Jump to content

Talk:John Buscema/Archive 2 (2007 - RfC)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


February 2007

I'm sorry to seem harsh, but we simply cannot say, "It is a credit to his talent that he manages to continue working in comics for the better part of the decade...." That is clearly an uncited opinion; please see the link.

I have also removed several images. Please go to the Wikipedia policy on fair use of images. For fair use to be valid, only a limited number of images can be used, and they must, at least arguably, illustrate specific things in an article. The first cover Buscema did, for instance, can be justified. One sample each of a handful of signature characters -- Conan, Avengers, one or two more -- can be justified. Examples of media outside comics -- paperback covers, posters, album jackets, consumer packaging -- can be justified. We can't simply include things because they look nice -- this isn't a magazine article. We also can't go overboard on sheer number of images.

I'm a little concerned since I've had to remove the "It is a credit to his talent" line before. I'm not sure I'm explaining Wikipedia policies as clearly as I might; in any event, it's each editor's responsibility to be aware of them. I urge all editors of this article to please read both Wikiepdia's general editorial guidelines and those for the Biography Project and the Comics Project.--Tenebrae 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Tenebrae - You've made some nice contributions, expecially in terms of general comic book history - the introduction section especially looks great. However I do disagree with most of your latest editorial decisions. I'm sorry that the layout doesn't appeal to your esthetic senses, but really, there was nothing wrong with usage of images and fair usage was respected, despite your opinions to the contrary. Although I agree with certain deletions, I do feel that in general, there have been simply too many deletions of perfectly accurate, researched information. So I am in the process of restoring what I feel to have been way too heavy-handed deleting.
I also disagree with your interpretation of general Wikipedia policy - In my experience in reading Wikipedia artist biographies in other artistic fields such as music, poetry, painting, cinema, and architecture, a certain open-mindedness and acceptance of different viewpoints and allowance of aesthetic evaluation and career appreciation are perfectly accepted and commonplace. Although I appreciate your knowledge of comic book history, I do not recognize your authority as absolute Wikipedia policy arbitrator.
Below are some key ponts I'd like to bring to your attention in order to improve the quality of this article:
The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.
Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.
Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing.
--Skyelarke 19:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I've done some revisions on the Early life and career section which consists of restoring previous deletions. I've also restored the 50's and 60's sections as they were almost completely deleted.
Please, no more cowboy deleting, using normal wikipedia editing protocol would be appreciated.
--Skyelarke 01:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: NPOV and images

As per Wikipedia dispute-resolution policy, User:Tenebrae is asking for a formal Request for Comment regarding dispute about whether NPOV statements are being placed in John Buscema, and whether there is overuse of images.

Here is the current version by last edited by User:Skyelarke, the other party, and the previous edit by User:Tenebrae.

Statements by editors involved in dispute
  • I believe such assertions as "It is a credit to his talent that he manages to continue working in comics for the better part of the decade..." and "Buscema next produced some of his finest work of the decade" — neither of which is a quote from a cited authority but the personal statement of an editor — is opinion. Additionally, I believe quoting the publisher of Buscema Roy Rogers reprints, which describes him as "the best Roy Rogers artist", is not the quote of a disinterested party. Finally, my points about the number of images is addressed in the section above.


  • The credit to his talent passage to me is minor, if you want to rephrase that, you're welcome to do so.
I disagree with the AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute to the publications.
I didn't necessarily direct the 'cowboy editing' term at you, but if you agree that cowboy editing is an improper practice (i.e making a priori large deletions without discussion or proper justification) then all the better.
--Skyelarke 00:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Other comments
    • When comparing the two, the first thing that jumped out at me was the line "Born a few months earlier than Frank Frazetta, also a Brooklyn native..." I looked through the article and other than a dedication, there's no mention of any connection between them. That makes this sentence seem very random and not connected, as well as giving John a second place status in his own article. If the rest of the version is like this, I would revert it also. Let's not clutter the article with random, unconnected "facts." CovenantD 18:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Sup guys, hope we can resolve this an amicable fashion, because we both want the best for every comicbook article. Anyways, heres my assessment from your co-wiki editor. With regard to the original research context of this article, first the big question is "Where did all of this body of knowledge (of John Buscema) come from?" is it sourced from buscema's official site? did the wiki-editor copy/pasted its context or only rephrased its contents? or just a summary of knowledge the editor knows and translated it to his own understanding? (a question for User:Skyelarke). Please note that its best to have every statements we make in wikipedia cited because: 1) people use wikipedia as a source of their research and reference, and we dont want to mislead them. 2) wikipedia is a free encylopedia (common knowledge), if we make a wrong inaccurate information in an article, wikipedia foundation is susceptible to be sued (for copyright/libel/fair use violation.etc.) thus shutting the company down. These are some important questions thats needs to be addresed in regard to the content of this article. Secondly the image usage. It is somewhat absurd to find multiple images for this article. I know most of them are vital, but this is an encylopedia, not a photo gallery. A list of his bibliography is enough. We dont need to place every image in each of his works. To resolve this issue, we only need to select some images of his works that made significant impact/turning point in his career as a comicbook artist. And when I say the "most", that includes either his first published work, his best selling work, his work with his longest stint, his last work before he died. The rest, personally, are just a spam of images. Hope this help clarify some of the issues. †Bloodpack† 18:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • There are alot of pictures in here, an aritcle about a artists should have only a few pieces of his work, and even then it should be his most well knowen stuff. The amount of images here does take away from the article and they should be removed, even from Tenebrae's version, it seems alittle congested. Also what CovenantD said makes sense also, and I aggree with it.Phoenix741 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Addition: What is the info on Image:Wolvybloody.jpg all i see is a pic in a thumb and that is it, if we are going to keep this then we need to add the additional info. Also on reading the discussion above on February 2007 I see what you did to revert and you had every right to, it was not "cowboy editing".Phoenix741 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Looking at the two, I agree with CovenantD, the article reads at the top like "Who John Buscema Wasn't" instead of as "Who John Buscema Was." More so in the Skyelarke version but both have a point or two in common.
      There's also a shared awkward point in the 1950s section regarding his personal life. It feels like it was just tacked on. This is more apparent in the Skyelarke version, but both would need to expand and clarify the points.
      I also agree with the sentiment about the images. I could see 5 or 6, tops, one per section of his career, but fewer would be better. And even in that, the images can, and should be more than single purpose. Instead of having a "Conan" piece and a "How-he-laid-put-a-page" piece, have a "How-laid-out-a-Conan-page".
      Last thought, both versions need a copy edit to clean up grammar, punctuation, and style guideline issues.
      — J Greb 22:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments:

POV: "It is a credit to his talent" is obvious and unsourced opinion.

POV: "some of his finest work" expresses opinion. Neither version of that sentence really works.

POV: "His work on Indian Chief #30-33 is notable late 50's work." Says who?

Irrelevant information: "which employed top commercial artists such as Bob Peak and Frank MacCarthy."

Skyelarke's version is missing some important links and references.

Skyelarke's version has more typos.

The list of Four Color issues illustrated by Buscema is uncharacteristic of other artists' articles. Regardless of which, of the many, many contributions he made to comics over his lifetime, there's no reason to single that one series out, and any argument for singling it out invokes POV. But don't replace that list with a bibliography of his works, because that will just get deleted as inconsistent with how WikiProject Comics contributors do things.

Fact: The Chaite Agency is not a studio.

The number of images is excessive. Seriously consider Wikipedia guidelines for image usage. Doczilla 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

