Talk:Peter David

Include external interview, or not?
A few days ago an external link was added to an interview at pipelinernd.com. Then one was added to and interview at aboutheroes.com. The second one was quickly removed but no reason was provided.

What makes the distinction? IMHO, the second one where David is interviewd on the radio is more informative that the first where he seems to reply to questions submitted by email. So why one and not the other? --Sean Martin 19:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think whoever removed it just didn't want interviews linked there. Darrik2 02:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, both of them are gone now. Which makes more sense than just one. --Sean Martin 05:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

His religion/ethnicity
I see PAD is listed as Jewish. Unless it figures into his work, what relevance is this? I would like to remove this factoid. I will wait for further comments though.Toddsschneider 09:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He's mentioned it a number of times in his BID columns, which is his work. He's also mentioned it on his blog.  (Interestingly, it was mentioned by others debating on the current "Life Imitates Art" blog entry, which became a discussion on religion.) (And FYI, I learned that a "factoid" is something untrue that is presented as true.) Nightscream 04:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I thought that "factoid" was another word for "trivium" (singular of trivia -- not). My understanding of factoid, was a misconception taken to be true ... a factoid, if you will.Toddsschneider 09:07, 1 July 2007 (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) 17:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. It needs quite a few more (I've marked the main statements I'd like to see sourced) and almost entirely relies on what he himself has posted, which is of concern. (Emperor (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

Spoke out against digital infingement
Suggest we reference this si more complex than it appears, given his fanfiction is a similar issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.23.61.20 (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Fanfiction has nothing to do with reproducing professionally-produced works and distributing them en masse. Nightscream (talk) 19:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the scansdaily controversy should at least be referenced. It's the kind of thing that I would want to know when reading about someone. 71.230.165.5 (talk) 05:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Was it reported as a controversy anywhere in the press? If not, I'm not sure how we could approach it. The links to his blog entries about it are already in the article as cited sources for the passage on his views on copyright infringement. Nightscream (talk) 14:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Public Persona Clean-Up
I never thought I'd complain about too many foot note citations. Nonetheless, the sheer quantity in the public persona section nearly make it unreadable. Surely there is a way to make the article intelligible while adhering to demands of the manual of style.

76.114.70.98 (talk) 01:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Agreed. You only need one independent source to establish a simple fact. Rehevkor ✉  04:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Not if fact in question pertains to his habits or patterns in writing, which by their nature cannot be established a single example. Nightscream (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Reviewing the section complained about, "Public persona", I did not see much about writing style, patterns or habits. The cites there, I feel are pretty important, however.  The style problem complained about in the section sticks out like a sore thumb to me, though.  On the scale of 1-100, the readability in that section is at about a 2.  In cases like this, I prefer to move the cite clickies to the end of the sentence, even in some cases, making shorter sentences to accomplish that.  &mdash;Aladdin Sane (talk) 06:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Only one independent source is needed. I believe in this case all the 5-6 source sentences are nearly all primary sources, from which synthetic claims seem to be being made (a violation of the policy, so secondary sources are required. Although I'm no expert.) Rehevkor ✉  16:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The section discusses his stated views and public disagreements with others, which are exhibited in the form of patterns. When a passage says, for example, "he has also engaged in public disagreements with Gary Groth and Joe Quesada", or "he has opined that certain criticisms of Israel indicate bias and double standards", those assertions are best illustrated with multiple examples, rather than just one, in order to illustrate the fact that these are not just isolated incidents, but go the issue of his overall persona. His conflict with Groth, for example, is an ongoing matter that has manifested itself in the form of multiple incidents. Ditto for his frequently-made political comments. Providing just one example may invite the accusation of OR or SYNTH.

What about merging some of the instances in which say, more than three cites are given? Could we enclose multiple links in one set of ref tags, with an explanatory note providing the dates of the blog entries?

I've asked Raul654 to chime in here, since he has experience with Featured Articles, and therefore would have knowledge of how to resolve issues of presentation/writing quality. Nightscream (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe using only primary sources invites OR or SYNTH no matter how many are used. Rehevkor ✉  22:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

