Jump to content

Talk:John Byrne (comics)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Initial Discussion

Don't forget to mention that in John's later days he's taken to the use of more culturally insulting language, something he delights in doing on his own forum, which sees overflow to other areas. by User:68.161.200.3

(sign your edits, enter new comments at bottom or with astericks *) <>Who?¿? 21:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)


This page is heavily POV -- (the editor appears to have a particular beef with John Byrne), and includes a lot of facts that probably aren't notable. (Some message board people felt John had "squelched" them? Not exactly a matter of public record.) Someone who knows the first thing about this guy needs to do something about this page stat. — Adam Conover † 17:21, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

I would agree....though Byrne does have an opinion and is not afraid to use it, I would say that this article sounds a bit POV. --James 08:54, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I am the one who added the "Controversies" section. I tried to be as Neutral as possible. Byrne has been a source of a lot of criticism on-line, and I felt it deserved coverage as neutral as I could make it. (I didn't even get into his disagrements with editors) I will post a link to the relevant message in question, as well as the columns commenting on it. I don't want to trash JB, but I also want to portray him "Warts and All". It also fits with coverage of others like Dave Sim. I'll see what I can do to make it fair, but regardless, fans may not like what's mentioned.

The "Squelched" thread.

This is the thread that references "squelched" in question:

http://jb.24-7intouch.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2011&PN=1&TPN=1

I will edit the statement about "some people left" because I now think that's misleading, Matt is back, but I believe that this controversy is valid. I promise that I will also expand the stuff the more positive efforts Byrne has done over time.


Awesome update to the page....great work !!--James 09:52, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article ought to include some unbiased factual details about Byrne's antagonism with other creators (have an example?) , fans, and retailers. His general disdain for any creator more successful than himself (this comment is simply opinion and not based on a lot of anything much less fact), his habit of insulting fans, and his insistance that a retailer conspiracy is responsible for the poor sells of works like Lab Rats and Spider-woman are significant parts of who he is and his part in the comic's industry.

Actually what you describe has a lot to do with the "Bad byrne" image a lot of poeple like to spread around. But little to do with his impact as a comic creator and the titles he worked on. Yes he has opinions on the field in which he works and is vocal about speaking them. But to say something as opinonated as "disdain for any creator more successful than himself" shows your motive more than factual reporting. --James 11:04, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My motive for doing what exactly? I haven't added anything to the article about Bryne's antagonism with other creators and fans so you are speaking of my motive for not doing anything. I'm suggest that someone needs to write an unbiased paragraph on this. I'm not suggesting that I do it because I might have trouble being objective.
I plan to do it soon. I'm just pre-working it because I want to make sure it's accurate and has a NPOV. Byrne does have strong opinions and it is a fact he's one of the most controversial comic book writers right now, and it does note merit because it affects the subjects of comics at large. Unfortunately, he has alienated a lot of creators and fans because of his strong opinions and some unpopular storylines he's written, although I covered much of the former within the history itself. --JRT 23:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let's see,... he's insulted Neal Adams [1] and Dave Cockrum [2], has an ongoing feud with Peter David, has a history of deleting the majority of posts which disagree with him or cast him in an embarrasing light from his message board and banning the people who post them, made rude comments about Christopher Reeve after his death and said all blond Latinas look like hookers [3]. And that's just the more infamous events that trip off the top of my head.
Long Litany here: [4]
Plus, here's a few more links from All the Rage for good measure - [5], [6], [7], [8] - SoM 00:48, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see a reason to druge up all this stuff in that level of detail. Part of the reason why I avoided the "controversies" section was to prevent it from looking like a trash piece. Rod does have a good point we need to maintain neutral POV.
I'm only trying to aim at specific controversies over why fans hated the plot. I'm trying not to indicate reviews, for instance, since that's minor, but I do try to gauge fan reaction to the things he does. It's a tough line to deal with. --JRT 02:21, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
One of the things about RodOdom though is that he's a very big, very public Byrne fan, who goes around the internet promoting Byrne's books (he even had a stunt whereby if someone promised to buy Byrne's Doom Patrol for a year, he'd vote for whoever they wanted in the 2004 US prez election. Or something very similar to the same effect on the voting - I forget the precise details). Which isn't to say he can't contribute, far from it, but you have to bear in mind that he's not looking at stuff from a NPOV. A lot of the stuff in this article seems to have been worded from a Byrne-sympathetic POV, and that needs to be smoothed out too.
The general concensus I seem to find about Byrne's work is that most people like/appreciate his work up to his [[Fantastic Four] and Alpha Flight runs, his Superman stuff annoyed a bunch of people because it was a reboot with big changes from the pre-Crisis version (I liked it), and his AWC annoyed even more because it's the first real example of what, in many respects, would become his trademark - going into an ongoing series and ignoring all the character dynamics and status quoes of the previous writers, and arbitarily making them how he wanted them to be from page 1. Next Men's got a fanbase, but other than that most of his post-AWC work, especially his writing, hasn't met with much approval, with his Wonder Woman, Hulk and Spider-Man runs attracting particular vitriol. Plus, I seem to recall a specific comment annoyed many of his fans, but I can't recall the details beyond the fact that he both insulted them and took them for granted simultaneously, which didn't help.
Additional - the incident I referred to above is actually already mentioned and linked in the article, now I look - [9]. Scroll down to the section starting "Along the lines of living in the past..." - SoM 02:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Then there's the internet age, and his infamous forum, which is Darwinian in it's selection of those who love his work ("Membership in the JBF is strictly limited to fans of the work of John Byrne.") - thanks to much banning and deleting at one point, but there's less of that now for the simple reason that there's a critical mass of Big Byrne Fans by this point. Plus his various proclaimations, some of which I linked to reports of above. You simply can't neglect all this in a NPOV article, or it becomes POV by trying too hard not to be a "trash piece." - SoM 02:50, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some Factual Disputes

--- comment by Mikko starts: --- The current protected version of John Byrne page seems to have at least the following problems:

1. The Avengers conflict is not described correctly. DeFalco had first approved the storyline.
2. Whatever Kirby might or might not have 'reportedly' thought about OMAC is irrelevant, hearsay and mind reading combined
3. The comparison of the popularity of Next Men to popularity of Image creators does not make any sense
4. Byrne has never said Danger Unlimited was not profitable
5. Byrne has never said that his creator-owned work was not successful enough for him
6. Having Jason Blood as part of Wonder Woman cast was not a controversial thing. Maybe two or three people in the whole universe complained about Byrne's portrayal of Demon, but there was never anything controversial about it.
7. There was no long sub-plot to reverse changes re: Demon
8. Byrne didn't make such changes to Demon that would make it possible to say whether subsequent writers ignored the changes (what changes??) or not.
9. New Gods was not canceled. It was relaunched with a different title.
10. The Spider-Man description does not make any sense. Busiek's series is not related to that in any way. Marv Wolfman does not have anything to do with that. It is normal that comic-professionals criticize comics.
11. When Byrne left the Hulk the 2nd time he left because he was fired.
12. I think Byrne has used "angular panels" before Hidden Years
13. The description of the fan reaction to Hidden Years is completely false. Regarding Magneto there has been discussion generated by interviews and message board posts, but nobody complained there is a problem with how the character was portrayed in Hidden Years.
14. The text says that Marvel wouldn't approve a speculation related to Magneto. That doesn't make any sense.
15. Sales of Hidden Years were pretty good for the whole run. The "it soon dipped..." part is not fitting description.