    • I think I've got to agree with most of the comments above. Too many of the statements about him in Skyelarke's edit are things that aren't measurable so can't entirely avoid pov - Doczilla is quite right with the comments about "finest work", for example. Who says that it's his finest work? Wikipedia shouldn't judge, so unless we can take a step back and quote a source ("hailed by xyz as some of his finest work") then it's not really going to fit. Ditto for the "especially suited to his style". I can see why there are so many illustrations - Buscema's career is long and varied - but there are too many and we're never going to illustrate every style/aspect, so pruning them back a little would seem sensible and closer to the spirit of the guidelines. I do have to agree that Tenebrae's version has some typos that need fixing, but viewed as a whole that's a relatively minor issue. --Mrph 21:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I liked that line about the various magazine illustrators, but it got deleted. That full paragraph about influences should have been retained. I assume "Born a few months earlier than Frank Frazetta, also a Brooklyn native" is some sort of substitute, but actually, it is not encyclopedic because it is a meaningless comparison to people who have never heard of Frazetta. I think just five images would be sufficient to show what kind of artist the article is covering. No need to publish an entire portfolio. Pepso 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That was an accident on my part, I restored it. An interanl link is provided for Frazetta, so people who have never heard of him can investigate.
As for the quantity, I can refer you to several other highly rated articles that use over a dozen images if you wish. For an exceptionally prolific career that covered 7 decades, I think that 2-3 per decade is reasonable.
"Where did all of this body of knowledge (of John Buscema) come from?" is it sourced from buscema's official site? did the wiki-editor copy/pasted its context or only rephrased its contents? or just a summary of knowledge the editor knows and translated it to his own understanding? (a question for User:Skyelarke)
The information came from the references cited, rephrased by myself. I am in the process of including more precise footnotes.
I continued this revising process for the 50's section.
--Skyelarke 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You're not getting the point. The relationship between Buscema and Franzetta should be explicit, not something you have to go to another article to discover, AND it should not supercede who the article is actually about, John Buscema. So there's a dedication - why? Did they ever meet? Did one influence the other? Or is there just a mention because they both happen to be born around the same time in the same place? None of that is in the article, which makes any mention of Franzetta irrelevant.
As for the pics, I hope you're listening to what every other editor so far has expressed about having too many. They need to have a direct relationship to the text of the article and should be used to illustrate specific points about his style and how it changed over the decades. Don't just throw up images to reach some kind of arbitrary quota. CovenantD 01:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I was staying from this, hoping to let other editors weigh in after Skyelarke had made his statement, but I can see he's not letting the process run its course.
His version of the piece is filled with blatant opinion, like a magazine essay written by a hardcore fan and not a dispassionate encyclopedia article. Worse, Skyelarke appears disinclined to abide by either the consensus of several editors or some the basic policies of Wikipedia.
Revising unilaterally before a consensus is reached goes completely against the Request for Comment process. I am therefore reverting the article to where it was when the RfC was made. I ask Skyelarke to please respect the process. --Tenebrae 03:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
i sincerely ask Skyelarke to let go the article at the moment, and let things cool down. we all both experience this kind of situation when were all gripping to an article, holding onto it and closes our mind and sense of judgement to anyone's idea, sticking only on ours, of what we believe. let go at the moment, if you feel its being too unfair to you, someone will eventually drop by to this article, make further improvements that both parties will come to agreement, lets all take a breather †Bloodpack† 14:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

To Tenebrae - OK I'm confused - I'm not letting the process run its course? Looking at the procedures below, one can see that the Rfc that you initiated was lacking in many necessary preliminary steps. Among other things, the calling of a truce. This is the only reason why I continued editing,I didn't see it as interfering with the process. Had you called a truce according to procedure I would have respected it. The irony is that my last message prior to this very peremptory Rfc was to point out the 3 steps for avoiding disputes. So I do feel that I was rushed into a dispute process that I didn't feel was necessary - I was prepared to continue discussing the matter - now, yeah, to hear say that I was completely against the Request for Comment process leaves me rather dumfounded... Rest assured that I won't be making any changes until this current matter has been straightened out.

RFC procedures

Do not post an RfC before working towards a resolution with other article contributors first. Whatever the disagreement, the first step in resolving a dispute is to talk to the other parties involved. Be civil, and assume good faith in other editors' actions. When contacting the other parties, optional template Consider getting a third opinion on a controversy that involves only two editors.

Before requesting community comment, at least two editors must have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.

If you have not agreed to a truce before this point, you should do so now. This allows others to consider the issue fairly without the confusion of ongoing edits, which are likely to aggravate the dispute. If an edit war persists and parties refuse to stop, you may request that the page be protected to allow the process to move forward.

RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted. Repetitive, burdensome, or unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack. An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors, and can lead to binding arbitration. Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste.

To Bloodbath

Sure -letting go and taking a break, the second step of the resolution process is a good idea - How about 48 hours? After which I do have a few resolution proposals to make - I'd like to specify that I'm not particularly worked up about the situation, quite frankly I don't see the problem to be such a big deal... To end on a positive note, a few more considerations:

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

The wiki mind or wiki spirit is the fundamental presumptions of everyone who believe in wiki.

To assume good faith. This is the very basic presumption that every wiki user must have. What to do if you later realize that this presumption is not true? Do not use wiki, or Just pretend to believe that this is true Respect for freedom and equality among wiki users in editing the page. Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing. creation-oriented editing is, for example, editing new page, adding more information suppression-oriented editing is, for example, page deletion, blocking user, protecting page

Treat your fellow productive, well-meaning members of Wikipedia with respect and good will,

--Skyelarke 00:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Skyelarke you need to step back for a while, we'll go over the article and make sure it's encyclopedic. You did have way more images here than were needed. And there was a bit of NPOV. A request for comment means you walk away from the article and the Project takes over. If you want to keep busy in the meantime, many of the articles in Category:Comics articles needing cleanup are long overdue for some love. --Basique 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
To Skyelarke: I have tried in good faith to work with you on this article and reach resolution since December.
If you are suggesting I initiated an RfC to "harass or subdue" you, that is a very strong charge. Given the comments of other editors here, I believe there is agreement that these issues are genuine and objective. I ask you, again, not to make groundless accusations.
I also ask you, as all these other editors have, to please look more closely at your edits and try to take into consideration the weight of so much consensus about them. It's possible that maybe we all have a point, and that no one, honestly, is ganging up on you, as the "harass or subdue" accusations seems to suggest. Thanks. --Tenebrae 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok i know that this is going to sound bad but I can't take it anymore with all this nice talk so I am just going to say this in plain terms.

