Talk:John Buscema

I reckon this article is about due for some revision/expansion. I have quite a bit of stuff to add. It should take about a week. Everyone of course is welcome to participate. But because there is a fair bit of work to do, I suggest that it would be simpler to wait until all the revisions are added, before doing any extensive reversions or modifications.

Afterwards, depending on how things go, I'm considering submitting it to a Peer Review and then taking it to GAR.

--Scott Free (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to respectfully urge caution on this. A previous attempt by you that added POV--Scott Free (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)--Scott Free (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC), excessive detail and questionable claims resulted in an extended mediation and both of us being removed from editing this page — a ban that was then extended against you. After all that, and with the amount of information that is in this article, it's reasonable to have concern that this article is going to do down the same road again. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

And so it begins again. Rather than make cautious edits, or even discuss why he made certain questionable edits — removing wikilinks from "Brooklyn. New York" and "comic strip"? Truncating author's names and leaving only their initials? — Scott Free has made wholesale and undiscussed changes to several parts of this article. This is not collegial or collaborative behavior, and after having his been banned from this article for fannish overindulgence and an excess of decorative images, it is reasonable to expect a more measured approach. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Duly noted. FYI, I have created 3 GA articles since then; and I've done 3 GA evaluations. There were no major problems and all articles are thriving beautifully. So I think I've demonstrated my capacity to function neutrally in the community. --Scott Free (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts; as I recall we each contributed at about the same time to Boys' Ranch, one of those GA articles.

And I appreciate your taking to heart my comments on delinking geographic names and using truncated versions of authors' names. I would be extremely happy if we can work on this article as civilly as productively as that other article. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey thanks. That's great. I haven't been into the Buscema thing for a while, so it should be interesting to get back into it. I invited BOZ to bring in some input, who of course has been doing work in the GA department.--Scott Free (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned because after I contacted you on your talk page to initiate a discussion on your recent edits, and explain my own, you unilaterally, and without the reciprocal courtesy of a discussion, reverted many of the changes — specifically the clogging minutiae about a few inkers you seem to admire; Buscema had several dozen inkers, and unless some particular Buscema-inker team was distinguished by an award or somesuch, their inclusion is fannish POV. These are the kinds of contentious edits that resulted in an RfC that, as I recall, went against you, and I don't believe it's proper to reinsert them now.

As well, another issues has reappeared, which is your occasional citing of references that do not say what you claim. Spurluck, Sketchbook, p. 95 says nothing about retirement; indeed, Buscema says he would like to retire but cannot. You removed a citation request and added your own interpretation that, as far as I can see, clearly misinterpreted Buscema's own words.

This behavior is distressing, and I see us going down the same road as before. You are a particularly ardent fan of John Buscema, and inserting your own POVs, likes and dislikes in a way of which other editors did not approve. Do we really need to do a duplicated RfC concerning the same changes? This is the type of wait-months-and-reinsert-disputed-changes manner that Asgardian exhibited, and the fact that you were virtually the only person supporting an editor whose behavior was so outre that he has been banned is now troubling in this context.

Before making contentious edits, it's proper to discuss them. If two editors disagree, another can be asked to mediate, and if they still disagree, an RfC can be called. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Not too sure I follow the above - This is just a rough revision phase - I think there's bound to be a few rough discrepencies here and there - there's plenty of time to fix those at the Peer Review and GAR. Anyhoo, I fixed the retirement ref as well as the Tex Morgan and commuting thing.

So I've done with the expansions - Thanks to TB for his input and adjustments. In putting the final expanded version together, I may have inadvertantly omitted some of your edits - sorry about. They can be corrected. I have no problem with footnote formatting, feel free to fix those. I think there's roughly 15 referenced passages that TB has removed for various reasons. IDK, they seem like pretty basic, referenced biographical info. BOZ: I pasted most of the passages below, what do you think?

As a solution, basically I propose submitting the longer text to a peer review and GAR - better to have more info than not enough - if there are any NPOV problems, I'm sure some experienced wikipedians will spot them. Anyway, even the shorter is not bad, it might make it, as well. I suggest BOZ submit the article to PR, whichever version he feels appropriate. I'm going to step back for now - I'll help out for refs and stuff at the PR and GA, if it is decided to pursue this.

