This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
It has been discussed and requested;
Main article looks better, and seems to have very few disputed facts. Keep it up.
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)
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)
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)
I've edited the Legend imprint info to remove references to Byrne creating it with Miller. I've read an interview with Mignola [1] 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)
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)
Some comments on Biography section:
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.
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?
3) Is there source for "John Byrne's Superman". I don't recall that phrase being used much
these days. Was it used earlier?
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.
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.
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.
8) Byrne used some computer graphics already during 80s for Superman
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.
--Mikko 22:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
2) Which issue of Superman did the beyonder parody appear?
RodOdom 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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.
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."
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.
-- 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)
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)
His facial features tend to be plain,
opinion
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
3) Any publication of the time, it was widely reported.
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."
7) a restoration of previously retconned work can be termed a retcon itself. Hiding 19:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [ [5]] regarding User 198.93.113.49's violation of the 3-revert limit. N. Caligon 16:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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 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.
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)
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)
... 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
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
It has been discussed and requested;
Main article looks better, and seems to have very few disputed facts. Keep it up.
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)
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)
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)
I've edited the Legend imprint info to remove references to Byrne creating it with Miller. I've read an interview with Mignola [1] 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)
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)
Some comments on Biography section:
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.
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?
3) Is there source for "John Byrne's Superman". I don't recall that phrase being used much
these days. Was it used earlier?
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.
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.
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.
8) Byrne used some computer graphics already during 80s for Superman
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.
--Mikko 22:43, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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 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)
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)
2) Which issue of Superman did the beyonder parody appear?
RodOdom 22:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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.
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."
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.
-- 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)
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)
His facial features tend to be plain,
opinion
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
3) Any publication of the time, it was widely reported.
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."
7) a restoration of previously retconned work can be termed a retcon itself. Hiding 19:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [ [5]] regarding User 198.93.113.49's violation of the 3-revert limit. N. Caligon 16:26, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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:
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)
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.
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)
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)
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.
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.
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 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.
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)
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)
... 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