Talk:Rob Liefeld/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I just added a Residual Effects note.

I wanted to add the Herb Trimpe note because, outside of Liefeld's own studio, Herb was notable for aping Liefeld's style for Marvel comics. You can see this in Guardian's of the Galaxy Annual #1, the Starblast Miniseries, and miscellaneous annuals. (I just got the FF DVD and I'm viewing it first-hand). He was the only "old school" artist I ever saw who imitated Liefeld. --JRT 01:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• I recall reading that Trimpe was explicitly told to ape Liefeld's style, and his choice was to either comply or not get further work. DS 01:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• I remember a similar report. N. Caligon 03:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Why does Timrock keep reverting my edit on Skewed perspective when i am merely providing an example of his skewed perspective?

I should like to point out that "Liefeld" has become synonymous with plagarism and swiping in the comics industry. When new allegations of plagarism are reported about other artists, the headline often is phrased as "so and so is the new Liefeld!" Given the popular meaning his reputation has taken on, regardless of which side of the fence one's feelings about him may be, it should be an emphasis that is is one of his lasting legacies to the comic field.

The order figures for Liefeld's first TT's are out; from 68K on the previous issue to nearly 75K, a nearly 10% increase. Given the expected number of buyers who were expected to pass up the book because he was drawing it, this is a bit of a surprise. (I'm told there are about as many panels in the issue as there were in the entire original Youngblood miniseries, which suggests that Liefeld is accepting editorial direction now, which is an even bigger surprise. N. Caligon 17:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Next time you're at the comic shop flip through it at least. It's a decent book. You also can't go wrong with Gail Simone. I also heard that orders were 76K with 4K re-orders, either way it's still an increase, still top 20 in sales which is impressive because it has no alt. cover or storyline tie-in.--Timrock 13:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I actually flipped through it at Borders, where it seemed to have sold OK. Unfortunately, it still had too many big panels with figures in impossible perspective. N. Caligon 01:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't merely revert the article I also went back and removed the positve and negative hyperbole which i feel infests this article. I also added(in fairness to Liefeld fans) a postive artistic qualities section. Please feel free to add you imput and provide links and examples.

My true goal is to get this article to a neutal point of view. Right now it isn't, whether it is Timrock's version or mine--The Liefeld Troll 18:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

For the last time it's not MY version. It's a consenses version that was rewritten after the page was locked a few months back, I personally did not write it. Quit referring to it as mine. As for your edits they will most likely be reverted, why? Because you changed everything before comming here. No one agreed to what you added. You add what you want whenever and you ignore all other users. The page looks vandalized right now.--Timrock 20:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Timrock, do you think there should be an Artistic Attributes section or not, I feel it balances out the critisim section.--65.220.54.20 21:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think there should be an Artistic Attributes section. I think the criticism section is ok. It's what a lot of the people complain about. Most other articles for artist or writers have one so it's fair, I believe.--Timrock 21:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I like Liefeld Troll's version, it isn't too positive or too negative. I don't like the way you guys are ganging up on him either. The only consensus here is what the liefeld fans want this article to read like. What is wrong with providing examples of his artistic criticisms, and removing things like "undeniably a superstar".--70.182.219.158 19:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• He was undeniably a superstar. I can't stand the man, but he sold millions of bloody comics and Spike Lee directed a jeans commercial promoting him. You cannot deny that the dude was hugely popular. For a time. -leigh (φθόγγος) 02:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

"briefly but undeniably a superstar" is unnecessary. Whoever wrote it sounds like a teenage girl fawning over Liefeld. There must be a better more neutral way of saying it. I even got a signed copy of X Force #1 and Youngblood #1 way back in 1992, so i am aware of how popular he was.--65.220.54.20 16:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a teenage girl fawning over Liefeld, I don't know how you read it like that. Nothing is under dispute here. the article isn't biased too much either way. I agreed with the removal of the term partisans in reference to liefeld fans, it was insulting. I just wanted to say that I don't believe nuetrality is under dispute, I think it just needs to be written better. Without negative comments and just facts, which is what I've been saying all along. Well anyways I'm done trying because everyone would agree on one version then one guy will come here and ruin it then revert it to death and it's just getting old for me.--Timrock 12:48, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record i didn't add the pov thing.--65.220.54.20 18:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know you didn't that dude that did it doesn't seem to know what's going on. Liefeld Troll, I think with a little help your version could work. I know we can work out something we can both be happy with. Just not right now, sometime in the future.--Timrock 17:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed dispute banner.--70.182.219.158 23:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is laden with

What do you recommend we do about it? ACS (Wikipedian) 00:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Fix it. I have been. --Chris Griswold 04:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Right...okay. A little short, I think. Ah well. Done. I think it's better. All in one edit, too. Feel freee to remove the weasel tag unless I missed something. ACS (Wikipedian) 18:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Third paragraph in the lead is still full of them ("Some fans [...]", "[...] is regularly criticized [...]", "[...] have been panned [...]") and there are still some in the Career section as well. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

