Talk:Rob Liefeld

the levis ad happened before image comics it was aired as late as 1990

Here's the image I want to put up - "The Art of Homage". It shows six examples of Liefeld's work, juxtaposed with 6 images created by other artists, and lets the viewer decide. Would this count as fair use? DS 17:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Minor issues with Jan 5 edits by Phthoggos

• In the introduction, I would separate allegations of creating generic characters from allegations of legal plagiarism. While most of Liefeld’s characters have been called uncreative adaptations of superhero stock characters, there are only a few instances in readers have noted that a characters is obviously based on another specific character (Deadpool, Fighting American).
  • Okay. Have any of these accusations (except the American, as already noted) actually gone to court? Because otherwise, it's just people complaining, and I would find it hard to draw the line between "people complaining about generic characters" and "people complaining about characters that are obviously based on another specific character." Personally, I always felt that Deadpool only stole the least important parts of his character from Deathstroke - his name, mostly, and other details. But that's neither here nor there. If you have a plan for a different organization of this section, I'd love to see it, either as an edit or in a /temp page. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:45, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I don’t think it’s POV to state that his Image line "helped popularize Liefeld’s repetition as a style-over-substance creator." It just goes into specifics of why it gained no critical respect. I was a yuggin then and it was a while ago, but I remember 1993/94 as the time when it became embassarring to admit you liked Liefeld-owned Image books.
  • A couple of the changes I made were not because I disagreed with the phrasing, but just to cut down on the sheer density of the criticisms. There was a point where almost every single sentence was reminding the reader "oh yeah! have we mentioned his art is ridiculous and everyone hates him!?" The reader has surely gotten the point; there's no need to keep beating a dead horse. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:45, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I would also put a picture in the intro, just as an introduction to Liefeld's art. Maybe X-Force #50 because it just doesn't really fit anywhere elese

--Rorschach567 23:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • I was saving that space for a photo of Liefeld himself (hopefully with trademark baseball cap), but then had trouble finding one. Also, there are copyright issues. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:45, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

My idea for an intro

I’ll just continue with the first issue because I see your reasoning in the second and I don’t think there’s any big disagreement in the third.

Anyway, my intro would go like this:

Rob Liefeld (born March 10, 1967) is an American comic book writer, illustrator and publisher, who was one of the Modern Age’s most popular and controversial figures. Although an undeniable superstar in the 1990s, a backlash against his bombastic art style and allegations of plagiarism made him known as "The Most Hated Man in Comics."

In the early 1990s, Liefeld became a superstar due to his work on Marvel Comics’ X-Force. In 1992 he and other popular Marvel illustrators left the company to found Image Comics, which helped bring about a wave of popular comic books owned by their creators rather than a large publishing house. Although somewhat high-profile, Liefeld’s line of comics failed to gain much critical approval. [Seperated recap of career and recap of criticism]

Fans praise Liefeld’s artwork as energetic and action-packed but it has been widely criticized for excessive flamboyance, limited versatility, and impractical anatomy. [I cut “undeniably” just because it seemed strange. I suppose someone could deny it if they really felt that such artwork was banal. Also “impossible anatomy” wasn’t totally true either. It’s possible that a real person could be shaped like a Liefeld drawing; it’s just very unlikely. How about "improbable"?] Liefeld's original creations, like many Image properties, have been panned as two-dimensional and generic. A few of his characters bear specific similarities to previously existing ones, leading some to deem Liefeld a plagiarist.

Most fans agree that bombastic artwork and deceased focus on character development were widespread trends in mainstream comic books in the early 1990s. For this reason, many consider Liefeld merely the most vilified representative of an industry-wide fad.