There's more problems, but I'm too tired to write about them now. Let's see how this develops :) --- comment by Mikko ends ---

Admittedly, the version restored by me was lacking some gramatic corrections and trims. I was going to re-edit it, but we got into an edit way. But to go over some of your points.
2. This was actually covered in an interview I can't remember, and Byrne had actually responded to that statement. The interview occured sometime while either Byrne was doing Next Men, or had just completed it.
3. The word "Image" never appears here, what comparison am I making?
4 & 5. Byrne had made a public statement that he was not going to continue Danger Unlimited because sales were not good.
6-8. Byrne took Jason Blood into the cast. He then proceeded with a sub-plot that was a variation of the "everything you know is a lie". There was fan concern about Byrne taking Etrigan and returning him to the Kirby roots, because a lot of fans liked Ennis and Grant's stories. (I personally prefer Byrne's myself). Saying "maybe 3 people were upset" ignores discussion of this sub-plot on the Internet and in letters columns, and also ignores the fact that the writers also disagreed, and as soon as Byrne left DC, the Demon was back to his Rhyming self without regard for what Byrne had written.
9. Technically, the book was cancelled. I did not however mean to word this in a way that makes it look like "it didn't sell".
10. The reason I mention Busiek and Wolfman is to emphasize the fact that reason Byrne has become controversial is the fact that Byrne seems to take an attitude of ignoring other writer's works, which upsets fans. At the time of Chapter One, Busiek's title was still ongoing (or had just been cancelled, I can't remember), and fans were irritated that Byrne's re-working of the Spider-Man title was ignoring the work of one of his peers. But maybe this type of detail can go under a controversies section. Unfortunately, Spider-Man: Chapter One is considered a critical failure and I felt some details needed to be given there.
12. Perhaps, but ever since he started Hidden Years he pretty much has adopted that as his primary style.
15. I am basing this strictly on sales figures. Hidden Years originally was in the Top 10. Then it rapidly dipped to something like number 76 or worse--these sales figured can be found on-line. While we can argue sematically about whether Hidden Years was profitable, etc...it was one of the worst-selling X-Titles compared to all the others, and that is a fact that was likely a factor in its cancellation.
Please note: I'm trying to create a balanced viewpoint as well with this article. Do I think Byrne gets unfairly slammed by the fans? Yes. But I also think in some ways he does it to himself by not taking into account fan reaction and the reaction of his peers, and by being "politically incorrect" with many of his statements. He is truly one of the "greats" in comics. He is also truly one of the most controversial writers. I think that deserves noting. If you look up information about Byrne, you might ask "why is he so controversial?". I think this article does a good job to explain why some dislike his work, without falling into the trap of "his old stuff is better" or "hes a has-been", or similar complaints by some fans.


--JRT 21:22, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


--- Reply to JohnRTry by Mikko starts: ---

2. Byrne has said that he has been told that Kirby didn't like Byrne's OMAC. I'm not aware of source that could verify Kirby actually has said this. I think it would be better not to mention it because what does it matter what Kirby may or may have thought? If it is mentioned why not mention also that Stan Lee liked Byrne's Chapter One?


3. The article says: "Many fans were pleased with his work, and although his work was not as popular as the Image creators, it was well received by fans, and was one of the top-selling Dark Horse titles." What is the point to mention "Image creators" in this context?


4 & 5. Yes, he has. But why does the article say that DU was not profitable and that his creator owned work (the text implies all work) was not successful enough? Just state the facts.


6-8. There was no "everything you know is a lie" plotline in WW regarding Demon. Yes, there was Internet discussion. That does not make it a controversy. Can you specify which writers disagreed what? Yes, it might be so that some later writers did not take in account what happened in Byrne's stories, that kind of stuff happens all the time, but is it relevant anymore now when Byrne plots and draws the regular Demon series? At least you should mention this also here.


9. Did DC decide to cancel the book? Or did they decide to rename and renumber it? I think there's a difference. The article shouldn't say it was canceled unless we have a source that verifies that DC management in fact did decide to cancel the series.


10. Byrne being controversial is your opinion, not a fact. Byrne having an attitude to ignore work of others is your opinion, not a fact. I have seen a number of positive things written about Chapter One so I think it isn't entirely accurate to say it is a critical failure. Again, Busiek's series hasn't got anything to do with Chapter One. Chapter One was retelling/update of Lee/Ditko stories published in 60s. The purpose of Chapter One was not to retell/update Busiek's stories. So whether Byrne ignored Busiek's stories or not is not relevant.


12. Byrne has used and uses many kinds of panel shapes in his work. I think what is stated in the article regarding this is simply incorrect.


15. The point is that what is stated in the article is misleading. Sales were lower later than at the start of the series, but that happens to most of the series in the market. The article makes it sound like low sales was a major issue for the series. The article also says that fans complained about the storylines moving too slowly. What is the source of this? The text implies all fans and I'm sure it isn't true. If you mention all these negative things why not mention something positive about the series?


16. I think Byrne not taking in account fan reaction is your opinion, not a fact.


17. I think Byrne being one of the most controversial writers is an opinion, not a fact.


18. In my opinion, the article does not do good job to explain why some people dislike Byrne's work. I also don't understand why it should explain things like that. Byrne is producing art. Some like it, others don't. I think that is normal. The "explanations" in the article are mainly guesswork. I'm sure each reader have their own reasons and arguments for their taste.


--- Reply by Mikko, 3 Jun 05, ends ---

3 I used the term Image Creators to compare him to what was occuring at the time. Byrne went into self-publishing at the time when a lot of people were doing it, and Image was just getting off the ground.
6-8 "Everything you know is a lie" subplot is a term used when a writer explains away previous appearances as being caused by something else. Basically, Bryne stated that a lot of the stuff that happened to Jason Blood was a plot by Morgaine LeFay. That's not really something you can dispute.
Also, if you look at the definition of Controversy, it is a "contentious dispute, a disagreement over which parties are actively arguing". Calling Byrne a controversial figure in comics is pretty much a factual statement. Anybody can look at his interviews, the way other peers have reacted towards him, his own statements, and fan reaction can determine this. Fans are pretty polarized towards him.

--JRT 21:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My understanding of 10, from what I recall at the time:

  • Byrne stated in advance interviews that he did not consider Busiek's series as canon and did not feel bound to not contradict it. The Wolfman factor comes because during his run on Amazing Spider-Man he did a story that brought back the burglar from the origin and gave him a back story and motivation for breaking into the house. Byrne ignored this completely, prompting some criticism. Timrollpickering 12:42, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Butchered Project?

Somebody really trimmed out a lot of this stuff, and tried to totally erase the talk thread as well. I reverted to what seemed to be the last comprehensive edit, and will try to include all the good gramar corrections.

Protected Page

The page is now protected. So, can we ask the person making the changes why he or she is trimming out a lot of the content? At one point even the talk page was completely erased.

Tell us why you're trimming out all of the information. Is it a question of accuracy?

