Talk:Peter David

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Related work groups: ...
Close

Detail

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

There is no policy or guideline I know of that says articles have to be "brief", nor should an article's length be determined by the length of another. McCarthy's page is 1,889 words? So what? William Shakespeare's four times longer.
As for the Public Persona and Personal life sections, a number of biographical articles have them. They are not found in all articles because not all biographical subjects are outspoken or controversial people known for a particular public image, and because article material is limited by what can be found in secondary sources. The Peter David article has such a section for the same reason that Rob Liefeld has an extensive Criticism section, when Jim Lee does not: It's merited by the different lives they lead, the sources available for that material, etc. Nightscream (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
First,Nightscream, I'd like to thank you for your work on this article which is on my watchlist because I know someone related to PAD. It's reassuring to know that this article has a dedicated editor. That being said, I did notice that it is rated as a C class for quality scale for bios. What steps could be taken to get it up to B class? I agree with the above contributor that PAD's list of favorite things is long and trivial and does not rise to the level of encyclopedic. I also see that there are sections that have many one or two sentences paragraphs, which I always find irritating. On the other hand, I see nowhere that a Wikipedia article should be brief. But I would like to see this article tightened up to rise to a B level. I also noticed it was C class for quality of Comic articles. One place to start would be to look at A class comic articles and see how they contrast with this article. Cheers A Softer Answer (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
While wandering around I found this: Wikipedia:Article size. It might make interesting reading. A Softer Answer (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Early Writing Career at Marvel

There are some factual errors here and some material which is doubtful.

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

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

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

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

New old photo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a clear consensus against the use of this photo. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Peter David at a comic convention in NYC around 1990

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

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

Agreed. I removed it for that reason. I appreciate your generosity in donating them for public use, but photos of such low quality do not improve the article, but lower it. Nightscream (talk) 21:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd say any photo is better than no photo. Perfection is the enemy of the good. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
First of all, any photo is not better than no photo.
Second, this argument implies that if we don't use the photo in question, then the article will have no photos. This is obviously false, since there already five photos in the article. So I'm not sure I understand how "any photo is better than no photo" applies to this article. Nightscream (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll let Wwwhatsup know that you responded - I think a lot of people who go to RFCs just comment and don't follow through, not expecting to be challenged when they present what is essentially their opinion. In this case, Wwwhatsup said "I'd say any photo is better than no photo" - which I happen to agree with. He correctly presented that as an opinion - in fact, it's essentially what this RFC is about. Is an imperfect historical photo better than no photo? Your response is a little problematic, in my eyes, because you state your opinion as fact - "any photo is not better than no photo". Do you think you could try to avoid this in the future? It's bound to cause misunderstandings and irritate people. I would think it's safe to assume that Wwwhatsup meant that any photo that presents something that other photos don't present is better than no photo - in this case, a historical presentation... but I'll ask them to follow up if they like. Tduk (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I was responding to the RFC. Perhaps somewhat hastily as I didn't actually review the article. I do maintain that any photo is better than no photo, this can often be an argument for fair use. But, given there exist better quality free images, it then becomes a matter of aesthetics, and whether the photo portrays some information lacking in the others. This can only be decided by consensus. And if multiple editors voice strong objections, consensus can hardly be said to exist. Wwwhatsup (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not state my opinion as fact. I stated my opinion as an opinion. And as far as your interpretation of Wwhatsup's statement, that meaning is not clear at all in the statement.
And even if it was intended to convey this, what does it present or portray that the others don't, aside from what it looks like when Peter David is out of focus and has a mic partially in front of his face? If you're going to make this claim, could you elaborate on what it presents or provides? Nightscream (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose The use of this photo. It's blurry and it degrades the quality of the article and the encyclopedia. The mic in front of his face doesn't help either. Thank you Tduk for donating the photos and for your work in improving the WP project but this is not a useful photo in my opinion.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – same reasons as Keithbob. United States Man (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose Your donation is appreciated but like the other users above stated, it "degrades the quality of the article". The blurred image gives the reader an immediate negative perspective on Peter David. Meatsgains (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose use of the photo, reasons stated above and already given by others. But, thanks for continuing to try and improve Wikipedia! GRUcrule (talk) 21:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Peter David. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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) 23:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Death

Peter's wife is reporting that he passed away last night. We have a WP:BLPSPS on reporting this, but should stay tuned for usable sources, as well as getting the specific date (i.e., before or after midnight.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI