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

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

I don't see how just because something is a bit muddled and confusing is grounds for avoiding the issue altogether. Gamaliel 16:51, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We can address everything in this paragraph: "Byrne is one of the most successful artist / writers of his generation. He is also one of the most outspoken and independent-minded freelancers, freely leaving one assignment or publisher for another if disuptes could not be resolved." Simple as that. -Rod

Sorry, that's a nice intro sentence but hardly suffices. Gamaliel 17:06, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We can work from there, but there shouldn't be more than a paragraph. Any more and it will drown out any substantive discussion of his work. -Rod

I oppose the setting of arbitrary limits on how much space should be devoted to particular material. Gamaliel 17:10, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would have to say listing names of people who JB is "feuding" with is not a matter of fact but an opinion. Trying to imply he ignores certain creators visions of characters and quits books so he doesn't have to work with creators is something people might assume, but is not a fact. A fact would be he worked on a title for x amount of issues. Why the book or JB didn't last longer on those books is information between JB and an editor, everything else is just a third party source which may not be reliable.  Just as if you were using Marvel and DC art if any of the artwork was used from JB's creator owned titles wouldn't you need permission from the owner of that work to reproduce his art?

These are just a few observations that I found to be wrong with the article. But it is about JB's life and career he would be far better to elaborate on what is misrepresented in his life than a group of fans.

John Byrne has complained that this article contains a lot of falsehoods, rumors, innuendo, etc. He has not yet given me specific details of what that means. But I read through the article and while it was pretty good, it was filled with a lot of 'weasel words' like "Some say..."

I'd like to see facts added back into the article (the facts from the parts I have removed for now) with exquisite attention to sourcing every little thing. If we don't have a source for it, don't say it. No speculation, no opinion, no editorializing. Shining clean pure neutrality with a hard hard look at sources.

--Jimbo Wales 01:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedia.  Right.