Peace out,

--Scott Free (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm calling for an RfC. It'll take me a day to put together a comprehensive comparison of your current edits and the previous disallowed edits. I'm very disappointed in your behavior. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Meantime, to start marshaling evidence, I'd like to do as you do and go over particularly contentious edits point by point.

The overall most troublesome thing is your reinsertion of tangential minutiae that a past RfC rejected. You attempted to reinsert them even then, and you attempt to do so again now despite a consensus of editors who found these edits fancruft and non-constructive.

• For example, this passage was pared down following the RfC -- yet your most recent edit reinserted much the same the non-consensus version.

Compare your non-consensus version from 2007, which you tried to sneak back in...

Buscema began penciling Conan the Barbarian with #25 (April 1973)with writer Roy Thomas following Barry Smith's celebrated run, and debuted as the Conan artist of the black-and-white comics-magazine omnibus Savage Sword of Conan with issue #1 (Aug. 1974). He would eventually contribute to more than 100 issues of each title (the former through 190, the latter through 101, then again from #190-210), giving him one of the most prolific runs for an artist on a single character. Ernie Chua/Chan was his main inker on Conan the Barbarian in the 1970s, (except for a hiatus between #’s 44-69 which were inked by Tony DeZuniga, Dick Giordano, Tom Palmer, Steve Gan and others). Highlights of the Buscema/Thomas run include the double-sized issues #'s 100[20] and 115[21].

He additionally drew the Conan Sunday and daily syndicated newspaper comic strip upon its premiere in 1978,[22] and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie,[23] as well as painting four covers for the Conan magazines.

Alfredo Alcala was his regular inker on Savage Sword of Conan until #24 and they produced some highly regarded stories. Of note are "Iron Shadows in the Moon" (#4), "The Slithering Shadow" (#20), "The Tower of the Elephant" (#24,)[24] Tony DeZuniga became Buscema' regular inker with #26 producing Conan literary adaptations until his departure with #58 (with Thomas leaving with #60).[25]

... with the post-RfC version:

Buscema began penciling Conan the Barbarian with #25 (April 1973) following Barry Smith's celebrated run, and debuted as the Conan artist of the black-and-white comics-magazine omnibus Savage Sword of Conan with issue #1 (Aug. 1974). He would eventually contribute to more than 100 issues of each title (the former through 190, the latter through 101, then again from #190-210), giving him one of the most prolific runs for an artist on a single character. He additionally drew the Conan Sunday and daily syndicated newspaper comic strip upon its premiere in 1978,[20] and even contributed some storyboard illustrations for the 1982 Conan movie,[21] as well as painting four covers for the Conan magazines.

I've got other examples of your reinserting the very same text that a consensus of editors disagreed with you about in 2007/2008. I honestly and sincerely don't know how you can justify in your mind to wait two or three years and then sneak the very same, disallowed content all over again. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• Also, here is another example of your personal likes-and-dislikes POV that you added, just like back in the day:

An early highlight is his work on the Tex Morgan western title (#'s 4-7). ).<ref>[http://www.comics.org/issue/7344/#70737 Tom Morgan #4 credits], [http://www.comics.org/issue/7496/?style=default Tom Morgan #5 credits] [http://www.comics.org/issue/7621/?style=default Tom Morgan #6 credits] [http://www.comics.org/issue/7739/?style=default Tom Morgan #7 credits]</ref>

The cited footnotes are NOT those of a critic or historian calling them "early highlights," but simply the issue's writer-artist credits. It's one of many examples of your inserting POV and trying to slip it by with a false citation.

--Tenebrae (talk) 04:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

• And finally, for now, here's a recent edit where you

1. Remove a valid citation 2. Reverts a dab wikilink, and 3. Add a "citation" for your POV that is not a citation at all — and one I had asked you to clarify, though you ignored that request

Version before your edit:

...that company's [[one-shot (comics)|one-shot]] Life Stories of American Presidents.<ref>[http://www.comics.org/issue/13892/ ''Life Stories of American Presidents'' #1 (Nov. 1957)] at the [[Grand Comics Database]]</ref>

Your edited version:

...that company's [[one-shot]] Life Stories of American Presidents. His work on Indian Chief #30-33 is notable late 50's work. <ref>Evanier. San Diego 2001, p.7V. </ref>

I asked you exactly what "Evanier. San Diego 2001, p.7V." and received no answer. It's a program book, probably, but that's unconfirmed. There's no title of what Evanier wrote and no context. Moreover, given the multiple examples I've found of your using print-publication citations dishonestly, I'd like to see the quote exactly so we can see what it really says. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This has happened more than once before, and I'm not sure why I shouldn't seek an administrator's sanction against User:Scott Free. He continues to make false claims that his spurious citations do not support.