• I like it a lot. How about the slight modifications I've made? Using "deem" twice in any article is probably a misdemeanor. The only thing that still makes me a little uncomfortable is the use of the past tense in the lead paragraph. I mean, he is still making comics. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

With the exception of the Captain America lawsuit, both criticism of characters as generic and allegations of plagiarism are “just people complaining.” But I would say that the main difference between the two allegations is:

• Generic characters generally follow the mold of classic characters. In the 1990s, many superhero teams had a Cyclops character (strict, morally upright leader), a Wolverine character (gruff, emotionally tormented loner) and a Storm character (strong, independent-minded female) ect. without copying any specifics from their forerunners.
• Plagiarized characters take specifics from other characters. As the Deadpool entry noted:

“Both characters' costumes share similar themes, both are mercenaries who use similar weaponry, and (most tellingly) Deathstroke's real name is Slade Wilson, while Deadpool's is Wade Wilson. Deadpool's relationship with Siryn also mirrors Deathstroke's relationship with Terra. Additionally, Deadpool routinely clashes with X-Force, a group of teenage superheroes, which is not unlike Deathstroke clashing with the Teen Titans, a group of teenage superheroes.”

I also think it is especially important to note the difference between criticism of characters as generic and allegations of plagiarism here because almost all Image creators, and many others throughout the industry in the 1990s, were accused of the first but only Liefeld, as far as I know, has been accused of the second on multiple occasions.--Rorschach567 22:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I see your reasoning, and I'm somewhat persuaded, but I still feel the distinction is fuzzy. Lee & Choi's Grifter is basically Gambit (especially the Gambit from the 1993 Howard Mackie limited series) - in a way that goes beyond mere archetypes. I'd consider him a stronger case for plagiarism than Deadpool. At this point, though, I feel we're arguing over minutiae. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

- Okay you guys were debating this ages ago, so it could be all settled but I have to say I think this whole plagiarism thing is way off. Sure Deadpool is clearly based on Deathstroke - Liefeld was almost contracted to revamp Teen Titans back then and Id guess when that fell through he just threw his character design in for X-Force. But thats not plagiarism - if it was Squadron Supreme, Astro City etc. would all be illegal.

From his first appearance the character acted very differently from Deathstroke, and as Liefeld was suposedly plotting New Mutants at the time he must have had an influence on that. In fact I seem to remember criticism of the character centring on his being an obvious "bad ass Spidey" more than anything else after his first appeared.

Also a lot of the other similarities, most notably his name (Wade Wilson) and his relationship with Siryn, actually came after Liefeld left. It was either Mark Waid or Fabian Nicieza who established them, I think in one of the minis, obviously as a smart alecky allusion to the two characters' superficial similarities.

All the other plagiarism things really dont really amount to hill of beans IMO, especially by comic book industry standards. I cant say Im super comfortable defendng Liefeld, but this article really needs cleaning up so it sticks to just the facts, at least in the main body. Relegate all the criticism to its own section or even create a new page for it as some of it is well written and even funny, but the unnecessary exaggeration of all his faults and then repeating them throughout the article is inappropriate and vindictive. Hueysheridan 04:56, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't know anything about this subject, but in reading the article, it seemed a little too POV. I don't dispute the truth of any of the statements, but the tone used suggests bias. Specifically, the description of this guy's artwork comes off a little snarky. (Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of snarkiness...) I think the critisisms of his art DO belong in the article, but just try not to sound like you're enjoying it so much! Maybe I'll take a stab at myself, but like I said, I'm not familiar with the subject. ike9898 20:01, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at the article's history, I can see you guys are already dealing with this issue. ike9898 20:03, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

