leave in the full birth date. The Wikipedia guidelines say that care should be taken, and that you should consider it thoughtfully. However, it's not expressly forbidden to use the full birth date, it's left up to the editors' judgment. In this case, I would note that subject of the article has his own web page, on which he chooses to publish his full birth date. Therefore, considerations of infringing his privacy don't really apply since he has already demonstrated he has no concern about making his birthday public. I would say, keep the full version. Jace Harker 06:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * everyone but you agrees that the page needs to be adjusted. Really? Then why did I leave most of your edits as they were, which I mentioned earlier?  Why did I accept your pointing out to me the policy regarding living bios?  Why did I tell you that I accept your suggestion of putting the Criticism section back in, and even told you where to find it?  Why have I engaged in discussion with you, rather than engage in edit warring?  Why do you speak as if disagreement on some issues indicates total disagreement?  Again, this is just exaggeration on your part (you still haven't responded to my pointing out your prior act of doing this, and I let that go), and it doesn't help this discussion or the article.  This is not "nitpicking".  It's part of the collaborative process that WP prescribes. Please stop acting as if some disagreement among us is justification for personal attacks, okay?  Let's keep it civil. :-)


 * Can you at least admit that the page is out of place when compared to the majority of other bios, lacks 3rd person sourcing, and that it needs to be fixed? As I stated earlier (I apologize if I did not do so explicitly or clearly enough), I accept your citation of the 3rd party source policy. All I did when you pointed that out to me, however, was to ask how much material removal that that policy would require with this article.


 * You seem to be conveying to me, at least, that you are the person I need to "go through" to make these changes... Again, please stop accusing me, ad hominem, of intents or thoughts that I do not have, that are of your own invention, and which you have not illustrated to the exclusion of any other intent.  I do not possess this belief that you attribute to me, as I'm well aware of the WP:OWN policy.  I am merely discussing the editing of this article with you, asking questions in order to understand your point of view, accepting your answers where I find them reasonable, and offering respectful dissent where I disagree.  Nothing more.  Why you see the need to snap at me and accuse me of things I have not said or done, merely because I disagree with you on some points, I don't know, but you should get used to disagreement on WP.


 * Winick is famous for the Real World, AIDS education, and comics... Agreed. Isn't the material in the article pretty much based on that? What in the article do you see that isn't?


 * Push a cite to the page of RW-SF if you want to discuss his relationship with Rainey, the details of Zamora's life, etc: they fit in well there. This page is about Winick, not the show---and the important part of the show is his relationship with Zamora and Ling. In your opinion. Not mine.  Rainey's alienation of all of his castmates was a focal point of the show.  Therefore, a line or two of his relationship with Winick is reasonable.  It is inconsistent and makes no sense, IMO, to say that his relationship with Ling and Zamora was "important", but his relationship with Rainey is not, and belongs only on the show's article, but not Winick's.


 * With identity theft on the rise, people increasingly regard their dates of birth as private. When in doubt about the notability of the subject, or if the subject complains about the publication of his or her date of birth, err on the side of caution and simply list the year of birth. Right. And as I pointed out, Winick will does not regard his dob as private, and will likely not complain if we place it in the article, because as I pointed out, Winick has it on his website.  I pointed out this above, and now so as Jace Harker.  Why won't you respond to this point? Nightscream 17:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The irony is that I came here to post that I'd had a change of mind on the birthday thing. But you know what? You can play the victim all you want, I'm done. I saw a problem, I cared enough to try--like MANY other people: 86.10.138.31, Marcus wall, MarkinBoston, Chris Griswold, Tabercil, Ford MF, and Jace Harker. All of these people have tried, over a period of YEARS, to convince you that you are not the ultimate power over this article, and that it needs CONSIDERABLE work. I give up. You can just wait til one of the higher ups comes through and makes this an actually useful and informative page. People like you (and here's an ad hominem attack you will enjoy) are EXACTLY what keeps people from helping on WikiPedia. You should be ashamed of yourself. Kyraven 18:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I have trimmed down the article to an appropriate size. It still needs a good copyedit to remove the editorializing tone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, talk about a new broom. :-)  I agree the article needed a trim, but I think this is a bit drastic.  You've removed all mention of his relationship with Zamora, how that led to his AIDS activism, the formation of his liberalism (since they're his views, I think Pedro and Me is appropriate as a source, since it's where he himself explains their origin), as well as his meeting his future wife on the show.  The Real World section now reads: "the producers revealed to him that one of his roommates would indeed be HIV-positive, though they did not reveal to him or any of the other castmates which one.", and ends the section right there.  Is this reasonable?  The article mentions how he was notified that one of his roommates would have AIDS, but not which one---and then doesn't mention anything else about that roommate, or Winick's relationship with him in that entire section?  No mention of his conflict with Rainey?  No mention that he fell in love with Pam Ling?  No mention of him doing AIDS education work on behalf of Zamora?  Why mention his friendship with Zamora in the Intro, but not in the RW section? Can we agree to a compromise?  A reinsertion of some of the material, albeit a bit more conservative with the details? I'll wait for your response, Jossi, before making another edit. Nightscream 03:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am entirely on Jossi's side for every one of the sweeping cuts he or she made. The stuff about what went on during the season of Real World is really not germane, except perhaps for mention of his enduring friendship with Zamora, and the genesis of his marriage to Ling.  The other stuff?  Does not belong.  Just because it is documented does not mean it is automatically suitable for a biographical encyclopedia entry.  The information about his conflict with Rainey is no more relavant than information about any other bad roommates he might have had in the past.  The Zamora friendship and Winick's AIDS activism probably needs to return, but honestly I think the article is still a little long.  We ought to be aiming for an extreme concision.  Ford MF 12:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and to reiterate, just because I just saw Nightscream's comments above, the "relationship" with Rainey is absolutely not relavant to a biographical article on Winick. If you were writing a book about Winick, sure, his relationship with Rainey for the weeks they lived together might be a thing you'd want to talk about.  But otherwise?  The fact that their conflicts were immortalized on television is something that belongs at the Real World SF article.  Not here.  Ford MF 12:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I added back in a small amount of material on Winick's relationship with Zamora and Ling, specifically to illustrate how it pertained to his stint as an AIDS lecturer, and his eventual marriage. Nightscream 16:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Winick in LA
Thank you for accepting most of my previous edits to this article, and congrats on becoming an admin. I don't want to get into a revert war about Winick moving to LA, but it seems irrelevant, or at least out of place in the paragraph it is in. Can it be moved to the previous paragraph or tied into the reunion? Also, does it really matter that the reunion is in August? I'd like to rework these paragraphs if we can reach consensus.