• In his most recent multiple edit, he cites "Evanier, Mark, and John Buscema, Alter Ego vol. 3, #15 (June 2002) pp.16-17V" for the claim "His first recorded credit is" such-and-such. I turn to that issue, and "John Buscema: The San Diego 2001 Interview", conducted by Mark Evanier. Pages 16-17 (they are not "16-17V") say nothing whatsoever about any first recorded work.I could find nothing about it, in fact, in the interview at all.

• In another example of his using false citations to support his own POV, he cites "Evanier, 7V" to support the claim, "His work on Indian Chief #30-33 is notable late 50's work." The only thing page 7 (not 7V) says is, in an identifying caption, "Also shown directly above is a page from a 1950s issue of Dell's Indian Chief," followed by an offhand comment by Roy Thomas that it, a Helen of Troy page and a Seventh Voyage of Sinbad page look like preparation for drawing Conan.

This is not a good faith error. These are the same kinds of discredited edits he tried to do in 2007, and for which he was banned from this article after trying to reinsert them after an RfC disallowed them. This behavior is highly inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the typos. I've fixed them. I stand by the updated version and have no problem whatsoever taking it to PR and GAR.--Scott Free (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Those were not "typographical errors," which mean errant keystrokes resulting in misspellings.

You were not misspelling "the" as "hte". You were deliberately citing content that did not say what you claimed. And you have done this multiple times before.

Actively calling what you did "typographical errors" is outrageous. You are behaving like Asgardian, who would deliberately obfuscate and misinform in an attempt to deflect from his inappropriate behavior.

We're not talking about PR or GAR for an article now. We're talking about a User RfC. You defended Asgardian, and believe his behavior was appropriate. It was not, as a long review of his actions by many of his peers confirmed.

Your having reinserted long-disapproved, non-constructive edits, and your pattern of using untruthful citations, is likewise inappropriate. After this content RfC is finished, I will call for a user RfC. I'm providing the courtesy of a head's up. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it TB. Try to calm down. Any NPOV or reference problems aren't likely to make it past a PR & GAR. As someone who's worked on over a dozen articles at that level (and have created two GA biographies from scratch and have written the majority of the GA Al Williamson article, providing over 70 refs), I can safely say that there are plenty of excellent, experienced editors there who can give qualified input. --Scott Free (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying you should be allowed to make outright citation falsehoods and then see if excellent, experienced editors catch if after the fact? That is not right. Neither is the "calm down" references &mdsash; another tactic Asgardian would use to deflect criticism of his actions.

You began on Wikiepedia as a single-purpose account and made no edits to anything except this article for many months, under this name and as User:Skyelarke. Whatever work you've done elsewhere, this one remains a fan-obsession for you, as evidence by the fact you waited literally years to try to sneak back in edits that an RfC disallowed back in 2007/2008. Or perhaps you're an original-art collector trying to increase the value of certain pieces by claiming, falsely, that they are special highlights, even though no objective, third-party sources say so, prompting the deliberate placement of false citations — and then remarkably, disingenuously, calling them "typos." That is inexcusable behavior on Wikipedia. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyhoo, obviously a neutral, objective third party opinion is needed. Maybe this will calm the slander-mill and conspiracy theories incivility down a bit and demonstrate that my expansions are acceptable according to arbitration clarification:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=229015145#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FJohn_Buscema

"The terms of the arbitration case are that you have to respect the basic structure, so simply restoring the same paragraphs that were previously being objected to would not be respecting the structure but reverting to the previous structure. The external link to Nationmaster is clearly inappropriate. If you are adding reliable source references to what it already in the article, or making additions to explain existing material, then that is quite acceptable. Meanwhile I hope other editors will continue to assume good faith on your contributions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)"

User:Scott Free has accused me of slander. This is a serious charge. I have documented in details his false citations, and his outright lying that these were "typographical errors."