To Skyelarke: You need to calm down, it is just an article, and as you can plainly see we all think that Tenebrae's is better in terms of an encyclopedic sense. Now I myself have not done this for a long time, but a lot of these people know what they are doing, and if you want to be a better editor then you should listen to their suggestions and learn from your mistakes. Stop defending yourself and saying that this should of been done or what ever, the majority of us agree with Tenebrae so that means that we will all revert your edits eventually. So please just stop making yourself look bad. One last thing, we did point out errors in Tenebrae's edit so we are not saying that you stink and he is great, just his works better with the type of article that is supposed to be on wikipedia.
To Tenebrae: You need to calm down also, you don't really need to defend yourself, and all this arguing is pointless. If Skyelarke wants to keep reverting back even though we all say that his edits are not encyclopedic, then fine let him, he will get banned, and then we wont have to deal with it. But if he will learn from his mistakes and learn to be a better editor than great. The more the merrier.

Ok that being said i suggest that we all just stop with the arguing, it is pointless and it is not good for the article. In a way we are all acting like children, granted high class children but still. So lets just do what the majority agrees with. Leave it that way, and put all this attention the the articles that need it.Phoenix741 03:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it's been nearly two days (40 hours) without additional comment, there seems no objection to Phoenix741's suggestion that we "do what the majority agrees with". Unless there are new points that haven't been raised already in the discussion, I suggest we wait eight more hours to make it a full two days, and then go with the consensus version.--Tenebrae 19:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that of the 9 editors that have participated in this RFC, 8 had received personal invitations from Tenebrae. (and the one who apparently did not, Covenant, has supported Tenebrae in past arguments.)

Secondly, looking at the history record, one notices that the disputed contributions that I had made occured on the 22 & 23 of February, the disagreements being voiced on the 24 & 26 of February after only a single reply by each party and the RFC initiated on the same day, i.e. the 26th of February. Moreover, I was not informed of Tenebrae's feeling that he considered the situation to be a dispute in need of a RFC. I viewed the situation as simply an early stage of an editing discussion.

I am not claiming that there have been deliberate intentions of impartiality and partisanship, but it seems fairly plain that the cards were stacked in one party's favor from the get-go.

I am going to once again take a 48-hour break from the situation in order to give the opportunity for concerned parties to provide their feedback in order for this issue to be clarified before proceeding any further.

Regards,

--Skyelarke 23:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

wow, i have lost track of this, its been...how many weeks now? Anyways, this particular comment just caught my attention. Its true that Tenebrae invited us to discuss this, NOT to gang you up in any manner, but to contribute in the discussion. He didnt leave me a note in my talkpage to back him up but to participate here as a disinterested party. FYI, me and Tenebrae also had a dispute before, but weve come to agreement. And my RfC here is not bias or one-sided. Heck, i even left some questions that both can answer and be addressed (see again above) †Bloodpack† 01:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Again not the most PC thing to say, but it has to be said. Tenebrae asked us to talk cause we are in the wiki project. We(or at least every one else but me, i am still sorta new) know what we are doing. We know how comic articles are supposed to be written and what is the best way to write it. Your edit was not, in fact it is something that belongs on a fan made site that people skip over in search engines. This is wikipedia, a place where people can find a good article that has 0 or at least a small amount of opinion. Yours was full of useless info that had a lot of Point of View stuff that is not supposed to be on here. So i ask you, let it go, stop being a sore loser, admit your mistake and stop ruining your name, cause this effort is futile. Now from my understanding there is 4 hours left till 48 hours have passed, lets keep it that way and turn this this into a article worthy of wikipedia. I know this is not the most non-threating thing to say but to me it had to be said or else we would be locked in this argument till eventually someone got banned with nothing good coming out of it, and I just don't want to see that happen.Phoenix741 23:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was rather offended that I hadn't been invited to comment.  ;) CovenantD 00:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey I was surprised that I was 8-P.Phoenix741 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok 48 hours are up, time for the mass re-edit.Phoenix741 13:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I came here because I was invited to comment. And you'll note that not all of my criticisms were aimed at Skyelarke (although the clear majority were). Some of my remarks were about Tenebrae's edits too, as was the case with other invited commentors (yeah, the word should probably be commentators). If Tenebrae wanted a bunch of "yes men" on his/her side, T. wouldn't have invited several of us because we all disagree with each other at times and will do so again, but when we disagree, we work together to figure out what fits project purposes. Tenebrae did not invite us as a group of people T. could count on to back him/her (I don't know which) up blindly. Tenebrae invited us as people who know Wikipedia's guidelines and goals, people who know WikiProject Comics and its goals, and people T. has seen try to revolve disputes sensibly. Skyelarke had the right to solicit outside input as well. The possibility that S. didn't know any other contributors to invite may reflect on S.'s lack of familiarity with the project. Doczilla 06:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, what up? Here are my concluding thoughts on the various points raised -

A - I'm going to take some time off to reflect on the situation and take into account everyone's input. I suggest that everyone take a week off from editing this article in order assimilate the discussion points and gain some perspective. I have however made a few necessary editing corrections, because (in the version that Tenebrae is supporting) about half of the 50's section and most of the 60's had somehow been deleted with a passage cut off in mid-sentence.

B- Had this RFC not been so hasty and rushed, and had not heated up so quickly, I would most certainly have made some invitations of my own, to people from the comics project yes, and also people from the biography project and other general wikipedia editors. In any event, I won't be participating in any future RFC's for this article unless the following conditions are followed - a- A week's notice between the time the RFC is decided upon and its implementation be given. b- The notice is placed on the biography portal notice board as well as the comics project notice board. c- No more than seven invitations per person involved in the dispute. The invitations should be unsigned, with no complimentary or flattering comments to the invitee. d- No congratulations or thank you messages should be sent to other participating editors during the period of the RFC.

C- Had this RFC, which began as a question over three fairly general and relatively minor editing contributions not somehow developed into a general Comics Project sub-committee article evaluation here are the compromises I was trying to propose: a- Whether there are 6 or 12 images is no major deal for me - I can refrain from making any Image edits for the time being. b- the credit to his talent' passage to me is minor, if you want to rephrase that, you're welcome to do so. c-'"Buscema next produced some of his finest work of the decade"' I had replaced that with a quote from Jim Steranko. (See my last edit of the 26). d-I disagree with the AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute to the publications. Although a link to a catalogue and not an ideal quote, this company has a comprehensive knowledge of the western genre and western artists and in this case I feel are qualified to provide objective points of view on this period of his career and John Buscema's name is not a major selling point and it wasn't added for promotional or commercial purposes.

D- FYI - To better clarify the history of this article, please note that the following FA-Class article has been used as a model and practical example in terms of Wikipedia policies and style guidelines. I encourage everyone to familiarize himself or herself with it if they wish to make contributions to this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD

E- To paraphrase Phoenix, I know I shouldn't say this and it will probably sound undiplomatic but it has to be said.

I know that there are a certain number of who share the same 'no-nonsense, cut the clutter, limit the content' philosophy. I sincerely feel that embarking on an effort to have this article conform to that mindset will be a colossal waste of time and energy for everyone because this article's structure and conception is pretty much diametrically incompatible with that mindset. You chose your battles, and this one is shaping up to be a complicated, energy-draining, clash between a 'lets's whittle this down' and a 'let's build this up' viewpoint where no one will be satisfied with the end results. It'll be like trying to fit a square peg in a round groove. I'm just saying...