While I'm at it, I think at least some of his personal information can be combined with his introduction, and I believe he was originally slated to write Teen Titans East, not Titans. Since you seem to be a fan of his, do you know anything about this? joshschr 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it's much appreciated. Mentioning major life changes, including where one lives, is common in bio articles, and since he's from Long Island, mentioning he moved to LA just seemed a logical (albeit comparatively minor) detail to mention.  But yeah, I agree moving it to the end of the previous paragraph, makes sense, since the next one is really about Zamora's deterioration, right?


 * As for the August matter, some detail on the progression of Zamora's condition seems reasonable, and dating the one or two stages mentioned (the reunion, his death, etc.), makes sense to me.


 * As for Titans, I'm not the one who added that passage. I don't read any of the Titans titles, and hadn't read any Winick titles on a monthly basis for some time until I picked up Green Arrow/Black Canary #1 last month.  So if you wanna fix that, have a party. :-)  Nightscream 06:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wasn't arguing that it should be included, just where it was included :). Let me know what you think of the rest.  I may have misinterpreted some things when I condensed them, like his various moves and the progression of his relationship with Ling. joshschr 15:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I corrected a couple of things from your last edit. First, Zamora did not move back to Miami after filming edited; he stayed in Frisco to be with Sean Sasser.  He eventually went back to Miami, but only after his health began to decline.  As for the August reunion, that was not when he asked Winick to sub for him; it was merely when Winick noticed the first post-RW signs of his decline.  Thanks. Nightscream 16:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent! I think the section reads much better now.  There were just too many sentences that had to do with Zamora that didn't flesh out Winick.  Honestly, I looked up this article because, as a previous poster wrote, I heard Winick was a hack comic book writer.  I didn't know he was on the real world or much else about him personally, and this section was great as an insight into his writing.joshschr 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Barry Ween Detail
This article says Barry Ween is a three issue series; I own it, and it most definitely is a four issue series. A silly little detail, which I personally do not have the info to backup right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.215.239.95 (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's funny. I have all three miniseries, and the first is three issues, the second, 2.0, is three, and the third, Monkey Tales, is six. You're saying you actually have a fourth issue to the first one?? I couldn't find any indication of one at Amazon or MileHighComics.com. Nightscream (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

C-Class rated for Comics Project
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit WikiProject_Comics/Assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Current Photo
I uploaded 2010 photo. Not on 16 years old. Quit deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Realworldpic (talk • contribs) 09:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * In the first place, 2004 was six years ago, not 16. In the second place, your new photo is not showing up in your edits, which you can see when you look at the saved article, so nothing is being deleted. Lastly, please read WP:Civility and WP:AGF. "Quit deleting it" is not consistent with these policies. Nightscream (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Also in the interest of some stability it is often best to discuss updating photographs in infoboxes or people would be changing them all the time based largely on personal preference. (Emperor (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC))

Website Footnotes
The section claiming his Catwoman run was criticized for the emphasis on Selina's sexuality implies "criticism" as in by respected sources. There are four footnotes, all to websites like Newsarama and clickbait blogs. This is an ongoing problem in comic book material in Wikipedia. If it's not a published source, as in real world hardcopy published (and not self-published) books that you're footnoting, it should at least be a universally recognized authority at the very top of its field, and that doesn't mean a "news site" whose content is mostly press releases. Otherwise you're giving a mouthpiece and valuable Google juice of a link to any loudmouth blog with an agenda.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judd Winick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823092810/http://comicsalliance.com/starfire-catwoman-sex-superheroine/ to http://comicsalliance.com/starfire-catwoman-sex-superheroine/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019072219/http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/juniperlee/ to http://www.cartoonnetwork.com/tv_shows/juniperlee/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judd Winick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724195850/http://www.frumpy.com/judd/biography.html to http://www.frumpy.com/judd/biography.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Reads like a hype/PR piece, and has spoilers everywhere
This article reads like a puff piece written by a PR agent and printed on the back of a book for marketing. Specifically, the tone and language used is highly inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

Finally, there are so many spoilers in intro sentences that it's very unpleasant for people who just want to see what works he contributed to 2604:3D09:4782:6400:2806:977A:9FAC:4FCA (talk) 06:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored, per WP:CENSOR, and ceased employing spoiler warnings roughly a decade and a half ago, per WP:SPOILER.


 * As for the tone of the text, can you specify any particular passages? Why not rewrite them? Nightscream (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)