...Dude, WTF? Like a bot once said, you can edit Wikipedia, too, ya know. Seems like all you want to do is point stuff out rather than changing it yourself. ACS (Wikipedian) 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not too familar with the subject. The only way I'd see to edit those things myself were to simply remove them. If that's fine with everybody, I'll go ahead, but it would probably be better to avoid weasel words by explaining who said all that and add sources (see

Avoid weasel words). --Fritz S. (Talk

) 18:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get sucked into an edit war, but I thought I should point out that Image:Liefeld_captain_america.jpg, which once contained this image under the caption "Captain America art from the "Heroes Reborn" event", was replaced by User:Mgreene with this image and used elsewhere in the article as "Onslaught Reborn" art, while the original image's place and caption now (somewhat inaccurately) contained Image:CapAmerica1.jpg. I've adjusted the caption to match the new image (it's not "art from the event," it's an actual cover), but primarily I just want to register my disappointment that we've lost the notorious "Captain America boobs" image, which was so useful in immediately conveying the positive and negative features of Liefeld's style. Thoughts? -leigh (φθόγγος) 06:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We got felled. Ah well. It happens. It was definitely odd to see trolling which attempted to show Liefeld in a more favable light. ACS (Wikipedian); Talk to the Ace. See what I've edited. 08:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The original text "where a backlash against his bombastic art style and allegations of plagiarism" and "The Most Hated Man in Comics" are continuously being removed by trolls. I will continue to put them back in as they remove them in an attempt to retain at least some article integrity. It should be noted that now so much has been removed or contextually rearranged by trolls that the entire reason why Liefeld is now perceived as "controversial" is lost. I suppose we've ceded the comparison images and exclusive backlash section to trolls, I'll do my best to maintain some kind of fairness as I have time. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 00:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, hi, not a troll. Also please quit it with the personal attacks. "bombastic art style" and "most hated man in comics" are plainly POV language and do not belong in the article. If there're articles from a media source calling him "the most hated man in comics", cite them. Otherwise, that statement's going to be removed. Ford MF 04:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You'll really need to read the discussion before you jump on in and start removing sections because you assumed things haven't already been cited. There is a wealth of mainstream sources cited and really a virtual glut of misc. industry references that corroborate the phrases in question. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 09:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean "already" cited. It's in the article now and there's no citation. I'm not disagreeing with you that such sources exist, but it's not enough to simply say "they're out there." This is Wikipedia and we do not publish our editors' own opinions, we phrase things in the format X says Y. If Peter David and Wizard published articles with that epithet, fine. Someone dig up a reference and put it in the article. Without it it's clear POV. Ford MF 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Which is not terribly surprising, since the footnotes for this whole article are sorely lacking. Ford MF 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Who's POV? The industry at large? That's enough to warrant the statements inclusion as an NPOV by default. We've all accepted that this being a part of the comic book industry that the information on said creators is sparse, but Wizard magazine is hardly the only source material. ( On "most hated man in comics" title See here: [1], here [2] , here [3] here [4], here [5] and several others I wouldn't(and shouldn't) need to track down for you if you took the time read this discussion page. I provided several of the existing sources for the said title which illustrates how he is widely recognized. It doesn't matter if you are personally satisfied with the sources as there are so many that it's been established that is how he is perceived by the community. Obviously neither of the two major sources (Comic book Journal or Wizard) will readily print that title about anyone and participate in gossip despite what is well known. If you continue to troll under the guise of a credible editor, then I will need to file an official complaint at

EDIT: The comicbookbin.com source is quite established as a mainstream source for all things comic related, so it isn't just the alan moore article B.Soto 20:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

From my personal discussion page:

If no reputable source will publish it, doesn't that lead one to conclude that it isn't an encyclopedic addition to the article? I could blog about hating Rob Liefield, but that isn't any good for attribution. Your "[d]on't say I didn't warn you" tone isn't really justified here, especially in that you are the 3RRer (in edits without summaries!) in this situation. I don't know why you are fighting so hard to keep POV language in the article, frankly. --mordicai. 20:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

mordicai - Not hardly. Isn't Wikipedia known for providing a more comprehensive description inclusive of controversy and widespread gossip in addition to the statistical profiles of artists/celebrities? The "blog" you speak of isn't formally a blog at all, and neither is it having anything to do with "bashing" Liefeld in any way. It simply points out that's how he is referred to. The same with the mainstream article source at comicbookbin.com. Neither is relating to any kind of slander or vilification of Liefeld and only casually mention him as being the most hated man in comics as it's a prevalent moniker.