Peace out,

--Skyelarke 22:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Am I supposed to be Sphinx, cause if i am, i am kinda offended. Also to your last paragraph, its not really a mindset. It is what we feel should be done as per wikipedia standards. Also while all of this was going on you could of asked for some other people to join in from this discussion. and if you did ask people to comment on this, and they didn't that probably says something about you.Phoenix741 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
TY for changing that,Phoenix741 22:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
For the record, a notice was placed on the WikiProject Comics noticeboard, at 17:42, 26 February 2007, and then on Skyelarke's page. This RfC was open to everyone.
I have reverted the article to Phoenix741's last edit. User:Skyelarke had gone back and, despite the clear consensus, reinserted cluttering images and personal opinion. I believe from his remarks above about a whittle-it-down vs. let's-build-it-up "mindset" shows a fundamental misunderstanding both of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and, frankly, the difference between an encyclopedia article and a magazine article.
I did go in tonight and make mostly technical edits on misspelled comics titles and book titles, missing dates, missing Wikilinks, and similar elementary material. I removed one graf of excessive detail about inkers mixed with personal opinion.
If (and I'm interested in the opinion of the ever-awesome range of our colleagues have to say on this) we at the point where consensus is not being observed and we need to move to a formal dispute-resolution process, I'm formally stated my willingness to call in an admin and do so. If Skyelarke genuinely feels the rest of us are incorrect, then I think we should do so. --Tenebrae 05:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I was going to write a detailed response to Skylarke pointing out the flaws in his post, but decided on this instead:
Skylarke, I found many of your comments to be condesending and inflamatory. Yours is a single purpose account; every single edit you've made since you started editing four and half months ago has been to this article[1]with two exceptions; a comment you left on somebody's talk page about this article[2] accusing them (incorrectly) of personal attacks, and another very serious accusation against the people who participated in this discussion.[3] Based on that and the tone of the article that you ultimately did create,[4] I have absolutely no faith in your neutrality, your assumption of good faith in others, or your knowledge of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. CovenantD 08:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Could someone kindly take a look at the 50's and 60's sections that have been deleted and restore them? Notice that there currently is no heading and almost no content for the 60's...

Sorry to sound so down on you guys - it's only only because I feel the RFC was initiated too quickly and prematurely - Please rest assured of my intentions to edit and discuss in full respect of Wikipedia guidelines and procedures. And one last request to slow down and let's take a one week break, a step back before making any further decisions...

--Skyelarke 13:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine, take a week break if you want, gives us more time to get this article looking good. Also I will look at the 50's-60's sections, but honestly i doubt i will do much with them.Phoenix741 19:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Looked at it, something weird is going on, the info is on the site, it is just not displaying. I it is really weird.Phoenix741 19:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
So....... is the request for comment over.....?Phoenix741 17:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Hiya, Phoenix741. Skyelarke took a unilateral one-week break, but as you noted three grafs above this, other editors were going to go ahead edit the article, which, after over a week of RfC, certainly says to me the RfC has been completed. --Tenebrae 17:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok well now all we have to worry about is Sky changing everything back. Something that would not surprised me if that happened.8-/-->Phoenix741 19:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith on his part. There's a learning curve to Wiki editing, Lord knows. --Tenebrae 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but all of the images on this page are copyrighted. While two or three might be Fair Use, but a page full of them is pushing it. Burzmali 16:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats not rude at all. But do you mind being a little more specific, like which ones are copyrighted.Phoenix741 19:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of a comic book going public domain, so I would assume all of the comic book images are copyrighted. Clicking on any of them takes you to their image page showing the Fair Use guidelines. As I said before, I think a few examples of his work could be justified, but loading the article with copyrighted images of questionable purpose over runs fair use. Burzmali 19:43, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Well i am not fully sure on this, but i think since they are published works and we are giving credit to who made them, it is ok.Phoenix741 19:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
They also have to contribute significantly to the article (point #8 under Policy) and not just be their for decoration. I would take this to mean that one issue in the article should not have more than one image supporting it, but one image may support multiple issues. But if there are images here that ultimately only serve as decoration, they should go, properly attributed or not. — J Greb 20:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
That's why I didn't slap a copyvio template on the page or anything. Some of the images are okay, but I don't really know enough about the topic to make the call on which should go. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Burzmali (talk • contribs) 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

There are plenty of public domain comics out there, if this Category:Public domain characters has ANY validity at all. CovenantD 06:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are Public Domain not Fair Use. Seeing as most of this gentleman's work was done in the latter half of the 20th century, I doubt much have been released into public domain. Burzmali 13:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
You wrote that you had never heard of a comic book going public domain; I provided a link to some that apparently have. CovenantD 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, I misspoke, I meant going public domain voluntarily. Going PD because your copyright ran out is a different matter entirely. Burzmali 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the time to read over the various comments - I am in agreement with many (especially 'Please note that its best to have every statements we make in wikipedia cited because: 1) people use wikipedia as a source of their research and reference, and we dont want to mislead them.' - as for the specific points of the dispute per se-

1- Too many images - Although I agree with the points of criteria for using images, I'm not convinced about the limit on the number of images - many generalized opinions given more or less all in agreement, not much specific explanations or substantiation given. The only specific policy limitations I'm aware of is that you can only use one screen shot per film.

2- 'the credit to his talent' passage to me is minor, if you want to rephrase that, you're welcome to do so.