OR and SYNTH have nothing to do with whether sources are primary or secondary. Nightscream (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, but but whether or not a source is primary or secondary has everything to do with whether or not it's OR or SYNTH. Rehevkor ✉  05:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not. Original Research and SYNTH refer to when material is added by an editor without a source, or when the editor interprets the information in a way that is not specifically presented in the source. It has nothing to do with what type of source it is. Read the relevant policy pages. Nightscream (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have and I stand by my comment. See WP:PRIMARY, part of the original research policy; "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Something I mentioned early in the discussion. Rehevkor ✉  15:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And since there is no "interpretation" in the article, that point is completely irrelevant to this discussion, which is about overlinking or oversourcing. Neither you nor anyone here has brought the issue of interpretation, or provided examples of any passages that have been interpreted. Nightscream (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You suggested using so many sources would avoid accusations of OR or SYNTH, which suggests there could be some contention in the matter, I suggested you can't avoid it using multiple primary sources, OR policy specifically states anything must be backed up by secondary sources. Of which there are few. But I'm no expert, so hopefully Raul654 will chime in on your request. Rehevkor  ✉  21:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

And I made it clear that the issue of OR/SYNTH pertained to illustrating the material regarding his habits or patterns with multiple examples, and not the issue of primary or secondary sources, which I never brought up. Nightscream (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions about Peter David's Wikipedia comments
one editor disagrees this section should exist, and wants only one sentence. I believe it is important to Wikipedia readers, since it involves them, and is interesting to read. Perhaps have it in a different section.

Peter David (who "helped cast Kristian in the TV series Space Cases") highlighted the deletion of Kristian Ayre's page in an article on Wikipedia 'deletionism' for Comics Buyer's Guide #1663 (March, 2010). In his article, he wrote a scathing attack on the practice of deletionism, after noting that "Wikipedia, which has raised the trivial to the level of art form, actually has cut-off lines for what's deemed important enough to warrant inclusion." As well as attacking the practice in general terms, David highlighted the case of Kristian Ayre, and the innacurate arguments that resulted in his page's deletion. David then provided, with the express intention that it be "use[d] as the basis to [re-]create a Wikipedia entry," "Commentary about Kristian Ayre, actor, in a non-online venue, in an article... about both Kristian and also Wikipedia's nonsensical, inaccurate, and flawed approvals process."

Opinions please. Should that be in the article or not, and please state your reasons why.  D r e a m Focus  21:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In this article? Only if reliable third-party sources have commented on David's essay.  Powers T 23:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As a writer and columnist, much of the material in the sections pertaining to David's public persona and personal life is derived from stuff he expresses in his column and on his blog. If you're going to remove anything not derived from a third-party source, then the entire Public persona and Personal life sections would have be removed. Given that the nature of that info is self-stated beliefs, viewpoints and life experiences, using those sources is perfectly fine to me. It's the same situation with say, the section in the Roger Ebert article on his personal style of critique and views: they're all derived from his own reviews and essays. If you want to know what a person thinks, after all, you go to the source. Sure, an interview with the subject could be a third party source, but what's the difference? Isn't a person the most reliable authority on their own views, far more so than a interview, whose transcription might include errors or paraphrasing?