Regarding my edits. I have in fact left a note on the lead-in line revert. Once is enough as I don;t need to continuously explain why I'm reverting to the original version that is persistently being removed based on no other reason apparently than to show Liefeld in an entirely favorable light. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 21:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The title "most hated man in comics" is not a POV, or even a title that magically appeared because of Liefled, but rather a dubious distincition that has been passed around within the industry regarding several artists/writer/creators including but not limited to Jim Steranko, John Byrne, and Bill Jemas. It seems mordicai needs to do his homework about comics "industry-speak", as well as try harder to avoid overlooking credible sources. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 22:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

B.Soto, we don't cite sources which have have a certain point of view (e.g. reviews) towards the subject unless the article quotes or discusses them. You may move your changes to a "Criticisms" section, specifically explaining the "backlash against his bombastic art style and allegations of plagiarism" and citing the

neutral point of view policies will be immediately reverted. Michaelas¹⁰

08:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, if no one has any objections, I'm going to archive the upper portion of this talkpage. It's up to 196kb already. Ford MF 03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I think from New Trivia bit on up. Most of that stuff is two years old now, and this talkpage is a nightmare. Ford MF 03:26, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Ford MF 15:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

While I don't necessarily condone the positions adopted by any of the participants in the above discussion, I would like to say that I find the following to be NPOV:

where a backlash against his bombastic art style and allegations of plagiarism have led to his being labeled "The Most Hated Man in Comics"

Well.. perhaps bombastic should be removed (unless that's unobjectionable as a description.. I'm not really familiar with art terminology) but other than that, it simply states that there are allegations of plagiarism and that he has been labeled "The Most Hated Man in Comics". So long as both these claims are properly cited (and it appears they have been, in discussion above) then I don't see what the problem is. Allegations and labels are not particularly damning, in my opinion. I'd never heard of this guy before, but even a rudimentary search indicates that a lot of people don't like him. Simply because there are a lot of people who don't like him and accuse him of things, that doesn't mean those people are right. I think that the above sentence should be put back into the lead, and that an entire section devoted to "Controversy" or "Criticism" should be created to expand on these issues — from both sides of the debate (i.e. we need to know more about his supporters as well, and their response to the allegations and labels). --Sapphic 19:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If there's a non-trivial citation for "most hated man in comics", someone reputable to quote, then great. Otherwise:

WP:BLP. And I agree, this article sorely needs a balanced, well developed and referenced "criticism" section. I'm planning on tinkering with such a section tonight after work. Cheers. Ford MF

19:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case we don't need the source to be reputable, it just has to be representative. I don't think it's possible (or even useful) to establish that this guy is, in fact, the "most hated man in comics." All that needs to be established is that he has been labeled as such by a significant number of people. As such, I think the number of such sources is more important than how reputable any individual ones are. If you do a Google search for "most hated man in comics" then the first result refers to this guy. Similarly for Yahoo!, though on Infospace you have to go to the second link. I haven't added up the numbers, but it looks like most of the top links on the major (US) search engines refer to Rob Liefeld in one way or another. Not all of them are blog pages, either – some appear to be reviews or articles.

The reputability of these sources would only matter if we were taking them to support factual claims that they are actually making. We're not doing that. We're simply acknowledging that these sites have labeled this guy in a particular way. The citations in this case are actually demonstrations of the fact we're trying to establish (that people label Rob Liefeld a certain way) rather than references for that fact in the normal sense. If we wanted to provide a more traditional reference, we'd need to find a source that did such research itself and had determined something like "X number of publications referred to Rob Liefeld as 'the most hated man in comics' in 2007" and in that case the reputability of the source would be relevant. But here it's not. --Sapphic 20:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• "In this case we don't need the source to be reputable."
  WP:WEB
  would seem to indicate otherwise. I don't think the objective was ever to establish that he is in fact the most hated guy ever, since, as you point out, that's not actually possible. But I think the establishment of that title as intrinsically his is problematic.

• Yeah, Liefeld is the first ghit for "most hated man in comics" (again, from a non-notable fan site), but he only occurs twice in the top ten (as does Marvel editor-in-chief Joe Quesada), and the second mention is even less notable, being a user review on Amazon.com. Of the next ten ghits, the phrase occurs in conjunction with his name twice: once as a mirror of this wiki article, and the other in another nn website. And we also accrue two votes for Gerry Conway. The fact that a gsearch brings up not just one or two guys in conjunction with "most hated man in comics", but numerous different people suggests the name has kind of a life of its own, not necessarily tied specifically to Liefeld.

• "The reputability of these sources would only matter if we were taking them to support factual claims that they are actually making". Not true. By that logic, we could report that Hollywood Fansite X describes Kevin Spacey as the worst actor ever. Which we very clearly cannot do. The fact that we're forwarding responsibility to some NN website doesn't really count for much.

• "X number of publications referred to Rob Liefeld as 'the most hated man in comics' in 2007" So far, by my count, X = 0, where X is not a fan site or blog or Newsarama message board.