The Arb ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema#Subsequent editing states:

Skyelarke [Scott Free's former name] and Tenebrae may freely edit John Buscema but should respect consensus [emphasis added] developed in the interim concerning the basic structure of the article and the nature of the material that should be included, including but not limited to the number of images. ... Any uninvolved administrator may ban Skyelarke or Tenebrae from editing John Buscema or any related article or page for a reasonable period of time ... if either engages in any form of disruptive editing, edit-warring, or editing against an established consensus. [emphasis added]

Scott Free has attempted to add the same or similar non-consensus edits as he did at the time, with the addition of certifiably false citations. This is disruptive editing, and Scott Free should be banned from editing this article for a reasonable period of time as the Arb ruling states. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I realize that a certain statement could be construed as impolite, therefore I corrected it. My apologies. --Scott Free (talk) 17:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment is requested on the large number of edits between two version of John Buscema: The User:Scott Free version on the left and the User:Tenebrae version on the right at this page. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Since several issues and even specific text passages remain the same now as during the Mediation and Arbitration process of 2007-2008, here, for background, is the text of that timeframe's Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/John Buscema. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see above for new developments after this RfC went up. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the above and the RFC call, I've set the page to requiring a Review to approve edits for the RFC. For involved editors that are reviewers, it's expected you won't abuse that situation. - J Greb (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're an involved party in the dispute. Why are you taking administrative action on the article? --Scott Free (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on John Buscema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hahnlibrary.net/comics/awards/eisner02.php
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freetimemagazine.it/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/freetime-58-web-97.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comics.org/credit/name/John%20Buscema/sort/chrono/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/18buscema.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicsbulletin.com/columns/447/top-10-1970s-marvels/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bailsprojects.com/%28S%28xs33hrjuop3sk0452x342arp%29%29/bio.aspx?Name=BUSCEMA%2C+JOHN
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://comics.lib.msu.edu/rri/qrri/qualit.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://mike.jersey.free.fr/Buscema.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/28/arts/john-buscema-74-who-drew-classic-comic-book-characters.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/apr/17/guardianobituaries
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131024235420/http://www.hahnlibrary.net/comics/awards/alley68.php to http://www.hahnlibrary.net/comics/awards/alley68.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131023125822/http://www.eagleawards.co.uk/category/previous-winners/1977/ to http://www.eagleawards.co.uk/category/previous-winners/1977/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library/eventsexh/past/2007_01_10_bond.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://web.archive.org/web/19960101-re_/http%3A//www.tcj.com/3_online/t_buscema.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Buscema. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bailsprojects.com/(S(sqjxmbzn5ohvis45jzd5sw45))/bio.aspx?Name=BUSCEMA%2c+JOHN
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5mdwvhUbC?url=http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library/eventsexh/past/2007_01_10_bond.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/filmtvinfo/library/eventsexh/past/2007_01_10_bond.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

John Buscema most certainly DID WORK on Fantastic Four #416. He drew an eight-page backup story titled "Roads Not Taken!" which was written by Tom DeFalco and inked by Tom Palmer.

• The Grand Comics Database supports this https://www.comics.org/issue/97305/

• Tom Palmer (you know, the guy who *inked the story in question*) has some of the original art on his website with the notation "Fantastic Four #416, page 6. Marvel Comics, 1996. Breakdowns by John Buscema. Finishes by Tom Palmer." http://tompalmerillustration.com/post/145402515128/fantastic-four-416-page-6-marvel-comics-1996

• The ComicBookdb agrees http://comicbookdb.com/issue.php?ID=21234 (scroll to the "Multiple Stories in this Issue" section)

• The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators http://www.maelmill-insi.de/UHBMCC/fantfou.htm#S74 (scroll all the way to the very bottom)

• Mike's Amazing World of Comics http://www.mikesamazingworld.com/mikes/features/story.php?storyid=117485

• The John Buscema checklist http://mike.jersey.free.fr/Buscema.htm

• ComicBook Realm https://comicbookrealm.com/series/730/9590/fantastic-four-issue-416/5

• The Complete Marvel Reading Order https://cmro.travis-starnes.com/detail.php?idvalue=14770

I hope this is sufficient documentation for the inclusion of this story as part of John Buscema's body of work

172.58.139.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:27, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

there's no mention anywhere in this article or the bibliography about John drawing the Conan newspaper comic strip. 166.205.141.46 (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

okay it does mention it and it mentions when he started drawing it, but I would like to know when he finished drawing it 166.205.141.46 (talk) 10:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)