3-'"Buscema next produced some of his finest work of the decade"' I had replaced that with a quote from Jim Steranko. (See my last edit of the 26). Tenebrae deleted that one calling it 'meaningless' - I disagree - the explanation appears to be original research on the editor's part - if he has a quote from a reputable source to substantiate his claims of Buscema's artistic development, he is welcome to do so. In any case I don't think it quite so meaningless for a general public audience.

d- AC Comics link - This point of contention never received any comment - I disagree with the deletion of AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute information to the publications. Although a link to a catalogue and not an ideal quote, this company has a comprehensive knowledge of the western genre and western artists and in this case I feel are qualified to provide objective points of view on this period of his career and John Buscema's name is not a major selling point and it wasn't added for promotional or commercial purposes.

Thanks to Phoenix, by the way, for fixing the formatting glitches.

I happened to come across a similar discussion on the Meat Loaf article, a perhaps more temperate way of presenting the problem -

'I think this article is more or less on target when it comes to getting bio and discography information, but are definitely pockets where the article, particularly its word choice, reads like it's been written by an obvious fan, his publicist, or is taken from some autobiography he may have wrote. As someone who's familiar with the singer, but not a passionate fan, it reads a little too affectionate for a encyclopedia article. I added the tag because I'm not as familiar with Meat Loaf and I thought someone who is may be able to clean it up without accidently removing relavent info'

--Skyelarke 01:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for entering into the discussion. One quick point: Links to commercial sites such as catalogs are disallowed by Wikipedia. That's not a matter of discussion, but a strict policy. --Tenebrae 03:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
A strict interpetation of WP:FU would indicate that, aside from the head shot, all of the images violate Fair Use. Specifically Comic Covers can be used "to illustrate: the issue of the comic book in question; the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part; or the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question;" which is not the topic this article is addressing. Burzmali 16:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoid. Also, I'm not sure why you believe I added the Vanguard link — I did not — but as you point out, it's indeed a commercial link and I've removed it. --Tenebrae 15:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

a)Good 'Links normally to be avoided' reference, but again, I repeat my request - kindly provide the specific passage that you have in mind. b)In any event the title has the word 'normally' meaning there are exceptional cases and 'avoided' meaning not stricly forbidden - therefore it is not, as you say, a `strict policy', but one subject to discussion as the case may be. I refer you to my previously stated reasons why I feel that it is an exceptional case. c) I thought it was you who added the Vanguard link because it was added 3 days after your major modifications and you had not objected to it in the 3 months it was in evident display. d) Again, I feel that your deletion of that link was premature - the work in question is a useful reference - kindly put it back or better yet, replace with a standard reference format. e) In general, if you are going to take the extreme step of deleting a contribution, I would ask that you take the time substantiate your reasons for doing so. i.e. referencing the exact passage of a relevant policy AND explaining why you feel that the specific passage in question is discouraged by said specific policy OR BETTER YET taking the time to offer an alternatite solution or finding a more appropriate reference. --Skyelarke 02:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A publisher praising the contents of a book that it is selling is not a disinterested source. Factual material from an AC book -- names, dates, place -- is obviously fine. But not an opinion from a publisher about how great the thing its selling is. --Tenebrae 04:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is good and well as far as it goes, unfortunately there is no substantiation to your claims - no specific reference to my response, no reference to specific Wikipedia policies, no specific reference to the AC Catalog product description, no examples cited - be that as it may, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and let it slide - if you wish to replace the quote with a more fitting quote on Buscema's Roy Rogers work, feel free to do so.

Good 'Links normally to be avoided' reference, but again, I repeat my request - kindly provide the specific passage that you have in mind.

Again, I feel that your deletion of that Vanguard link was premature - the work in question is a useful reference - kindly put it back or better yet, replace with a standard reference format.

'When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.'

'Focus on creation-oriented editing rather than suppression-oriented editing. Creation-oriented editing is, for example, editing new page, adding more information.' --Skyelarke 21:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

RE: Vanguard link, which Skyelarke had previously noted was commercial: Here is what it has on that site (prices etc. x'd out):
Send completed Order Form and $xxxx (+$xx s/h) for the Trade Hardcover; $xxx (+$xxx s/h) for the limited edition, DELUXE Hardcover S/N by John Buscema with 16 pg. BONUS PORTFOLIO not found in other editions; or $xxx (+$xxx s/h) for the SoftCover to: Vanguard Productions xxx xxx Street Suite xxx xxxxx, NJ xxxxx
I'm sure we can call agree that this is a disallowed commercial link. --Tenebrae 22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
RE: AC Comics. Here is the deleted statement: AC Comics have reprinted a number of those stories and describe Buscema as the best Roy Rogers artist.
The footnoted link a commercial AC Comics page selling: Roy Rogers Western #2 Quantity in Basket: none Code: RRW1 Price: $xxxx Shipping Weight: 0.33 pounds
Again this is disallowed commercial link. As well, AC Comics hyping its own product is not a disinterested reference.--Tenebrae 22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, in the above there is an effort to provide a more substantiated argument, unfortunately, it still does not adress the specific points of contention. I'm not denying that they are commerical sites, this point doesn't require proof. My argument was based on the point that the AC Comics link is an allowable exception. Here are the relevant textual passages under consideration.