• Again, I am in no way saying that "most hated man in comics" absolutely, 100% has no place in the article if it can be sufficiently sourced. Hey, does anyone have an article where (it was previously hinted) Peter David calls him that? Great, let's see the text. Otherwise, like any other claim on Wikipedia, and certainly any other claim that has to be vetted by
  WP:BLP, it's got to go. Ford MF
  03:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links; I haven't finished reading all of the policies and guidelines yet. Anyway you're right, and in fact Wikipedia:Attribution covers it for all cases in general. My mistake is that even making the commonsense observation that a lot of (unreliable) sources say the same thing is considered original research. We have to wait for a reliable source to make the same observation first (or just call him the same thing directly). However, if the source mentioned below is reliable, then I still think the material should be added. Otherwise, it has to go, no matter how many unreliable sources say it or how glaringly obvious it might be that some people call him that. --Sapphic 14:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of them to read, but thankfully they're pretty easy to suss out on the fly. But I've learned the hard way that it pays to be extra-touchy about

Jimbo Wales for violating it). Ford MF

15:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The title in question is not my POV or any other single persons, but rather the moniker he's well known for which I've clearly demonstrated with multiple sources. One of which is very credible at comicbookbin.com (http://www.comicbookbin.com/koppy01.html). Why is it comicbookbin.com (http://www.comicbookbin.com/koppy01.html) referring to Liefeld as such is being overlooked? What needs to taken into consideration here is that this is the life of a comic book artist we're talking about, where official documentation would be scarce almost especially online. Case in point is a Comic's Journal Magazine article by Michael Dean about how "Image comics destroyed the industry in the early 90's" (I'm paraphrasing there as I don't have it available) and that article has since been removed. The link to that article is referenced here on your site under Image comics but is now a dead link (The cached version is still available). Most of the "official" documentation on any comic artist/writer exists in print only within the archives of the Comic's Journal Magazine (Comic Book Journal), and Wizard magazine. This doesn't mean it didn't happen because you can't see it online. How else we're we all able to conclude his life of controversy and fallout with Image comics? It's necessary to include major events with these people despite how undocumented they are, but we can't if you're demanding proof via Time Magazine or the New York Times who never follow or document these people. It's the comicbookbin.com's that you need to give a bit more weight than you have been.

EDIT: Another example of the moniker in question is used here (http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=929). What's important is in all three cases the articles are not used to vilify Liefeld, and are all contextually very neutral, yet seem to accept this widely recognized name. When three out of five initial searches on Rob Liefeld mention this, (including a widely recognized mainstream source at http://www.comicbookbin.com/koppy01.html) it seems rather silly that Wikipedia could not. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 18:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC) — Moved from B.Soto's talk page Michaelas¹⁰ 09:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so I created a sandbox page to deal with the Liefeld article while it's locked down here, so we can hammer out a compromise and get this done. Prolonged locking of the article is in no one's best interest.

User:Fordmadoxfraud/sandbox/Rob Liefeld Talk:Rob Liefeld/unlocking Rob Liefeld draft

So far I have:

• Created a crit section that I consider balanced and, most importantly (
  WP:BLP
  ) well referenced. I don't think it's definitive yet, but it's a good start. As with most dicey, controversial information on bio articles, the stuff that goes in here needs to have good citations.
• Vetted some of the more contentious claims, even the previously ref'ed ones. It looks like some of them were snarky vandalism masquerading as legit edits. e.g. I've removed the part where it says Liefeld was dropped from Hawk & Dove because he "increasingly forgot to draw hands and feet." That statement was ref'd, but absolutely nowhere in the ref did it say anything about his drawing style. It says he was dropped for drawing an issue sideways and drawing his issues late (which I have ref'd in the criticism section).
• Linked to IMDB profile.
• rm dead forum link
• Tried to keep the language as NPOV as possible. And also tried to keep the crit section concise. I've seen wiki articles where the criticism section overwhelms the actual biographical info on the person, and I think that's something that could easily happen to this article, and that's not a good thing. However, in this case, I think his biography could be beefed up a bit, rather than trimming the controversies. The info is out there.
  • Now that I look at it, the whole "Acrimony at leaving image &c &c" section should probably be merged with the body of his biography. The paragraph there about the issues surrounding his resignation/termination from Image is not sufficient to the event I think.
• made references take up less space
• Sourced and NPOV'd the claim that Cable was created by Marvel editors while Liefeld fraudulently claims credit. Changed it to the more neutral descriptor that there is dispute over Cable's authorship. I could find no adequate source for the Deadpool claim (even though I think Deadpool is clearly Rob's attempt to put Slade in Marvel), so I removed it. While I don't think it's necessarily POV to point out the similarities without a source (as in the
  Deadpool
  article), using them as a club to criticize Liefeld is. I could go either way on this one, but I think it needs to be worded better if it's included.
• Ditto the Externals, for which I could find even less sources (although, right, clearly Highlander).
  • Okay, I just moved these down into the criticism section. I still don't know how I feel about the Deadpool stuff. I left the Externals reference out because I had a harder time digging up mention of it, and it seems more like a questionable pastiche (of the kind comics have always indulged in) than a rip off.

Also I'd like to rm the Liefeld's impact section, as the stuff in there 1) doesn't really talk about his impact in the industry, 2) is pretty trivial and contributes nothing to the article (it's just a list of people who've parodied his style), 3) is completely unsourced. Thoughts?

And that's it for now. I'm at work and have to actually, you know, work. Feel free to work on the draft in my sandbox. I'd like to get some definitive compromise soonish and get the article opened back up and breathing again. Ford MF 19:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I realize I should have just made it an ancillary page to this one, not to my own userspace, so I'm moving it. (Force of habit, sorry.) The article is now here:

Talk:Rob Liefeld/unlocking Rob Liefeld draft Ford MF 19:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, since no one's mentioned anything pro or con, I'm going to go ahead and remove "Liefeld's Impact" from the draft. Ford MF 17:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. I find it hard to dig up motivation to care about Rob Liefeld, but I definitely agree with your edits & critique of the original article. For what it is worth, consider myself in consensus to your proposed changes...not the most helpful of contributions, but at least I can weigh in with another editorial voice in favor of your suggestions (apparently I'm too busy creating stubs about

Raccoon penis bones). --mordicai.

18:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Rob Liefeld (born

In the early 1990s, Liefeld became popular due to his work on Marvel Comics’ The New Mutants, and later X-Force. In 1992 he and other popular Marvel illustrators left the company to found Image Comics, which rode the peak of a wave of comic books owned by their creators rather than their publishers. Liefeld’s line of comics failed to gain much critical approval.

Fans originally praised Liefeld’s artwork as energetic and action-packed, but his later work was regularly criticized for excessive flamboyance, limited versatility, arbitrary use of cross-hatching, absence of recognizable light source, and stiff, contrived anatomy ranging from the improbable to the impossible. Liefeld's original creations, like many Image properties, have been panned as two-dimensional and generic. Many of his characters bear specific similarities to previously existing ones, and in some cases panels appear to duplicate existing work, leading some to deem Liefeld a plagiarist. He was also known to turn in his art pages on The New Mutants out of order in order to disguise the fact that he was changing the story without notifying the writer or editor, but he is not the only artist known to have done this, and writer Louise Simonson, with whom he was paired on The New Mutants, has even good-naturedly asserted that the stories were improved by him in some cases.

Most observers agree that wildly and unrealistically exaggerated artwork and decreased focus on character development were widespread trends in mainstream comic books in the early 1990s. For this reason, some consider Liefeld merely the most vilified representative of an industry-wide fad. But few deny that Liefeld's lines of comics were marked at that time by rather simplistic writing, that his characters and conceptions were often painfully derivative, and that his undependable and unpredictable publishing schedules quickly alienated both retailers and consumers.

Someone who removes an unreferenced and contentious section about a

living person is possibly (or probably) not a troll but a conscientious Wiki editor. Also please remember to assume good faith about your fellow contributors. Ford MF

17:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/features/116883849126986.htm

http://www.comicbookbin.com/koppy01.html

http://www.ninthart.com/display.php?article=929 - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I just noticed much of the original discussion page has been sloppily deleted by trolls again (and of course it's the most incriminating parts of the discussion with sources). Fortunately I have a back up and will replace the original conversations and links later when I have time. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Look at the top of the page. It's been archived. I even posted about doing it on the talk page beforehand. Ford MF 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, glancing through the archive, it contains no actual, ref'able sources. Ford MF 17:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I never claimed they could be referenced for hard data on the actual article page. They are sources for talking points about how the community itself views Liefeld within the discussion page where it was established he's viewed unfavorably by most of the online comic book fan demographic. Keep in mind though, as no hard statistical data exists of just how much of the community opposes Liefeld, none exists for how much he's supported either, which should be reflected on the actual page where any claims of how he's viewed favorably will not be admissible. Brass Tacks here is the community from what we can find online, views him unfavorably. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 19:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Brass tacks is that if information is not sourced appropriately, it does not go into the article.

WP:BLP is non-negotiable. Ford MF

19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you read the proposed "controversies" section? Ford MF 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, not just elaborate but reference it, in the article itself. FMF's proposed criticism section seems pretty beefy, & it has those blue little superscript numbers that are the hallmark of a well referenced article. --mordicai. 23:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This proposed criticism section reads as if it is explaining away the criticism rather than actually describing any of the actual criticism itself. Read through the original content I included above ( Criticism section and preliminary ref'ing of the page) if you are having difficulty in understanding what it is Liefeld is actually criticized for. B.Soto 21:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

B.Soto, I'm afraid I'm having trouble understanding what it is you mean by "ref". Wikipedia:Citing sources has some general guidelines for citing, & you might want to check it out. The problem with your criticisms above is what you mentioned- they are original content (Wikipedia:No original research). --mordicai. 22:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I rather think the proposed crit section presents the criticisms of Liefeld in an

NPOV

manner. It doesn't explain away the criticisms, but it doesn't (or tries not to) take sides, which is exactly how things should be in a Wikipedia article.