Yes. There's too much information based on decades-old industry gossip. Its not relevant to the subject's career and it obscures the reasons why he is a notable person. If you take a look at entries for the artistic peers of John Byrne, such as Jack Kirby or Neal Adams you will see what I mean. - Rod Odom

Sorry Rod, I disagree. This is not just "industry gossip". The events are relevant. Don't use just those two entries as an example, there are articles about Dave Sim, Jim Shooter, and Harlan Ellison, for instance, that discuss such items. Why take out certain links, for instance, or facts. Wikipedia articles can be as small or large as necessary, depending on how much the person knows about the subject
I've got no problem with making some edits, but you're actually taking facts out, and it looks like you are trying to "whitewash" his career by avoiding any of the controversies. Why remove the facts that he worked on Indiana Jones, OMAC, or had an aborted attempt of working on X-Men in the early 1990's. He is noted for his controversies as well as his creativity. Assuming you are the same as the IP address, you also tried to delete all the talk items. --JRT 02:10, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Your "controversies" are industry gossip because for most of it there are no sources to cite. Every fact in my version can be backed up immediately via Wikipedia or from John Byrne himself on his message board.
Byrne is notable to a small group of comic book fans for his controversies. It is important to them because they follow this sort of stuff. To someone who has never before heard of John Byrne such rumors and gossip your version paints a picture of a person notable for squabbling with others. He's one of the premier creators of comic books and he is so because of his vast, outstanding body of work, not because of petty office politics which practically every adult has a history of.
I offer the following compromise. Create a seperate Wikipedia entry for "John Byrne Controversies". You can catalog every alleged conflict or controversy there. We can put up a reference in the main Byrne entry to this. I will promise not to edit that entry in any way and I will try to convince others from the John Byrne message board not to (I was not the first to make big edits to your version.) This would be like how they separated Wikipedia's Iraq from Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. Just please keep this main entry pure, focusing on his work. - Rod Odom


But some of these "alleged controversies" can be backed up, including his conflicts with Chris Claremont, Jim Shooter, and the reason he left various projects--just check out his FAQ. While I do think Byrne gets a bad rap from fans, he does have more than his usual share of conflict with people. And because people might want to get a history of Byrne, I included it. People who would look up the entry might want to know "why does everybody hate JB" etc, and I think the way I wrote it might explain why.
I actually tried putting in a seperate "controversies" section but that was disliked--although probably because I didn't add more to his history--so I tried to balance it out by going over his history and including any of it there. I feel that will do a much better job than creating an article that would make it look like people are out to "get" him, which a lot of fans and even JB himself tend to do.
It's not our fault if Byrne is "noted for squabbling with others", Rod. He does do that. For instance, refering to Marvel as M****l, for instance. His controversies are public because they have affecting his storyline output, for instance. Your aguing that we should just have an entry with basic facts for "the general public", rather than the fans, but other WP entries sometimes go into that type of minutia. I have attempted to keep everything NPOV.
Let's see what others think.


OK let's wait for the Wikipedia official's input. But I promise I and over 1700 other John Byrne online fans will not allow Wikipedia be used as a propaganda tool for Byrne's detractors.
Can you give an example of facts that are inaccurate? If you cite specific areas, we can review and see if there are reasons for removing them. --JRT 00:34, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Anything that you cannot provide a published, reliable source for must be removed. The Byrne website FAQ is OK. The Lying in the Gutters gossip column is not. Either that or put everything you feel is important in another article. We can put the reference to this Controversies article near the top of the Byrne article, if you are afraid it will get missed. - Rod Odom
The burden has to be on you to tell us what's inaccurate. I have taken nothing from LITG...and anyway, if LITG can back up their sources, that's also usable. You are telling us the article has factual errors, but you are not specifying what those errors /are/? We need specific things you object to.
For instance, you erased JB's conflicts with Jim Shooter, which come from the man himself, as well as published interviews in David Anthony Kraft's Comics Interview (and one with Wizard). The conflicts with Claremont come from Byrne's own words, as well as the history of such items.
You need to give us /specific/ examples of why we shouldn't include pieces of an entry. This article has nothing that is not accurate or factual. If you are afraid it makes Byrne "look bad", well...This is not a vetted press release for John Byrne or a fanzine, either. Everything written is factually accurate.
LOL ! How can I investigate what you have written are factual or not if you do not cite your sources ? No. I offer you complete control of your own Wiki entry separate from this one. Or we will constantly be editing (which includes excising) your words here.

A Modest Proposal

How about whacking out all the detailed crap that's been added over the last week or so, and substituting this:

"John Byrne has not worked well with others. He explains at great length on his website why this is not his fault."

I think this summarizes the disputed material perfectly.

N. Caligon, 5/31/05

I can work with that. - Rod
But there is no reason why any of these entries are objectionable. Furthermore, sometimes Byrne's own faq is slanted, which is why I named the names of the editors he omited from his stories.
The "detailed crap" was on this site for several months before Rod trimmed much of it over the course of the last month. I don't see why you would remove facts from it. Most people try to add as much detail as possible to these entries.
Now that there are citations, there should be no objections. Unless it's the content Rod objects to.
One possibility would be put a discussion on JB's own message board about this. There are enough fans there who'd confirm or deny the facts. Nothing in this entry really 'editorializes' Byrne.

Very well, "cited sources"

Very well, Here is an incomplete list of citations:

  • Fantastic Four plot details: Why are you removing this?
  • Alpha Flight, also see the Byrne FAQ, and his message board (Search for Alpha Flight)
  • Indiana Jones--Mentioned in the FAQ.
  • Conflicts with Jim Shooter: Mentioned numerous times in several interviews, second David Anthony Krafts Comics Interview, Detailed in Byrne's FAQ, and on his message board.
  • Superman Reboot: Covered in the FAQ, in media interviews.
  • Avengers West Coast and She-Hulk: Covered in the FAQ on Aborted Storylines, minus names that Byrne for some reason decides to not mention when retelling these stories.

I'm not going into the others just yet, but I am just showing the Wikipedia community that have been very fair, and have focused on the facts. None of those are disputable. --66.189.63.91 23:02, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


Byrne has written and drawn over 200 comic book series. Are you going to go through them all? You have made this article inaccessible and unreadable to the layman. -Rod
There are larger articles Rod. Check out Calvin and Hobbes or Peanuts, for an example of minute details. This is not by far inaccessible to the layman. If a single article becomes too large, we can setup sub-articles. But how is this inaccessable to the layman? It actually explains the details of both how Byrne got to be a fan favorite and why he might have angered some fans.

JRT, it was actually me who rewrote this paragraph, keeping closely as possible with what you originally wrote:

"At Marvel, Byrne was teamed with writer Chris Claremont on several of the company's minor publications, including Iron Fist, Marvel Team-Up and eventually the Uncanny X-Men. On the X-Men Byrne worked as Claremont's writing partner, contributing to plotting of storylines. While their collaboration was critically successful, Byrne later described the partnership as a Gilbert and Sullivan relationship. The source of his discontent was Claremont's alterations of the story they had previously agreed upon. For example, in the seminal time-travel adventure "Days of Future Past" Byrne's original intent was that the X-Men would escape a post-apocalyptic destiny but Claremont's scripting cast ambiguity in that outcome. Despite the tensions in their working relationship, Byrne has expressed respect for Claremont's great commercial achievements with the X-Men, which later became the comic industry's greatest seller."