a - 'I disagree with the deletion of AC Comics link, because the company has a strong reputation as a publisher of historical archival material and reputable comic book historians contribute information to the publications. Although a link to a catalogue and not an ideal quote, this company has a comprehensive knowledge of the western genre and western artists and in this case I feel are qualified to provide objective points of view on this period of his career and John Buscema's name is not a major selling point and it wasn't added for promotional or commercial purposes.'
b- '4- Links normally to be avoided - 4-Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.'
c-'RRW#2 More great Roy Rogers memories!! Roy Rogers rides again, better than ever in this superb nostalgic package. More wonderful comics adventures reprinted from the original Dell Comics series, including "Riding The Danger Trail" and "Roy Ropes A Partner", both by the best Roy artist ever, John Buscema. Then, see Queen Of The West , Dale Evans in action in "The Turquoise Belt", drawn by Russ Manning; and everybodies favorite comical sidekick, Gabby Hayes in "Shooting At Santa", illustrated by Leonard Frank from his Fawcett Comics series. Text features include "Royal Family-Western Style"- a vintage look at domestic life for the Rogers; "Roy Rogers, King Of The Cowboys"- a history of Roy's career as told by rodeo writer Al Rackin And Cowboy Heaven remembrances of Eddie Dean and Kirk Alyn. With more photos than ever throughout, if you"re a Roy Rogers fan, you can't miss this book. Color photo front cover, black and white back and inside covers, interiors are black and white with graytones. Standard comic book format. Printed in 1999 Fully licensed and authorized. '
I was expecting a reply to my argument to make reference to the three texts above i.e. explaining why point a is invalidated by elements cited from text b and c.

I think there seems to be a confusion between section 2 and section 4 of the 'External Links' policy page. In section 2,there are only two points that 'For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking ..., without exception.' i.e. cases of proven copyright violation and specific blacklisted sites. The #4 point (which I assume your are referring to) about products and services is not in section 2, it's in section 4. So it's not under a 'restricted from linking...without exception' dictate.

Had you provided a reference to the specific policy point that you were referring to (I assume it's point 4.4), you would have seen that instead of deleting the Vanguard link, there is another solution that they recommend, i.e replacing with a more appropriate link. I have added a standard reference to Vanguard's 'The John Buscema Sketchbook' If you care to replace it with the ISBN linking format, feel free to do so. --Skyelarke 02:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tenebrae's deletion of Vanguard book - Fair enough - I think having a footnotes and a references section is a little redundant - wikipedia biographies generally just have a footnotes section followed by an external links section, so I replaced the references section with an external links section. --Skyelarke 20:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

A question: ("Ext links" are "for further reading" links. "References" are primary sources. I have no major problem with that, although I don't think it's as good as the more prevalent Wikipedia structure that I've mentioned because as you've done, a primary source reference gets deleted if it is referred to in the footnote section, therefore there is a logical inconsistency. Is there a place in the Wikipedia policies where this structure that you are referring to is explained? I'd be interested in seeing it, because I don't see how the general public could know and understand this. I've added an external links section for further reading. PS. Below are some concrete examples of what I'm referring to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byrne http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvador_Dal%C3%AD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas --Skyelarke 00:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)--

Per WP:CITE, "Footnote" citations are only re-listed under "References" in articles "that have lots of footnotes" that make it "hard to see...exactly which sources have been used". Here's what I copy-pasted:
Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" or "Footnotes"
It is helpful when non-citation footnotes are used that a "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.
Further reading/External links
An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Some editors may include both headings in articles, listing only material not available online in the "Further reading" section.
All items used to verify information in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are generally not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic.
— Tenebrae 00:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - makes sense - Thanks for the ref.

I've added various references, quotes, and points of detail to the 'Later Career' section. Basically the guidelines I've followed for these edits are the following from the 'Perfect Article' section :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article

a-acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.

b-is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.

c-is engaging; the language is descriptive and has an interesting, encyclopedic tone. --Skyelarke 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Buscema/Archive_2_(2007_-_RfC)&oldid=539533226"