And the original criticism section was rightfully removed by whatever editor did it; it was a good call. Virtually all of it is

WP:BLP's directive to remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Ford MF

00:41, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You still haven't actually explained any of the criticism itself, eg. what he's been criticized for. Your draft reads as if it's justifying a phantom that no one actually knows about. If you make a criticism section, it might be good to include the actual criticism. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 04:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little unclear on what you mean, since I think the anti-Liefeld top 40 are covered by the section I wrote. If you mean the specific examples listed in the old (unsourced) crit section, then no, those are not going to be added, because they're unsourced and

policies) about what is and is not acceptable acceptable in biographical articles. And the old crit section as it was is not acceptable. It's very hard to discern what it is exactly you're arguing for, other than a return to that older version of the article, which I think is clear at this point isn't going to happen. Ford MF

18:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

THIS INTERNET IS FILLED WITH EVIL! Seriously, why are the comments deleting? I mean, is there some sort of weird thing going on, or is it just two snafus in a row? --mordicai. 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it has to do with the databases taking so long to catch up right now. My "user contributions" tab has been screwed up all morning. Ford MF 18:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You've repeatedly made it quite clear you'll use the (supported by Wiki

User:B.Soto, the only editor with a Liefeld based agenda here seems to be you, with an anti-Liefeld agenda. User:Fordmadoxfraud (as well as myself) are hardly Liefeld boosters, but we are Wikipedia boosters. As FMF's proposed edit shows, that The Comics Journal article is ALREADY referenced. I am begining to wonder just how much attention you are paying to the debate; it seems that you are more interested in arguing than you are in the actual article. --mordicai. 18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a baseless charge, mordicai.. I have no interest in Liefeld bashing, but I do have an interest in telling the Liefeld story truthfully. The Comics Journal article includes a Liefeld section that details many things not listed thus far that I will see to it do make it in the article. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 18:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. I welcome any constructive contributions! --mordicai. 19:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is the [[fr:Rob Liefeld]] tag a mess? Probably a talkpage thing, but just something that caught my eye. --mordicai. 18:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I wanted to compare it to other pages that list different language wiki entries, but for some reason I'm having a hard time finding one. I'll look into it later. Ford MF 19:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} as per

The removal of the fansite and forum make sense to me, but why the video? (I'm at work, so I can't actually check the content itself, to see if there are any obvious problems with it.) Isn't it just an interview? And if that's the case, why is that any less acceptable than a print interview? Ford MF 18:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Y Done, fansite and forum removed, no reason to remove video interview. Sandstein 06:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this article has been locked down for weeks now. This is silly and unproductive. There seems to be a stalemate between myself and the

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

It's sad to see this article being protected. I wanted to make some editing which would correct grammar, logged in to try, but I can't make those changes after all. The article quality will suffer in the long-term due to this. --Philwiki 12:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Section detailing Rob's controversial departure from Image was removed and any remaining mention of this left was vaguely hinted on in an unrelated section as a mere cliff note. I am replacing this for obvious reasons as it's a crucial and defining moment integral in the Liefeld story. It is now The litigious Departure from Image. I'll make backup copies of this section assuming it is vandalized or trolled again. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 15:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC):You know Wikipedia keeps all that for you, right? Ford MF 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Page has been radically altered by newcomers, and now reflects a non-NPOV. The edits responsible for this left no explanation or listed references. Reverting back to the work Ford and I did. If you intend to delete entire sections, the least you can do is explain your reasoning behind this, and further substantiate claims such as "remains popular". - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 03:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, we clashed on a lot of stuff, but I think we can both agree these new edits are uncited

WP:PEACOCK junk. Ford MF

14:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The update that Rob is returning to Image is fine, and seems to check out (at least at the immediate source I Googled), so I see no reason why that can't stay. I also let them change the main photo. The rest is arbitrary or unwarranted deletion, non-NPOV conjecture, and generally unsubstantiated. As such I will continue to revert as it is trolled. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 07:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just so you guys know, the "video interview with Rob Liefeld" that is pretty much citation footnotes for a bunch of things in the article is a dead link as the video no longer exists.

Page is currently being trolled by being in a locked/protected status by non-NPOV users. "Shaft action figure" double entendre section needs deleted from trivia, as it's untrue. Liefeld never marketed his figure as this, and I believe that quote actually comes from a Wizard Magazine joke made at the time. Either cite it, or delete it. Artistic criticism section needs deleted. It clearly reflects a non-NPOV interest, as no other of Liefeld's contemporary's Wiki pages have these sections. (Please check Pablo Picasso's wiki for an example. It doesn't have any section about artistic criticism, though he has thousands of times the critics arguing against his work that Liefeld has.) Keep it NPOV, or quit editing the article. The purpose of a wiki is to present facts, not opinions. Save it for your biographies. Ahwatukee 07:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