Everything after the Gilber and Sullivan stuff got cut, and not by me. Even if I agreed to your version, others will shave it down. Put it in another article and they will have no right to alter your work. - Rod

Dumping all the disputed information in a separate article, as has been repeatedly suggested, will not happen. This is what we call a POV fork and is almost always frowned upon. It is not a solution to the conflicts here, it is a way of avoiding it that makes the encyclopedia less useful and more cumbersome. Gamaliel 15:14, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Rather than creating a POV fork, how about giving it its own section in the main article headed "Stuff About John Byrne That Nobody Gives A Rat's Ass About."

Forgive my bluntness. I just checked out a few of the articles relating to the Beatles, the White Album, etc, and don't see anything like the detailed presentation of professional conflicts I see here. And the Beatles' conflicts are better known, better documented, and MUCH more interesting.

Byrne had conflicts with the licensor while working on a licensed book. Boy, that's right up there with "Dog Chases Cat," "Sun Rose Yesterday," and "Rain In Seattle" as informative information. The most interesting thing in the article as it stands right now is that Tom Batiuk couldn't draw Funky Winkerbean for 10 weeks because he hurt his foot. Aside from the obvious jokes, . . . OK. it's interesting mostly because it sets up the obvious jokes. But I digress.

Did you notice that if you follow the link in the Gilbert & Sullivan relationship comment you won't get a clue about what Byrne was talking about? You know why? Because the stuff he's referring to isn't at all important in learning about their work.

What does John Byrne's art look like? Who influenced him? What kind of stories does he tell well? Why did people like his work? Why did they stop liking it? Don't come here for answers to questions like these.

What I'd really like to know is why people who think of themselves as Byrne's fans and supporters believe that posting detailed accounts of Byrne's disputes with other creators does anything other than making him look like a contentious jackass.

You know what I'd think if I came across this text, fresh: "Byrne had ordered changes to the Graphic Novel, but found that editor Bobbie Chase not only reversed those changes, but was making changes to Byrne's own dialogue where it contradicted McDuffie's book. When Byrne complained to Tom DeFalco, then editor-in-chief at Marvel, DeFalco supported Chase. Thus, Byrne was forced off the book." I'd think Byrne was a world-class idiot. And that's even without reading that what so incensed Byrne was a sight gag about a giant green-skinned woman trying to shave her legs.

The last time I met John Byrne, as I remember, was at a fantasy/sf convention 10+ years ago. He was supposed to be on the first part of a two-part panel for authors of Abyss Books (the line where Whipping Boy appeared). He didn't show up, so the company's editor, who was moderating the panel, moved somebody from the second part into his slot. About halfway through part 1, Byrne wandered in, dragged a chair on stage, and tried to join in. His editor told him to go back down, that he'd been moved to the second half. So after some delays, he moved into the audience, where he did his best to disrupt the rest of that panel short of active heckling. His editor was not pleased. I don't think anybody in the room was. He had another book under contract, which the editor badly wanted to see published. Byrne never finished it, and stopped talking about it right after the con -- no more mentions in interviews, etc.

Draw what conclusions you will, and not just from one story. Mine is simple. It doesn't affect my opinions of the quality of his work (my willingness to pay full price, yes, but that's different) John Byrne really enjoys being the center of attention. Everything he says really should be looked at in this light. If you ever have to deal with him, "Let the Wookie win" is a phrase you should be ready to repeat silently to yourself.

But it's got next to nothing to do with what ought to be in the main article, which ought to center on Things About John Byrne That People (Who Don't Read His Message Board) Do Give A Rat's Ass About.

N. Caligon 01:12, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand, N. Caligon. You're saying this is stuff "nobody gives a rat's ass about", yet it is factual and there's not been any attempt to "spin" it.
It's historical in this case because when you follow Byrne's work, there have been a lot of abandoned plotlines and sudden departures when he's conflicted with editorial. Few other creators have ever had this occur. If you want to compare it to music, it's akin to reading about the problems with Guns and Roses or the Beach Boys.
You complain about the negative stuff I wrote, but what about the details on why his work was so well received, such as X-Men and FF. That's also a detail on why comic fans like him. It should also contain reasons why many fans dislike him nowadays. I think I have done my best to do a balanced history of his career. --JRT 09:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's clear you don't understand, but your failure to understand is more a demonstration of your blinders than a sign that the argument you don't understand is defective.
Just because information is "factual" and not "spun" doesn't mean it's relevant, useful, or deserving of inclusion. I could add an entirely factual account of how Byrne's rudeness made a small child cry at a con, but who would care? It's not significant.
I understand what you are saying here, but I have tried to stick to his publishing work, which I believe is significant.
As for "Few other creators have had this occur," I hope you're joking. But I'm sure you're not. That's a really uninformed comment. It's more conspicuous in Byrne's career because he throws tantrums and goes public. Other creators finish up their assignments in accordance with editorial requirements, then move on (or, quite often, just keep going). Many people in the industry view this aspect of Byrne's behavior as unprofessional.
I agree. But this very fact is what makes him controversial.
The article doesn't include "details on why his work was so well received, such as X-Men and FF." It's got nothing, in your edit, about X-Men except a comment on one story at the end of the run. You edited out the references to the Dark Phoenix stories, for example, and your writeup on the FF ignores all the major storylines in favor of your favored bits of business.
If this current edit doesn't, my previous edits did. Others have trimmed this. If you look at the history, I mentioned several aspects of this.
Let me wind up quickly and bluntly. You say "I think I have done my best to do a balanced history of his career." Your best isn't good enough. I don't think you understand how the comics industry works well enough to do the job. (I could do my best to draw a sketch of John Byrne to illustrate the entry, and the race to delete it if I put it online would virtually melt down the Internet.) All that needs to be said about the matters you're obsessed with is this: "As Byrne's career advanced, he demanded greater levels of creative control over the characters and properties he worked on. His career is marked by abandoned plotlines and abrupt departures from titles, since, as he acknowledges, he prefers to leave assignments rather than accept significant changes in storylines he has proposed or developed."
Why are you against going into the history of his work? I am planning to do this for other creators like Claremont.
I don't object to trimming the article, as long as it's not just an attempt to cover up anything fans don't like. I just disagree as to whether or not any of the historical stuff I wrote is not "deserving of inclusion". As Far as I know, the more detail in many articles, the better.
"insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus" (from guideline re:consensus) N. Caligon
I'm not insisting on insignifigant factoids. I'd gladly trim some of the details. I could really see trimming this article down to make it less awkward. But as far as consensus, the only major people objecting are you and Rod, not "many other editors". We need to hear from a few more people, and we need to agree on what's "insignificant". For instance, we don't need all the details behind stuff like Indiana Jones. I would mention his conflicts with Shooter and Claremont, because they have been influencial in his work. JRT
How did conflicts with Shooter or Claremont influence Byrne's work other than lead to his decisions to leave one job or another earlier than Byrne intended? Shooter was his editor and it was his right to change anything Byrne wrote. It happens to all comic book writers. As the scripter and the senior writer on the X-Men Claremont naturally had the final word on their stories. If every creative disagreement of every work of fiction were to be reported, Wikipedia would crash ! - Rod
Mentioning Byrne's relationship with Claremont explains both how their creative process worked as well as gives background. Like Byrne said, it's a Gilbert and Sullivan relationship. As for Shooter, it did lead to Byrne not working for DC anymore, having him suddenly leave a few projects, and lead to Byrne taking several in-story shots at Shooter, like I mentioned.
The problem I really have Rod is that you took the following tactics in arguing your points. First, you ended up making numerous edits. I noticed you removed everything that could have been considered controversial. When I started bring them back and we got into an edit dispute, then requested page protection, you declared that it was based on rumours and hearsay. I reported they were factual, you asked me to cite sources. I cited sources, then you complained about it being "too much information". You also threatened that "you and 1700 other fans" would not tolerate propaganda against Byrne. Those actions lead me to believe that you are less concerned with the accuracy of the article than you are with the tone of it.
I am willing to accept that the article may be too verbose. Some of the specific issue-related stuff can be moved to other pages, such as the entries for Hidden Years and Spider-Man Chapter One, like what has been done for the Man of Steel entry.
What I won't accept is absolutely avoiding the mention of anything that could be construed as a negative. If and when this page comes out of lock mode, I do plan to mention some of the key reasons why Byrne is considered controversial in the comics community, even if its just a few paragraphs. I don't want Byrne's fans to whitewash the article, nor would I want Byrne's detractors to slant the article. My fear is that's what you were doing. --JRT 03:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK your proposal to offload series related creator incidents to entries for the comics themselves is acceptable. - Rod