If on the other hand, we were talking about an awards section (which can be aggrandizing) then self-published or primary sources would not be acceptable, which is why I removed the award section entirely when I overhauled the article last April, and added it back in only after I found sources for those awards. Nightscream (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't say anything about removing "anything not derived from a third-party source". My point was that we can use such sources to determine whether or not we would be giving undue weight to what is, honestly, a Wikipedia self-reference.  Powers T 02:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reference points to his writing in his column. He has also made comments on his own Wikipedia talk page  and in the AFD he participated in.  He said he would allow anyone to put the article on the internet and redistribute it, that a promise.  So I just did that now.  That should be linked to somewhere in the article.   D r e a m Focus  03:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't a valid public domain release. The terms are restricted to the medium of the Internet.  Powers T 14:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there something else you call it? I believe I followed the instructions properly.  I received Email conformation from him that he owns the rights to that page, and its already to use a scan of it.   D r e a m Focus  14:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everything has a name. It's a release for use on the Internet, but that doesn't necessarily follow that he's released all rights to it, which is what is required for something to be in the public domain.  If you received an e-mail, you should forward it to OTRS so that a ticket can be created.  Powers T 14:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a case of acceptable self-reference. The question of weight is a different problem. Paradoctor (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, it could be acceptable, yes; but if no other sources comment on it, then it looks like we're doing it just because he mentioned Wikipedia. Powers T 14:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Aside from a handful of cites to four other authors, the entire section is sourced to David, so it doesn't look like Ayres got special treatment here. Paradoctor (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood. Since the Public persona section already detailed a myriad number of public disagreements he's had, I saw no reason to give an entire section to another one, much less putting it after his Personal life section, so incorporating a mention of it among the many others mentioned in the PP section seemed reasonable. Nightscream (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If integrated well with the existing text, that might be reasonable. Powers T 14:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * How about this ? Now there is a link to it, and mention of what it is for people who want to read the entire article.   D r e a m Focus  14:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cleaning up the ref, I noticed the publication date of March 2010? Paradoctor (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comic books and magazines both usually have at different month on them then when they were published. I have no idea why.  Usually its just one month in advance though, not two.  I guess since its a magazine about comic books, they decided to do two. ;)  Anyway, we list the publication date on the issue itself.   D r e a m Focus  23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I recall that phenomenon from my Marvel phase during the early 90s, but I always thought that was because I was buying export merchandise (I live in Berlin). Maybe American comics are now produced in Korea? ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He wrote the article so that its content could be cited as the basis for the recreation of Ayre's article, but where did he authorize the posting of an image of the article, complete with photo? And doesn't CBG own aspects of that page, like its design,, etc.? Nightscream (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the image information, he told me by email. I asked if I could publish a scan of that page, he saying that he owned the copyright to that page, so publishing a scan was fine.   D r e a m Focus  15:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said above, if you received an e-mail, you need to forward it to OTRS. Powers T 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just did so. Not sure how long it'll take for a response.   D r e a m Focus  16:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Added OTRS pending to the file. Paradoctor (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The article links to the page, but no gallery image or anything. This is causing problems with it appearing to be orphaned.  Anyway around that?  I tried putting it on my user page, but I'm told I can't do that.  I had to change the license from public domain to the one where its only allowed on Wikipedia, since he said "anywhere on the internet", and public domain means people could print and sell it.  One administrator is arguing to delete it entirely.  Please share your opinions in this discussion.User_talk:Dream_Focus Doesn't this add to the understanding of material mentioned in this article?   D r e a m Focus  22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Detail
While I admire Peter David, I think this article is a bit too long and detailed. It's supposed to give a brief, encyclopedic overview of his life. Instead I learn everything from his writing habits (the morning for novels, afternoons for comics) to his "public persona" (how many other authors have a section like this?), to his favorite TV shows (I'm a fan of "Doctor Who" and "The West Wing" too--So what?) This article is 6,156 words. Literary legend Cormac McCarthy's pagee is 1,889 words. Just because Peter David puts a lot more information about himself out there, doesn't mean this article should have to cite all of it. 74.69.11.229 (talk) 13:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no policy or guideline I know of that says articles have to be "brief", nor should an article's length be determined by the length of another. McCarthy's page is 1,889 words? So what? William Shakespeare's four times longer.


 * As for the Public Persona and Personal life sections, a number of biographical articles have them. They are not found in all articles because not all biographical subjects are outspoken or controversial people known for a particular public image, and because article material is limited by what can be found in secondary sources. The Peter David article has such a section for the same reason that Rob Liefeld has an extensive Criticism section, when Jim Lee does not: It's merited by the different lives they lead, the sources available for that material, etc. Nightscream (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * First,Nightscream, I'd like to thank you for your work on this article which is on my watchlist because I know someone related to PAD. It's reassuring to know that this article has a dedicated editor.  That being said, I did notice that it is rated as a C class for quality scale for bios.  What steps could be taken to get it up to B class?  I agree with the above contributor that PAD's list of favorite things is long and trivial and does not rise to the level of encyclopedic.  I also see that there are sections that have many one or two sentences paragraphs, which I always find irritating.  On the other hand, I see nowhere that a Wikipedia article should be brief.  But I would like to see this article tightened up to rise to a B level.  I also noticed it was C class for quality of Comic articles.  One place to start would be to look at A class comic articles and see how they contrast with this article.  Cheers A Softer Answer (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * While wandering around I found this: Article size. It might make interesting reading.  A Softer Answer (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Early Writing Career at Marvel
There are some factual errors here and some material which is doubtful.

PAD was given the impression that he was fired from Spectacular Spider man because 'Shooter wanted him gone', but that version of events has been challenged as can be seen in the comments (which PAD contributed to) on this page of Shooter's blog: http://www.jimshooter.com/2011/06/answer-to-comment.html

The 'universal' pressure Owsley described feeling, it is suggested, might actually be attributed to some of the other editors uncomfortable with the sales/writing conflict of interest that had caused a problem with one of PAD's predecessors in the sales dept. This may merely have been a misunderstanding on Owsley's part because Shooter was pressurising him to take a stronger editorial hand with Peter David. The comments on Shooter's blog do not actually make it clear whether or not Shooter actually had David fired from this role; but the implication would appear to be that Shooter is stating that he did not. Whilst not directly addressing this particular question, PAD does confirm that he saw things the same way Shooter did regarding what editorial was asking of him.