This let's-all-blast-Liefeld situation has gotten out of hand. Latest example: N. Caligon claims to have improved the POV situation with his last edit, but just made it worse. SpaceCaptain 15:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• To be fair, many of User:N. Caligon's changes were indeed helpful - he removed the line about "his inability to draw an aesthetically pleasing image," for example, and added useful detail to earlier passages. Like all WP articles, it's a work in progress, and we'll just keep hammering it into shape over time. Feel free to join in. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say all of his changes were bad, just overall there was no improvement. But some (i.e. the Mort Weisinger reference) are good. I'm not even sure where to start to improve the POV situation on this page. All I have going for me is the fact that I came to this page with no prior dislike of Liefeld. SpaceCaptain 23:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a big difference between neutral POV and avoiding judgmental discussions of craft. Some aspects of an artist's craft can be judged objectively. It's one thing, to use an analogy, to describe a particular recording of a song as annoying (which is subjective); it's another to point out that the singer is hitting the wrong notes or that the lead guitar is out of tune (which are objective).
By objective standards, the level of craft in Liefeld's 1990s comics lines was generally substandard. That's a different issue than the artistic quality or entertainment value of the comics, which are judged mostly by subjective standards. (I don't think Erik Larsen draws very well, for example, but I think Savage Dragon was the most entertaining and accomplished title put out by any of the Image partners. Objective/subjective.)
I think if you go back and look at my comments, I've at least tried to maintain that distinction.
I've put back a couple of changes (although, due to my flaky cable connection, they've appeared under the ISP/proxy server address rather than my login). One deserves particular comment/argument. Much comics art is "unrealistically exaggerated." Kirby's certainly was. So is Walt Simonson's. Lots of manga. Jim Lee. Frank Miller's style in the first "Dark Knight." Dave Stevens. Kevin Maguire. Whoever first described Liefeld's art as "bombastic" came up with an almost perfect metaphor, but it can only stand light use. I've used "wildly and unrealistically exaggerated" because it distinguishes between the styles buyers mostly rejected -- out-of-control, interfering with storytelling -- and the styles that were commercially successful.

N. Caligon 16:28 May 31 05

Artistic Criticisms, etc

Is this section absolutely neccesary? I don't deny it's all fairly true, but isn't it overkill? I mean, Fiore's review(halfway down) is perhaps a better place to point people than performing such a hatchet job, because Liefeld certainly holds appeal, for all his faults. He'd make a good pin up artist. Steve block 19:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've put back two changes. "Variously reported" means that different magazines (etc) had different versions of the events from different sources at Image; it ain't perfect, but there's no better short way to say it. The comment about Liefeld's extravagance was commonly reported at the time -- I heard one version of it from an Image spokesman at a Diamond retailer meeting, and you can pull all sorts of supporting references out of the contemporaneous comics press. N. Caligon 17:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Steve block 14:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

I've removed the part about Liefeld being still more popular than some alternative and independent artists, because I don't think it's particularly important. Which independednt artists? How do we tell? Also removed balancing comments in criticisms of art, because Liefeld is felt to have gone further than the standard having a version of a big companies heavy hitter. As for the copying of panels and calling it tribute, I'm not sure Liefeld's used the phrase, and it isn't felt that his use of the technique is homage. Steve block 17:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the "copied panels" part, with the link to a composition, as much as I don't like Liefeld (and I don't like him at all), truth must be said that some examples there are not fair. I mean, you can't even count the times the covers of Action Comics' first Superman and Amazing Fantasy's first Spider-Man were used, and they were all paying homage. I'd give this guy a little, not much, credit for homaging Steranko in that Captain America picture and wouldn't bash him for using a photo (looks like a photograph... isn't it?) of a beautiful woman as the model for a drawing. I mean, people do it all the time with more or less famous pictures and paintings and various illustrations. I'm not a good nitpicker (meaning I can't recall this kind of thing with perfection), I've only read his earlier stuff (meaning I don't like him only for that, until the point he left to help build Image, but it's still enough for me, given THAT Captain America) and I live in Brazil (meaning I don't have it all), but I'm sure he's got a lot of more obvious examples of panel plagiarism, being who he is, no? Maybe bringing up those would make a better point, instead of allowing doubts with those more dubious cases.