While I think we're in agreement on most of what is said here Ahwatuwkee, you'll need to clarify your statement on criticism. Liefeld's contemporaries (most of), and Picasso didn't have their careers defined by criticism. The Liefeld story however (as told by most of major sources cited ) is rife with criticism, personally, professionally, and especially artistically. To omit his criticism is to make ambiguous the statement "he has since become a controversial figure in the medium" in the lead in. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 08:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The operating words you wrote there, which support removal of the criticism section are, "The Liefeld story..." Every good academic encyclopedic entry is kept concise; Much like an enhanced definition with minor biographic information. If you look at Michael Turner's wiki, you'll see it has no artistic criticism section, yet it features an image from the cover of Wolverine: Origins #1 that makes the famous Liefeld Captain America promo piece that is often shown around the community look like it's anatomically correct. If one was to criticize Turner's piece, you could say that Wolverine's head is half the size, his abdomen is elongated, and he has no neck, all the while his muscles are more enhanced than the world's greatest body builders. I'm not saying the article needs to be mwah mwah kiss kiss, it just needs to be impartial and very concise and rudimentary. The removal of that section and any other non-NPOV sections and sections with "fuzzy citations" would be prudent. For example, the "Litigous" departure from Image is based on a lot of third party information. The fact that that section begins with a sentence with the word, "Allegedly" proves it needs citations from a first party source, not from some book or a guy who wasn't even there. Liefeld himself has been quoted numerous times on this issue, and he states that he faxed in his resignation. Other than that, there is no factual verbatim information in that section. The upcoming Image Founders panel at SDCC would be a prime opportunity for someone to ask for the final definitive story on what happened, because all seven men will be on stage. Regardless, the best approach for comic creators on Wikipedia is a brief summary and bibliography. I believe Turner's is a good example. Ahwatukee 08:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Soto. Pretty much every article you read about Liefeld is about his criticisms--perhaps not making them, but at the least discussing them or referencing them. The man's career and biography is to a degree defined by these controversies. Ford MF 18:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahwatukee, I appreciate your point but your examples aren't comparable to this much different and unique situation. Michael Turner's career hasn't been characterized as "controversial" like Liefeld's has. And what we do know of Liefeld's departure from Image isn't the hearsay you claim it to be. In fact, the crux of the Litigious Departure From Image section is derivative the Comics Journal and Wizard articles quoting Image board members at the time. Marc Silvestri, Todd McFarlane and Larry Marder (among others) had quite a bit to say about Liefeld's departure. I'm having trouble with your rationale that in order for a biographical account to be accurate it needs to be written autobiographically, as if somehow wholly dependent on the words of the person the biography is about. In fact the opposite is usually true, as autobiographies are typically scrutinized for bias or for appearing to be self serving. - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't the article show at least Liefeld side of the controversy as well as other peoples? Both sides are just "claims" and neither are known as 100% fact. Why shouldn't both sides be represented and let the reader decide on what to believe.Timrock 21:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Why don't you

be bold, and dig up some citations for Liefeld's counter-claims? Ford MF

23:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Youngblood #6 (Vol. 1) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.48.83 (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I added an external link containing critique of Liefeld's conceptual, artistic and writing habits. I found the critiques engaging and valid but they may be too inflammatory and opinionated for use on Wikipedia with a living person article. Thoughts? —Parhamr 20:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It contains foul language. It's nothing but opinion. It's really nothing but a bash site. --24.164.89.157 (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

... and I can't do it because this page is locked.

Supreme

Artist Rick Veitch was quite clear in his opinion of Checker's Supreme: The Return - upon receiving a complimentary copy (as one of the artists who drew flashback sequences), he wrote:...

Text removed, as talk pages aren't a place to put material that wouldn't belong in the article anyway. Ford MF (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Below are common criticisms of Liefeld's artwork. Some of the features citedare idiosyncratic, while others were fairly widespread trends in mainstream comics of the 1990s.

• Limited facial expressions, generally ranging from barely-restrained anger to a look that is regularly described as "constipated" by less charitable commentators (see X-Force covers above)
• Distored proportions such as tiny heads, wrists, and ankles and oversized breasts and muscles (see Captain America above, who appears to be several feet thick), as well as the occasional swipe with female face and breasts layered onto an obviously male figure
• Obvious panel-to-panel inconsistencies in costumes, backgrounds, and even the number of digits on characters' hands
• Poses that appear to be both illogical (in the context of the plot) and anatomically impossible, or at least uncomfortable
• Skewed perspective: often a picture will start in one perspective then be finished in another. (See Captain America again, apparently started in profile view then switched to three-fourths perspective, which would make him look like this from above)
• Plagiarism. Rob Liefeld created several super-heroes heavily inspired by already existing ones, such as Captain America and Avengers look-alikes. He is also accused of copying panels from other comics (see some examples).
• Disproportionate facial features. Eyes are frequently asymmetrical, often drawn on a skewed axis on the face; noses are often misplaced; and grimacing characters regularly display impossible numbers of uniformly-shaped teeth.