N. Caligon 15:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


to add to Caligon's points, I found that it is incredibly hard to make this article fair when one or two sentences will suffice in communicating what went right in a comic book but to cover accurately what went wrong behind the scenes an entire paragraph or more needs to be written. It makes it look like Byrne has been fighting with people and producing a comic every once in a while, which is certainly not the case.

RodOdom


Accuracy problems

From the Byrne Robotics website:

"JB: Alpha Flight (the team) were never really meant to be anything more than a bunch of superheroes who could survive a fight with the X-Men. They had no real depth, and I resisted suggestions that they get their own book for a couple of years. Then, finally, realizing Marvel would probably get someone else to do it, if I didn't, I relented and agreed."

From John Byrne interview in X-Men Companion II, c. 1982:

"There were a number of things that Chris did that I asked him to change that he didn't, which is why I've asked him not to use Alpha Flight any more in the X-Men, because the next time they appear I want to do it and I want to make sure that everybody talks and acts the way they're supposed to so that the next people who handle them will know who they are."

"SANDERSON: Now you're planning to bring Alpha Flight back in the FF?

BYRNE: I hope to eventually, yes.

SANDERSON: And you'd like to do a mini-series with them sometime, you said?

BYRNE: A mini-series, at least.

SANDERSON: Maybe even a full series? Make it a book?

BYRNE: Well, if there's a market for it, I'd love to do a regular series."

The things you find serendipitously when looking for something else. (No Volume I yet, though).

A huge problem in writing about Byrne is that his own accounts of events evolve rather steadily, and usually depict him in a better and better light. Whether this is a weird retcon, a flat-out con, sheer craziness, or just a case of Byrne convincing himself of things he'd like to believe, I don't know. The people I know who know him say it's the last of those. But here are a few other examples:

Byrne now says his first run on the Hulk ended in a dispute with Shooter over storylines. At the time, both Byrne and editor Al Milgrom said it stemmed from Milgrom's rejection of an experimental book-length story Byrne turned in told entirely in full-page panels. The story was later printed in Marvel Fanfare.

Byrne now implies Marv Wolfman is taking too much credit for the Lex Luthor reboot in Superman. I'm pretty sure he credited Wolfman with it at the time.

"Did Chris Claremont want to kick Wolverine out of the X-Men?" "Chris and Dave never cared much for the character . . ." Odd that Byrne's current version of events didn't show up in interviews for years. In the X-Men Companion II interviews, it's Cockrum alone who didn't like the character all that much, and nobody that I noticed mentions plans for writing him out of the book.

There's more and more. The Sabre-Tooth character design (and neither of Byrne's versions matches up to the publishing history of the character). Why did Byrne stop working on the X-Men the second time? On Byrne Robotics, he implies he quit; in the CBR interview linked in the entry, he's removed by Marvel (but not "fired," somehow.

Given the ridiculous number of Byrne v. Byrne disputes over all these events, setting them out at the current level of detail, whether here or elsewhere, is entirely inappropriate.

N. Caligon 16:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how just because something is a bit muddled and confusing is grounds for avoiding the issue altogether. Gamaliel 16:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We can address everything in this paragraph: "Byrne is one of the most successful artist / writers of his generation. He is also one of the most outspoken and independent-minded freelancers, freely leaving one assignment or publisher for another if disuptes could not be resolved." Simple as that. -Rod
Sorry, that's a nice intro sentence but hardly suffices. Gamaliel 17:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We can work from there, but there shouldn't be more than a paragraph. Any more and it will drown out any substantive discussion of his work. -Rod
I oppose the setting of arbitrary limits on how much space should be devoted to particular material. Gamaliel 17:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then put that material in it's separate section in this article, so as not to obscure the discussion of the work, for which Byrne is ultimately important for.

I have no particular objection to a separate section (not article) for this material, however, it seems odd to me that in a discussion of, for example, his work on the X-Men not to discuss his reasons for leaving. Gamaliel 18:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In such a section (let's call it "Behind the Scenes" for discussion's sake) we can orgainize it into sub-topics such as "Relationships with Collegues" encompassing stuff with Claremont or Shooeter, and "Creative Risks" detailing the changes he introduced to Superman, Spider-Man or the Demon, etc. The previous sections devoted purely to his work would serve a primer of sorts for this more involved section enhancing the readability of the article as a whole. -Rod
We have to do what's best for the article, not necessarilly what's best for the subject of the article. Our job is to be as accurate as possible, not to be "pro" or "anti" Byrne. I'm not sure breaking it out into a bibliography first might make sense. I was approaching it from a chronological point of view.
I guess it depends on how much detail is involved. I don't see any problem brining up the Claremont/Byrne paring within the subject of his work on X-Men, since it had an effect on the work (some say the rivalry ended up enhancing the work), and because the X-Men entry itself is way to big to really place it there without it seeming out of place. --JRT 16:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How do you know it was a "rivalry" instead of just a discordance? Can you document a where their conflicts significantly changed the direction of a story instead of a panel here or there? A good article means being accurate and fair to the subject. We have to take a critical look at the decades of rumors and innuendos that have built around the Byrne legend.