• Okay, I can go along with a balancing comment along the lines of some people call it homage, some call it plaigarism, because he's never actually, all said and done, been succesfully sued, off the top of my head. Wasn't the Fighting American a draw? Steve block 17:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Reversion

I'm sorry if i stepped on your toes, Steve Block, by editing the Rob Liefeld page but I'm not sure my editing called for a full reversion of the article, unless you are a moderator and/or are in control of that article. I just felt that the article was extremely biased (it really seemed more like it wasn't telling people about Rob Liefeld but rather what to hate about Rob Liefeld) and wanted to tone it down a little. In response to the "more popular than most indipendant artists/writers" i said that in general because how many indipendants can say that they have accomplished even half of what Rob has:

• Rather large fan following
• Still on call by the "Big Two"
• Owns own publishing company
• Has been the one to discover most of the fan-favorties of our time and thus has their admiration.
• Has had action figures and trading cards of his characters.
• Has had big names write his books.
• Has hollywood connections
• and so on and so forth.

-Agentofdarkness

• My point is, why generalise regarding independent artists. Most succesful independent creators can hit most of the above clauses, and I can come up with some they hit that Liefeld doesn't, like critical worthiness, but let's not do that, it's meaningless. Let's put that aside. The reason I removed that section was because it is a point of view comment. The original balancing comment, which I inserted as an effort to balance the article, as I share your concerns, was that he still retains some level of popularity today. If you can improve on that in a neutral way feel free. Steve block 17:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If any of my changes could be left i feel that my division between "Artistic Critisism" and "Unwarented Artistic Critisism" should stay. I want this simply because most things listed are just fodder used by Liefeld bashers such as the myth that he doesn't draw feet and "illogical poses" and the like and are, for the most part (even a fan must admit there are some problems with his stuff but what artist doesn't have problems.) and are usually blown out of proportion simply because he is Rob Liefeld and they need things against him.

-Agentofdarkness

• He doesn't draw anatomically correct feet, at least not consistently in comic books. I ghrant you, he may well be able to draw feet, but the record would support that he doesn't, rather than he does. However, I'd be happy to remove the whole section and just place Fiore's criticism:

YOUNGBLOOD #2

"And the little child shall lead them.

"So, we finally come to Rob Liefeld, who exemplifies his era of adventure comics as surely as Jack Kirby personified his -- to which one can only murmur, 'God help them.'

"You know how the human figure is normally drawn as a series of egg shapes? Lieffeld uses watermelons. His characters are so inhuman that they don't even have eyes; just little slits. They have three facial expressions: a frown that serves for most purposes; gritted teeth for those little moments of pre-fight intensity; and a wide-open yawp for once the fight gets started.

"I don't see why people call Todd McFarlane illiterate while this guy's around; Liefeld makes McFarlane look like Moliere. [...] Liefeld's dialogue is inspired largely by wrestling interviews: 'While you're appearance is not familiar to me, your defeat at my hands will become all too familiar to you!' 'From unconsciousness you came, and if necessary, to unconsciousness shall you return!'

"That Liefeld tries to write at all is just an example of how foolish some people are willing to look for money. Given his youth and the facility he's shown, it is (theoretically) possible that -- with discipline and dedication -- he could turn himseelf into a cartoonnist. It is also true that -- with discipline and dedication -- he could become a Capuchin monk. He shows about as much inclination for one as the other."

-- FUNNYBOOK ROULETTE (R. Fiore; THE COMICS JOURNAL #152; August, 1992).

It's on the record, it's fairly balanced and it makes it's point. Steve block 17:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out the final paragraph:

"While Liefeld's artwork, particularly in his earlier efforts, manifested a striking design sense, his shortcomings were initially covered up by strong, experienced inkers. As Liefeld was able to exercise greater control over the form in which his work appeared, those shortcomings became conspicuous, and defined the public perception of his work."

is incorrect. First of all, basically everyone at "Extreme Studios", despite their current top notch tallent were new to the biz and were just getting their first chances so there were no real "experienced inkers" to back him up. Also, I believe that in the olden days he inked himself.