The same article's comments also point out (and PAD concurs)that he was not made a pariah by Shooter. Contrary to what this article states he was engaged as writer on the Hulk whilst Shooter was still Editor in Chief. Bob Harras was indeed editor of the Hulk at that time but he did not succeed Shooter as EiC. Shooter was fired in 1987 and Harras was not appointed to that role until eight years later in 1995 (a rather drastic factual error...).

Regarding the tone of the article, might I suggest that protestations of the subject's innocence regarding the conflict of interest issue without even having raised the question of why this was perceived as a problem, give this text the air of a hagiography rather than an encyclopaedic entry. Indeed there are numerous parts of this text which that might be said of.

New old photo
Going through my comic convention archives, I was excited to find some early photos that I was happy to donate to wikipedia in order to illustrate how these authors appeared during the comic boom of the late 1980s/early 1990s. Whenever I upload them I get a lot of pushback from the same user who immediately reverts it. I don't mind if the general consensus is not to have it - but personally I feel it adds something to the article. Remember - this isn't to be at the top of the article - just to be included inline, as I did originally. I wanted to see what others think. Thanks, Tduk (talk) 05:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

(Saw this on the RfC page) I'd need to know why the other editor reverted it. Can you link to one, please? Side note: If they're blurry like this, then I'm okay with not having them - no offense to you, but it takes away from the quality of an article when the photos are blurry GRUcrule (talk) 17:10, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I removed it for that reason. I appreciate your generosity in donating them for public use, but photos of such low quality do not improve the article, but lower it. Nightscream (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd say any photo is better than no photo. Perfection is the enemy of the good. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, any photo is not better than no photo.


 * Second, this argument implies that if we don't use the photo in question, then the article will have no photos. This is obviously false, since there already five photos in the article. So I'm not sure I understand how "any photo is better than no photo" applies to this article. Nightscream (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll let Wwwhatsup know that you responded - I think a lot of people who go to RFCs just comment and don't follow through, not expecting to be challenged when they present what is essentially their opinion. In this case, Wwwhatsup said "I'd say any photo is better than no photo" - which I happen to agree with. He correctly presented that as an opinion - in fact, it's essentially what this RFC is about. Is an imperfect historical photo better than no photo? Your response is a little problematic, in my eyes, because you state your opinion as fact - "any photo is not better than no photo". Do you think you could try to avoid this in the future? It's bound to cause misunderstandings and irritate people. I would think it's safe to assume that Wwwhatsup meant that any photo that presents something that other photos don't present is better than no photo - in this case, a historical presentation... but I'll ask them to follow up if they like. Tduk (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was responding to the RFC. Perhaps somewhat hastily as I didn't actually review the article. I do maintain that any photo is better than no photo, this can often be an argument for fair use. But, given there exist better quality free images, it then becomes a matter of aesthetics, and whether the photo portrays some information lacking in the others. This can only be decided by consensus. And if multiple editors voice strong objections, consensus can hardly be said to exist. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I did not state my opinion as fact. I stated my opinion as an opinion. And as far as your interpretation of Wwhatsup's statement, that meaning is not clear at all in the statement.


 * And even if it was intended to convey this, what does it present or portray that the others don't, aside from what it looks like when Peter David is out of focus and has a mic partially in front of his face? If you're going to make this claim, could you elaborate on what it presents or provides? Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose The use of this photo. It's blurry and it degrades the quality of the article and the encyclopedia. The mic in front of his face doesn't help either. Thank you Tduk for donating the photos and for your work in improving the WP project but this is not a useful photo in my opinion.-- — Keithbob •  Talk  • 16:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – same reasons as Keithbob. United States Man (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Your donation is appreciated but like the other users above stated, it "degrades the quality of the article". The blurred image gives the reader an immediate negative perspective on Peter David. Meatsgains (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose use of the photo, reasons stated above and already given by others. But, thanks for continuing to try and improve Wikipedia! GRUcrule (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Peter David. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbgxtra.com/knowledge-base/for-your-reference/comics-industry-birthdays
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091215181346/http://www.coheedandcambria.com/us/news/year-black-rainbow to http://www.coheedandcambria.com/us/news/year-black-rainbow
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131226051552/http://m.comicsbulletin.com/interviews/4829/peter-david-and-jace-hall-join-the-world-of-heroes/ to http://m.comicsbulletin.com/interviews/4829/peter-david-and-jace-hall-join-the-world-of-heroes/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091015005432/http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1998nom.html to http://www.harveyawards.org/awards_1998nom.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201093953/http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/006332.html to http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/006332.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) 23:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter David. 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/20071109004143/http://www.comicaddiction.com/features/interviews/int_pdavid_102407.htm to http://www.comicaddiction.com/features/interviews/int_pdavid_102407.htm

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) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)