I am willing to work with you, JRT. But you must agree to this: if you wish to bring up a work of Byrne just because it is an example of a "controvery" , it must go into a separate Controversies section. Otherwise we must also detail why the comic is notable in it of itself. - Rod

I must ask the admins if we can take this article out of protection. JRT is taking days to respond. -Rod
Rod, first of all, I am not "taking days to respond". Look above at "the squelched thread" for some more responses.
I left it open. They have created a temp page. I already made some edits to it. So far, I haven't seen you make any attempts to edit it yet. Since you're the primary person who has disputed the edits, I am waiting for you to make some edits to the temp article, then I'll do the same. Although now we have other people involved with it too, so expect a lot of back and forth.
Sometimes this kind of thing can take several weeks to fully resolve. If you want an accurate article, that's what it takes. Until Wikipedia contributors can come to a consensus, the main page stays protected and the notes tell those visiting the page to view this discussion. --JRT 01:34, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then you could have alerted me to your changes, JRT. How was I to know otherwise? See below regarding my first change. - Rod

Temp page

I propose you use a Temp page to do the edits, therefore you can reach a consensus of how you want the article to look. <>Who?¿? 18:16, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure. - Rod

Birthplace

The article currently states that he was born "near West Bromwich". Would it be better to be more specific and name the town, Walsall? Sources can be found using a Google search, in particular this page: [10] --Nick R 21:11, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on the Temp article

JRT, I removed the "Gay Guy" reference because it is prior to his professional work. Can you agree to this change? - Rod

First of, it's not "just me" who has to agree. Let the process go naturally. You should probably make as many changes as you can and then line-list why you made them, allowing us to debate and then edit as we see fit.
But why omit this? In fact, we should probably mention the other two items, Death's Head Knight and Snowbird. I think if Byrne himself puts it on his own web sites, I don't think he's gonna be embarrased by anything. Here's the link:
http://jbgallery.ourbunch.net/cgi-bin/thumbs.pl?CAT=collegedays

1) Let's discuss one change at a time. Otherwise I'll be writing over the changes you just made, and vice versa.

2) Gay Guy is prior to his professional work. This article is about his professional career - not about everything he has ever put on paper in his lifetime. - Rod

Discussing the changes one at a time is a good idea. Though the process may end up being slow it is probably our best chance of achieving a satisfactory resolution here.
With that said, I oppose the removal of Gay Guy. Simply because it happened before his professional work is not sufficient reason for removing it. The early, pre-professional work of writers and artists is a perfectly acceptable subject for an encyclopedia to cover, and it's only a brief mention, so we can hardly say it overwhelms the article or that it saves a lot of space to remove it. Gamaliel 02:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the subject matter, just been monitoring progress. However, if the Gay Guy work helped start his career and is well known, it is a good inclusion of "History of" or "Prior works". It provides background information, especially if it was a failed work, in which would it show progression of the author. Hope that helps. <>Who?¿? 03:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Then JRT must explain why Gay Guy is notable. In this direction we can end up writing about the thousands of works Byrne has produced. It must be notable as well as relevant - Rod.

Who, Gay Guy is not well known and it did not help start Byrne's career. - Rod


If it's among the first things he did, it's relevant. Even in your version of the page, you mention him being a college dropout, which occurs after the Gay Guy thing. I agree completely with Gamaliel here.
And you didn't read my comment in the edit history about referring to the article itself being a no-no, did you? And you didn't notice that I'd incorporated the rest of that second paragraph into (what became) the third. Plus you seem to miss that NPOV language must be dispassionate. Breaking down that paragraph...
From early on Byrne distinguished himself as a talented, rapid artist who never missed deadlines.
"Talented" is POV. Speed can be established without reservation or subjectivity, talent (with respect to art) can't, as proven by the sucessful career of Tracey Emin and many of the other shortlisted entries for the Turner Prize in recent years. Obviously, some people think they're talented....
And "never missed deadlines," even if it's literally accurate, isn't dispassionate. "distinguished himself as an artist who made [his] deadlines" is.
Throughout his decades-spanning career
Again, even if it's literally accurate, it's not dispassionate. Substitute "long" for "decades-spanning"
he worked on several different monthly comics at a time.
Inaccurate, unless he's done it every month. Qualify it, with something like "who has, on occasion, worked on several different monthly comics at a time."
This article will attempt to cover only his more notable achievements, as a complete recounting of such a vast body of work is not feasable.
POV, and take a serious read at Wikipedia:Manual of Style and its subpages before you continue to edit. - SoM 03:15, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
SoM - Byrne is talented, and is recognized as such by the industry. It is unreasonable to say that adjective is POV. RodOdom 03:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not singling out Byrne here - I wouldn't refer to any artist (comic or otherwise) as "talented" in a WP article SoM
What are we, Vulcans? "Decade-spanning" is just fine. RodOdom 03:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
We should be when editing. Indeed, I'm noticing that most of the ByrneBoard "critism" linked below (I use the quotes because of the lack of constuctivity involved) is because we're not. NPOV, NPOV, NPOV. SoM
"Byrne has usually worked on several different monthly comics at a time" RodOdom 03:27, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Only if you give me a breakdown showing that that's true for more than 50% of his career (by time, not by number of comics). And please note the definition of "several" as "Being of a number more than two or three" when looking for proof. - SoM 15:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, multiple is a better term, not "several", and you have to stipulate drawing and writing as well. FF and Alpha Flight for a few years, then FF and Hulk briefly. 2 Regular Issues of Superman along with Legends. Avengers West Coast and She-Hulk along with Avengers and a few other projects (such as Solo Avengers). Namor and Iron Man. Next Men and DU/Babe/Babe 2. Wonder Woman and New Gods. Spider-Man, SM: Chapter One, Hidden Years, Spider-Woman, and Lost Generation--they kind of blend in, but at Marvel in the late 90s I think did triple output of books. Right now it's Blood of the Demon, Doom Patrol, and Action Comics.
I'll admit, I forgot about his writing when typing that (although haven't the vast majority of his books post-F4 been both writing & drawing (and ofttimes inking and sometimes even lettering), which sort of cancels that out with respect to the phrase at hand?). I'd still like an exact breakdown though, and to go with "more than one" rather than "several" or "multiple", if it's proven. - SoM 16:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I pretty much listed most of his works. Based on that, I would say Byrne has worked on multiple simultaneous projects throughout most of his career. --JRT 18:58, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Say what you want about Byrne's opinions and fan reaction--the man is a workhorse, especially in this market where artists are late.--JRT 15:54, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, with the addition of Deaths Head and the other works, it looks better to me. I accept the inclusion of Gay Guy. But we must also explain better why Byrne left school. It was because he wanted to be a comic artist and he felt the curriculum had nothing to offer for that. RodOdom 03:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why not just say: "Byrne has often worked on multiple monthly comics at a time" Why is it needed to state that they are "different" titles? I mean would bi-weekly books not count as doing more than one book a month? You could even say: "Byrne has often written and/or drawn multiple monthly comics at a time". Wouldn't that pretty much make it obvious that sometimes he has written one book while pencilling another or done both parts and that it isn't just an occational thing? - Kim Jensen

That would work too, Kim. RodOdom 03:25, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Gay Guy" fails a simple test: nobody except the people arguing over the article cares about it. For God's sake, the discussion of this piece of fishwrap here is longer and more detailed than the combined discussion of "Bull Tales" in the articles on Garry Trudeau and Doonesbury. Take a chainsaw to it. N. Caligon 17:43, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any references to "Bull Tales" in either discussion area for those items. We altered Gay Guy to reflect to his first projects. I think Rod was objecting because including that might have made Byrne look anti-gay, and I can understand that concern. --66.189.63.91 00:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOTE About Slander Claims?

In response to this thread:

http://www.byrnerobotics.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=6223&PN=1&totPosts=4

I do not believe anything we have written collectively can be considered slanderous or libelous at all. Have we gotten any facts incorrect? I know personally I worked with great care to discuss Byrne's publishing history and taken as much as I could from interviews and other works Byrne did, including his own FAQ and message board.

(This is aimed at Mike O'Brian)--I'm actually insulted by the fact that you're claiming slander. I have made no lies in doing this. And this article is self-correcting. If we have gotten facts wrong, please indicate them. The reason we are having problems with the article is because there are some objections, but they seem more towards tone than fact.

We are attempting to produce something with Neutral point of view, with as much detail as possible. You can add your own comments below. I can't speak for others, but I have done my best to produce an accurate article that tries to provide as much history as possible. Please let us know about any factual errors.

The only other possible object you could have would be that the tone makes Byrne look bad because of all his conflicts. I understand that--we balanced that with items that talked about why Byrne's fans liked him. But I don't think we've gotten anything factually wrong. If we have factual errors, we will correct them. But you should indicate to us what those errors are.

--JRT 03:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't put too much stock in the comments of someone who doesn't know what the word slander means. There's a lot of hot air in that thread but nothing constructive at all. Ignore it.
A note to anyone who visits here from the JB message board: We are willing to work with you, but we ask that you be civil and be specific in your criticisms of the article. Comments like the ones in the message board thread are unproductive and unhelpful to anyone actually trying to improve the article. Also, note that legal threats are prohibited on Wikipedia and such comments will be removed. Gamaliel 05:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Beginnings Section?

Does anyone have any problems with the following? :

Byrne was born near West Bromwich, England, and emigrated with his family to Canada in 1958. He attended the Alberta College of Art in Calgary for a few years, where he produced some of his earliest work [1] (http://jbgallery.ourbunch.net/cgi-bin/thumbs.pl?CAT=collegedays). His first published comic book was The Death's Head Knight from ACA comics. He also created superhero parody Gay Guy for the college newspaper, which poked fun at the campus stereotype of homosexuality among art students. Gay Guy is also notable for containing a prototype of the Alpha Flight character Snowbird. It was during this period Byrne decided upon a career in comic books and left without graduating, feeling he had learned everything that art school offered relevant to that field.

Byrne made his first professional sale in 1971 to The Monster Times. From early on he distinguished himself as a rapid artist who made deadlines and was capable of taking on several different monthly comics at a time.

In 1974 he got his first assignment with Marvel Comics, in the form of a short story ("Dark Asylum") which eventually appeared in Giant-Sized Dracula #5, a year or so later. Meanwhile, editor Nicola Cuti asked Byrne to do the fan character ROG-2000 for Charlton Comics, and this led to his first full title assignment Wheelie and the Chopper Bunch. Wheelie was followed in short order by Doomsday+1, Space: 1999 and a single issue of Emergency!.


RodOdom 23:24, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't post the article snippets here, otherwise it would just complicate the already large talk page.
The only thing I object to--"rapid artist who made deadlines and was capable of taking on several different monthly comics at a time". Not sure if this is fact. How fast was he. Making deadlines is what all artists are expected to do. (And most artists did until recently), and I don't think he tackled multiple comics until after he got FF and Alpha Flight, still several years away, so I'm not sure if that sentence belongs. --JRT 14:30, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not so much the Beginnings section I have a problem with, it's more the structure of the entire entry. I think all the stuff that exists at the moment is interesting and nicely indepth -- I can't comment on the debated sections as I don't consider myself well enough informed on the larger picture (even if I'm an occasional poster at the JBF) -- but it jumps straight into details without really setting up John Byrne's fuller biography or the broader scope of his career. I've just expanded the introduction along the lines of similar Wikipedia bio entries (I really don't mind if it gets changed a fair bit as it's only meant to be a starting point). Compare with featured bios like the Isaac Asimov where the career discussion is dovetailed by separate biography and philosophy sections.
--Jason Kirk 22:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Byrne did mention that even back in the 70's artists were having trouble meeting their deadlines, even on the 10 issues a year schedule many books were on. Byrne actually got his Iron Fist job because Pat Broderick was fired for being late on the book.

That line "rapid artist who made deadlines ..." etc was meant actually to describe his early career in general. We have to put it somewhere, it doesn't have to be necessarily be where it is now. Perhaps in the X-Men section, anyone have a problem with that?

Excellent intro, Jason! RodOdom 03:11, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think these sections are already shapeless, bogged down in pointless details, and unlikely to produce a worthwhile final product. Rather than continue to produce an overstuffed mess, it would be better to produce a stripped-down article and then work along to an appropriate level of detail. The intro section is particularly bad -- a set of laundry lists masquerading as a coherent whole. Errors/problems: Byrne is not part of the "first generation" of fans turned pros; that label should go to the group of Roy Thomas vintage. Maybe "a generation," identified by Lee-Kirby ref; there's only one gen that can be described this way. Why include Byrne's current projects in this section; by the time we settle on something, he'll be on a different set of books. Why is his ex-wife's ID significant? Working with his stepson is trivia, not essential info for this section. Sorry, but this is a bad start. N. Caligon 17:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

When I drafted the intro it was an attempt to balance the depth of the article and to give a casual browser something a little more than "he's a comicbook artist." And yes - it is a collection of lists, because it's a rough summation of the article and when it comes down to it this article is really just a very detailed annotated bibliography. I added the ex-wife ID as it seemed odd to me to mention the step-son and not to mention the person in the middle. As I mentioned above we're missing a proper biography section where that sort of detail should go.
Re: the generation comment: it said "the first generation of fans-turned-pro who grew up reading the Stan Lee and Jack Kirby comics of the 1960s", it wasn't refering to the Thomas mob i.e. those who had grown in reading the 1940s/50s stuff. It was an attempt to point out where the start of Byrne's career fitted into the larger history of American comic books. The assumption with the current books sentence was that wikipedians would update it as his work roster changed.
--Jason Kirk 06:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've moved the personal stuff to a section called 'trivia'. I hate the name but I couldn't think of anything better right now. I've also tweaked the intro a bit. Gamaliel 17:51, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

X-Men

Does anyone know where the story that "Days of Future Past" was altered by Claremont comes from? This one I have never heard of until this article. RodOdom 01:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Search JB's message board, if you can. Basically, Byrne pretty much wrote the whole plot. Byrne intended the story to have an very upbeat ending--they succeded in stoping a bad future from coming about, for the first time in a while The X-Men have a true success. But if you read Claremont's dialog, it becomes a real downbeat ending, ruining the ultimate result Byrne wanted.

That sounds very plausible. I would prefer it if you can show me the post where JB says this, because I'm a frequent reader of that site and have never seen this. RodOdom 02:33, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it's in an interview, probably several interviews. Byrne said he intended the story to end with the "good guys" clearly winning, but Claremont made the ending ambiguous. Claremont's on record (X-Men Companion 2, again) that Byrne's pencils were significantly changed from the agreed-on plot, and that Byrne added on-panel deaths that weren't in the original plans. The implication, putting the two accounts together, is that Byrne made the story "darker" when penciling it, and Claremont took that process even further. I'd say Claremont's open-ended ending is a _much_ better choice, as is borne out by later development of the storyline. N. Caligon 05:20, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

FF section

I made some changes to the Alpha Flight paragraph. Added a reference to Northstar. Removed the reference to Mantlo, because all ongoing series are picked up by another creative team sooner or later. Agree or disagree? RodOdom 02:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, Byrne did not create the Doombots. Stan Lee used them in an early issue of Amazing Spider-Man. RodOdom 02:45, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I restored the Mantlo swap info. You're right that all ongoing series end up with another creative team eventually, but it's my understanding that a direct swap like the Hulk/AF one is relatively rare, so I think it deserves mention at least as a curiosity.
Rod, could you please try to use the show preview button to avoid a lot of short edits in a row and try to add an edit summary more often? Thanks. Gamaliel 07:11, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I now see what the summary box is for. Will do. Apologies. RodOdom 05:00, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Made some stylistic changes to the Alpha Flight paragraph, as well as Indiana Jones. RodOdom 16:16, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I want to add that Byrne's Thing went back to the original characterization as a tragic figure. Would anyone mind me making a largish rewrite of the "what made his FF interesting" paragraph? RodOdom 00:37, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The TEMP page is pointless

Why do you continue to keep the main page protected? It contains many errors as noted elsewhere. Why bother editing a temp page? No casual wiki reader can find it. It almost seems that the purpose of the temp page is just to keep the people who have noticed the problems with the main page "busy" so that the false facts can be displayed as long as possible. --Mikko

That's absolutely absurd. The page was blocked by an administrator who has not edited this page and has no stake in the outcome. What possible reason would we have to perpetuate errors? The temp page will replace the article once we have worked out all the problems here. If you wish to participate, please do so, but such ridiculous accusations are not helpful or productive. Gamaliel 20:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, due to the fact that there are several disupted areas on the page, the temp pages gives the editors a place to come to a consensus on the disputed facts, in a civilized manor, without contstant reverts on the main page. We attempted to point out on the main page that it was disputed and being worked on, on another page. Hopefully, soon, the editors will have a working article, and request replacement of the disputed page. <>Who?¿? 20:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • To be clear: I request replacement now. I realize this might be the wrong place to do so, but I do it anyway. I also request people to have consensus on the temp page immediately (whatever the current contents are) so that the main page can be unprotected as soon as possible. It seems people are mainly adding details to the temp page instead of working out any kind of problems and that will only delay the protection and display of the page that contains factual erros. --Mikko, 13 Jun 2005
This is the perfect place, an WP:RFC has been placed. 20:43, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps if you identified what specific errors you had in mind and why it is so imperative that they be corrected immediately, this might expedite matters. Gamaliel 21:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have no specific errors in mind. Many errors have been noted in this page (also by me). It will take a long time to resolve everything. Meanwhile, people are adding new information to the temp page causing new disputes. It will never end and the John Byrne wiki entry will remain factually incorrect. I think the easiest way to solve this would be to unprotect the page and let people edit. I could understand the point of protected page if the content of the page protected would be worth protecting. Now there is simply too many disputed issues that it is not worth protecting it. I guess other approach would be to try to remove all disputed stuff and then protect that version and continue discussing the disputed issues and include those after consensus.--Mikko, 22:19, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


When I called for page protection, it was random chance that the version I restored was protected, if Rod had acted before the admin intervened, we would have had his version of the page. There is a big note at the top indicating this. I'm sure protecting the page is the best. If you feel strongly about it, contribute to the temp page, and point out in your revisions what's wrong and why you made the change. I haven't seen you contribute yet. But now that this is protected, a lot more eyes are on the page, so expect a lot of back and forth.
I think we have done our best to include the facts and keep NPOV. You and Rod have kept talking about "facts" being wrong, but AFAIK all facts are correct. I did research, heck, I even went with Byrne's versions of the incidents when there were multiple versions. I think you and Rod are more or less concerned about the tone of the article, or at least a perceived tone.
The only reason I am adamant about going through the article is to make sure it's not changed just to make Byrne "look better". Our job is not to make sure the release is "PR approved", but rather is accurate. Protection is used to prevent edit wars and allow discussion amonst the disagreeing parties. --JRT 22:58, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Removed personal attacks from JRTs 22:58, 13 Jun 2005 text. --Mikko, 23:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I have restored the comments. That's barely criticism, much less a personal attack. Please do not remove the comments of others again. Gamaliel 23:16, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I won't tolerate any personal attacks against me so I removed the text again. This page should be about the discussion of John Byrne page. This page should not be used to attack or evaluate the people who participate the discussion. --Mikko, 23:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).
You are not being "attacked", I am just concerned you may be biased, and suggesting if you contribute, you need to be a little dispassionate --JRT 23:38, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If I contribute material here that is biased it is ok to "attack" that material. I won't tolerate personal attacks and I won't tolerate people evaluating me as a person here in general. --Mikko, 23:59, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC).
You removed two sentences. One suggested you were a particular Usenet poster, the other suggested the arguments of this poster had logical flaws. Nothing in there is remotely a personal attack. We don't tolerate personal attacks here, but neither do we tolerate people who want to eliminate any criticism of their arguments at all. Removing the comments of others from this talk page is vandalism and continual vandalism is grounds for a temporary block. You have been warned. I want the discussion of this article to remain harmonious and I have no wish for this to escalate, but I'm not going to allow you to remove any comment you dislike from this page. Gamaliel 23:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It is not a personal attack to claim that "arguments of this poster had logical flaws"? I think it is. --Mikko 23:53, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Logical flaws are a feature of the content, not of you personally. That's a paradigm example of something that is NOT a personal attack. [anon]
No, it is not. Your low threshold for a personal attack would make almost any conversation impossible here, frankly. You have removed those comments four times. You are in violation of Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Three revert rule. I haven't blocked you yet since I'm cutting you some slack because you are new here, but this stops right now. Gamaliel 00:08, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Am I allowed to remove my contributions to this page? Hopefully, yes. I removed everything but this. Thank you for pointing out that my logic is flawed. Wiki rules state clearly that "Comment on content, not on the contributor." I guess it applies to everybody else but me. 00:29, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
There is no reason to overreact like this. I don't know why you are so threatened by the harmless comment that one person things your arguments had some logical flaws. I suggest you take some time to calm down and perhaps tomorrow we can return to working on this article. Gamaliel 00:40, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Why have you added text written by me that I removed? Am I not allowed to remove my own text? I certainly won't return working on the article before the personal attack is deleted.
For the interest of peace with all parties, I deleted my last sentence from the paragraph. Gamaliel, let's just leave it be. --JRT 00:57, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Thank You! --Mikko, 01:06, 14 Jun 2005

I just want to say, I'm all for the Temp page. I think we are making good progress on this article. RodOdom 00:27, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Legend Imprint

Just found this interview whilst trying to find correct name of imprint as my memory has gone, and Mignola says he was responsible for bringing Byrne into the imprint, which seems to run against what is up on the temp page. Hiding 22:22, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

Protected far too long. Time to move on. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:09, 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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Byrne_(comics)/Archive_1&oldid=1080136217"