- Braden DeSoto B.Soto 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sources? Michaelas¹⁰
  08:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's basically my reservation here for most if not all of this material, in that it falls into the "everybody knows it" category, which isn't even remotely citable in a

biography of a living person. The information is insufficiently ref'd and borderline POV. (Or at least the language is.) Ford MF

17:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is the orginal Artistic Criticism section as it was in the article that I saved. I included the original author's list here to better illustrate some of the things Liefeld's work has been criticized for. You'll note that the only real useable point there also happens to be the most relevant. (The sources are examples of his own work showing clearly why he had faced allegations of plagiarism). - Braden DeSoto B.Soto 22:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

-You might also add:

• Known mis-appropriations of Character/Costume Designs from New "Unknown" Artists showing portfolios at Comic-Cons.

-The "writer of comment" received a disheartening experience after seeing ressembling Character/Costume Designs appear in Liefield/Image print publication within months following a desultory/nuetral critcism of work at a recruiting session - San Diego early 90's - Day of Jack Kirby's 75th? B-Day/Frank Miller Speech—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.43.77 (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I am moving the following passage to this Talk Page until it can be properly sourced:

On seeing Liefeld's creation, Deadpool, a character that bears visual similarities to the DC Comics villain Deathstroke, writer Fabian Nicieza gave Deadpool the real name Wade Wilson, because Deathstroke's real name is Slade Wilson.^[1]

The reason for this is that the source is a dead link. Although there was a second source, it is just an archive page whose source does not appear to be sufficiently credentialed to pass

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060714193744/http://www.wizarduniverse.com:80/magazine/wizard/000853542.cfm to http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/wizard/000853542.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

Hi all, has a fair use of something like Youngblood 1 cover have been previously discussed here or on deletion discussions? Seems like we have a very strong argument for fair use, half the article (only slight exaggeration) is about Liefeld's drawing style. Rybkovich (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

found the cover image, it was already in Youngblood also put it in here. Rybkovich (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Rob Liefeld. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120824112220/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2009/10/26/comicsalliance-video-vault-the-comic-book-greats-rob-liefeld/ to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2009/10/26/comicsalliance-video-vault-the-comic-book-greats-rob-liefeld/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106053121/http://comicsalliance.com/liefeld-meets-dennis-miller-in-a-perfect-storm-of-90s-cliches/ to http://comicsalliance.com/liefeld-meets-dennis-miller-in-a-perfect-storm-of-90s-cliches/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120729040959/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/07/26/following-morrison-liefeld-also-announces-imminent-departure-fr to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/07/26/following-morrison-liefeld-also-announces-imminent-departure-fr/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120826015600/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/08/23/rob-liefeld-quits-dc-on-twitter-names-names-and-points-fingers/ to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/08/23/rob-liefeld-quits-dc-on-twitter-names-names-and-points-fingers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130819161318/http://smodcast.com/episodes/more-with-morrison/ to http://smodcast.com/episodes/more-with-morrison/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090706023257/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=5852 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=5852

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.

• 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) 20:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rob Liefeld. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170401130455/http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/image-comics/youngblood to http://comicbookroundup.com/comic-books/reviews/image-comics/youngblood
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090114220920/http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/116883849126986.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/116883849126986.htm

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.

• 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) 05:25, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rob Liefeld. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141109192113/http://www.comicsbulletin.com/sites/default/files/rage/100375659675845.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/sites/default/files/rage/100375659675845.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120828091354/http://blog.newsarama.com/2012/08/22/rob-liefeld-quits-dc-the-0s-are-my-last-issues/ to http://blog.newsarama.com/2012/08/22/rob-liefeld-quits-dc-the-0s-are-my-last-issues/

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.

• 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) 10:02, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I've removed an inaccurate statement in the section about how Rob incorrectly claimed it had been drawn sideways in the past, with the issue number and a quote for the artist involved who had indeed established drawing the chaos dimension sideways three months prior. Malak1000 (talk) 09:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

First, new discussions should be placed at the bottom of the page, not the top. I know you don't edit here that often, so it's cool; I've moved it down here. :)

Second, removing the inaccurate statement is not appropriate, precisely because it is controversial, which is what the passage is supposed to explain. The fact that we now have confirmation that Kesel's statement was untrue (though admittedly the qualifier "in the book" that had been in the passage was not in the previously cited source) does not mean that it's reasonable to remove it. We include it, and then add the one that presents the facts that disproves it. Nightscream (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

How is his last name pronounced? Lee-feld, Ligh-feld or Lay-feld? I've heard Lay-feld by other American artists, although it's the pronunciation that makes least sense to me, since a word lie wouldn't be pronounced like that either in English, German or Dutch (which the ending -feld indicates). It's possibly it's some Dutch name Lijfeld that got mangled through the ages, though. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Most of the time I've heard it uttered, it's pronounced LIE - feld. Nightscream (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)