-Agentofdarkness

Your comments about the last paragraph (which I wrote the first version of) are completely wrong. On Liefeld's first significant work at DC, Hawk&Dove, he was inked by Karl Kesel. His early X-fillins were inked by folks like Dan Green and Al Milgrom. His initial run on New Mutants was inked by Bob Wiacek and Hilary Barta. He started getting credited for full pencils/inks at about the time the title mutated into XForce, but it was generally known, later admitted, that these were studio, not solo jobs.

And the reason there were no experienced inkers working for Extreme in its early days was that Liefeld was damfool enough not to hire any. N. Caligon 20:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, i thought you meant at extreme. And despite the fact that he may have been a damfool,

it's because of rob that a lot of fan favorite and popular artists, writters and inkers were discovered. Anyways i guess keep the paragraph then.

If you can make a solid case for this, with specifics, it would be good to add to the article, balancing off the criticisms. N. Caligon 01:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Source

Critical approval of these characters was scarce; and while Liefeld's wholesale sales to dealers appeared strong, actual sales to consumers, especially of Liefeld's secondary titles, were surprisingly weak.

Given the way the direct market works (print to order, no sale no return) is there any actual evidence of this?

Widely documented at the time -- dealer comments in Comics Retailer, for example. Secondary documentation is also clear -- dealer ads offering Extreme titles at sharply discounted prices were common for several years. If I remember correctly, Liefeld also exploited the distribution meltdown of the period to evade returns on his many late-shipping titles; as smaller distributors and larger retailer-wholesalers closed down, their retailer customers were forced to "eat" large quantities of returnable titles since the return channels had disappeared. (Quick note: under the standard practices of the time, which have tightened up under Diamond, dealers could not reject previously ordered titles which were excessively late (typically 90 days), but were later allowed to return unsold copies for credit. Returns had to follow their original sales channels -- if a retailer's distributor/wholesaler went out of business, he lost return rights.) N. Caligon 13:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Later that year, Liefeld and Lee returned to Marvel to reboot some of the company's classic series, an event dubbed "Heroes Reborn". Liefeld was contracted to write 12 issues of The Avengers and write (with Jeph Loeb) and illustrate 12 of Captain America, but he failed to meet the agreed-on publishing schedule and his output met with an unenthusiastic response, failing to reach the sales targets required in his agreements with Marvel. Marvel terminated the agreement, and the balance of the two series were assigned to Lee's studio.

At the time I recall some confusion on this - the reports I read stated that the Marvel editorial of the time (who were not in post when the deal was originally signed) had cited one of the more obscure clauses in the contract as an excuse to terminate. However since then I've heard numerous different versions - anyone know the truth of the matter? Timrollpickering 08:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Darick Robertson cites retailers selling Extreme Studios books by weight for 90 cents a pound at Wizard World Con 2002 in this interview. That supports the claim that retail sales did not match the wholesale. The direct market system doesn't actually porevent this, in fact it allows it, and it could be argued Liefeld has manipulated the fact retailers order blind by soliciting a large number of titles simultaneously. If the market is no longer there, the retailer takes the hit. Liefeld himself cites low sales as the contractual reason for the termination of the Heroes Reborn deal in this interview. Steve block 10:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marvel's invoking the sales target clause was widely reported at the time, I've seen (but can't immediately turn up) interviews where Liefeld complained that Lee's sales weren't much better than his, but marginally exceeded the targets. (If, hypothetically, the target was 150,000, Lee would have been selling 153,000 copies, Liefeld 148,000. Illustrative comment only, not based on actual sales figures). The speculation at the time was that Liefeld's undependability was Marvel's real motive for terminating the deal; with a big promotion planned for the "Heroes Return" event, the titles had to wind up on schedule, and Liefeld kept falling further behind. N. Caligon 13:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From recollection, Comics International reported that Liefeld himself blamed a new Marvel editorial or management that disliked their predecessors' deal. The impression given in CI reports in the run up was that Marvel editors were deeply unhappy with his late deadlines and also with the way that fans were crucifying Liefeld across the board. It has always struck me as an exploiting of a clause in the contract to achieve the ends they wanted, rather than a simpe "Liefeld didn't sell". Timrollpickering 18:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• But isn't that exactly what the article says? he failed to meet the agreed-on publishing schedule and his output met with an unenthusiastic response, failing to reach the sales targets required in his agreements with Marvel. Marvel terminated the agreement. Steve block 19:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a wording thing - the current text rather implies the reason (not the clause) he was dismissed for low sales, rather than editorial dislike. (Also I wonder how much he was paid and whether a then newly bankrupt Marvel saw the opportunity to save money.) Equally it's important if Jim Lee had fallen foul of the same clause since he wasn't sacked. Since this point comes up a lot in arguments about Liefeld's work, especially whenever one company or another takes him on, precise clarity is important. (On the sales a few years ago I saw reports, but am now not sure at all where, that his Heroes Reborn titles never sold below 190,000 copies.) Timrollpickering 19:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you can ever get clarity on issues like this. Marvel may well have had many reasons for wanting shot of him, but contractually, he failed to meet sales and so was let go. According to the interview I linked to above, his Cap was selling 150, and the target was 300. However, yeah, in the interview he cites the bankruptcy as the deal breaker himself, and it's possible Lee was also underselling but renegotiated the contract rather than lose the gig. However, that's all spec on our end, isn't it?

Liefeld's Heroes Reborn books didn't sell up to expectations, weren't delivered on time, a significant portion of the fan market hated them, and only Liefeld's loyalists thought they were any good. Lee's HR books sold better (maybe not much better), were mostly delivered on time, were accepted by the fan market, and were pretty much seen as improvements over the titles immediately pre-HR. There _was_ more to Liefeld being dumped than just weak sales. He was also damaging the properties' marketability. He was doing a _much_ worse overall job than Lee was. N. Caligon 22:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I have a hardcopy source. From Wizard, January 1998 issue, 1997 year in review: "Although Lee's Fantastic Four and Iron Man titles were selling only slightly more than Liefeld's, Lee met the minimum sales clause." FWIW, I don't know that the Marvel bankruptcy had anything to do with the termination. Marvel's corporate structure was complex, and unless Lee and Liefeld made their deals directly with the corporate parent that went bankrupt -- not at all a sure thing -- the deals would not be voidable on account of the bankruptcy. N. Caligon 00:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm really confused now. Is anyone disputing the fact that the contractual reason for Liefeld being dismissed was that he failed to meet the sales targets? Steve block 08:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, just that there was more to it which is now virtually an open matter. As a lot of arguments of Liefeld go through the reasons for his departure from Heroes Reborn (i.e. was he good for sales) it is a point that needs to be as clear as possible, not hidden as though the official story is the only one. Timrollpickering 09:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is getting circular. Can you give an example of how the line in the article should read. Steve block 09:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Liefeld has made statements to the effect that Lee didn't meet the sales targets either, but wasn't fired, and suggested the termination of his deal was either due to corporate infighting with Marvel, or a ploy to get him to accept reduced payments. As far as I know, there's no independent support for his claim about Lee's sales, but several independent denials of it (like the one I quoted). Likewise, there's no independent support for his claims about Marvel's motives. It's undeniable that he wasn't getting the books out on schedule, and that, despite increased sales over the pre-HR versions, word of mouth was very, very bad. These factors place Marvel's termination in a clearer context: whatever the short-term sales boost in raw numbers, Liefeld's handling of the titles didn't look to be helping the properties in the long run. And, however big the sales boost was, it's fair to infer that if it didn't meet the sales targets, it didn't justify Marvel's expenditures in the short run, either. N. Caligon 15:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay how about something like the following changes:

Currently

• Liefeld was contracted to write 12 issues of The Avengers and write (with Jeph Loeb) and illustrate 12 of Captain America, but he failed to meet the agreed-on publishing schedule and his output met with an unenthusiastic response, failing to reach the sales targets required in his agreements with Marvel. Marvel terminated the agreement, and the balance of the two series were assigned to Lee's studio.

New

• Liefeld was contracted to write 12 issues of The Avengers and write (with Jeph Loeb) and illustrate 12 of Captain America. The process did not prove a smooth one as Liefeld often failed to meet the pre-agreed deadlines for publishing. Liefeld's output also met with a very poor critical response, with many criticising both his story structure and his artwork. The sales on both titles were significantly higher than prior to Heroes Reborn, but did not reach one of the targets in the original contract. After 6 issues of each title Marvel terminated the agreement, citing the failure to meet a sales level speculated in the contract, and the balance of the two series were assigned to Lee's studio. Liefeld subsequently claimed that his books had sold similarly to Lee's and that his dismissal was driven by a sceptical Marvel editorial who had disliked both the deal (negotiated by their predecessors) and the hostile reception Liefeld had received.

Anyone able to improve on that? Timrollpickering 15:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it improves on the existing text, and would require an added note that Liefeld's claim contradicts well-documented accounts of the events. What's in there now (mostly if not completely my text, to be fair) is short, factual, and undisputed. (And Liefeld managed to get 7 issues of Avengers out, if I remember right). N. Caligon 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Artistic Criticism

It's not really needed. I've looked around and didn't see any other artists with a section like it. It also points out things already mentioned in the bio. Also his mispelling of Anaheim being mentioned in a degrading way which was most likely a typo, should be removed as it is not trivia. Timrollpickering's rewritten article sounds fair and correct. Nothing I've ever read on the subject suggested that Liefeld failed to meet an agreed-on publishing schedule with Heroes Reborn.

N. Caligon you really don't like Rob Liefeld you're really unfit to decide what should be written as you're completely biased.

Someone neutral should be chosen to write something unbiased based on actual facts and not4th hand accounts and speculation from people who just want to make Liefeld out to be "The most hated man in comics".

But he loves John Byrne. Over on that article he deletes even John Byrne quotes if he finds them unflattering to Byrne and his pal User:Gamaliel backs him up there as well. Gamaliel said that he was going to let another administrator handle the Liefeld issue, but he has still locked the page so Caligon's edits cannot be changed. Apparently if you control an administrator you can do pretty much anything you want on Wikipedia.--198.93.113.49 15:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that I protected this article, which is pretty much standard procedure for administrators in revert and edit wars, before your complaints that I was supposedly in cahoots with Caligon. Due to your objections I have recused myself from further involvement in resolving this dispute, so if you want it unlocked, you will have to find another administrator. Gamaliel 18:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It's too late to recuse yourself after you've taken action. And even though there were 3 different editors undoing Caligon's changes you waited until he reverted th article again before lockinging it. It was locked only two minutes after his revert. Clearly you wanted his version preserved even though he was in the minority. He was in clear violation of the 3RR rule with 9 REVERTS! If you had simply applied the rules of wikipedia he would have been blocked and the edit war ended. Instead you ended the war by taking his side, locking his changes in place, and THEN recusing yourself after it didn't matter anymore.

If you really want to stay out if it unlock the page. LOCKING THE PAGE IS NOT STAYING OUT OF IT.--198.93.113.49 18:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I locked it when I locked it, without heeding which version was the most current. People in an edit war frequently complain that an adminstrator locked the "wrong" version. It doesn't matter which version is locked, what matters is which version stays once the edit war is resolved. It would make more sense for you to focus on the latter.

As far as my involvement, first you complain because I was involved at all, then once I recuse myself you complain because I won't unlock the page for you. I'm not going to unlock a page so you can continue an edit war, nor am I going to take any further action since, as a result of your own complaints, I have recused myself from further involvement in this conflict. I suggest you resolve this conflict to the satisfaction of another administrator.

Caligon's reverts have been discussed on WP:AN/3RR. I'm not going to block him since I have, as noted above, recused myself from further involvement. Another administrator will have to deal with that as well. Gamaliel 18:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Recused yourself from FURTHER INVOLVEMENT! You've already locked the page. You can't recused yourself after the fact unless you actually go back and undo your judgment. How did you get to me a adminstrator anyway?

I can't? I already did. My involvement displeases you. My uninvolvement displeases you. Apparently, there is nothing that will satisfy you short of following your orders to the letter, which is obviously not going to happen. Since you have now resorted to insults, this conversation is over. I suggest you focus on resolving the conflict over the content of the article instead. Gamaliel 19:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you honestly not understand the ridiculousness of recusing yourself AFTER you've alreay renderened a judgment that renders all other actions meaningless? Recusing yourself would mean to refrain from making a judgment. Not making one and then saying that you recused yourself. As for resolving the conflict. That's impossible since the person who had the prolbem with the article, N. Caligon, has disappeared. And why shouldn't he. Thanks to you locking his verson of the article in place he has what he wants. He can now dissapear sure in the knowledge that you are her to make sure his edits are never undone.--198.93.113.49 19:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whose version is locked because page protection is not permanent. Gamaliel 19:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm haven't "dissapeared"; I just felt it prudent to let things cool down and leave space for others to comment without having to worry about being caught in the crossfire. But since you insist on a response from me, I'll just comment that a second admin reviewed your complaint, found that your edits to the page were "vandalism," and that "Since the 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism" there was "no reason" to take any action against me. Now would you please explain, for the benefit of the other editors of this page, why you believe the version of the page that you prefer is superior to the version that I prefer? I believe that the version I prefer is superior because 1) it is properly formatted and includes links to appropriate references; 2) it more accurately reflects the consensus of the editors who contributed to the page; and 3) it has not been "sanitized" by the subject of the article. N. Caligon 19:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to properly format the article. Formating issues are not an excuse to insert you biased comments that only you seem to want. If it reflected the consensus how come three eiditors were reverting your reverts but no one was supporting your version. (except of course Gamaliel who true to form swooped in at the alst moment to save you.) And your "santized" by Rob Liefled is just your own paranoia. And what other adiminstrator reviewed my complaint? --198.93.113.49 20:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I do not support any particular version, and in fact have not read either version. Gamaliel 20:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Admin Carbonite reviewed your complaint and responded publicly on the noticeboard where you posted it. Another editor of the Liefeld page independently reverted the vandalism to the same base version I did. Liefeld edited the page as anonymous user 208.54.15.129 on July 7, and announced the new version on his message board minutes later -- the initial tipoff for me was one of his characteristic misspellings, but there's a small pile of other evidence, not to mention the apparent confirmation from one of his partisans at the beginning of this section. You still refuse to address the substantive problems you claim exist with the version of the page I reverted to, so there's no escaping the conclusion that the underlying cause is spite. EOD. N. Caligon 20:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to that thread on Liefeld's message board if possible? Gamaliel 20:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The link is

http://www.herorealm.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3711&sid=8c6517ab8f02031ff061d0c88b4b7239

Liefeld's annoucement of a "new entry" is not quite halfway down the first page.

As I said, there's other evidence; for example, the post comes through the Starbucks/TMobile ISP, and Liefeld writes in his online journal that since the wireless net was set up in Starbucks he spends whole days there drawing, etc. http://www.robliefeld.net/journal.htm N. Caligon 21:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel I thought you weren't in this? I brought up a few valid points above and they're being ignored. Oh and N. Caligon is the only one doing things out of spite. Too bad that's not obvious to admins, because it's obvious to the rest of the world.

Independent Admin Assistance

I have looked at the edit history and believe the page has been protected appropriately. Bear in mind that protection of one particular version of an article is not endorsement of the current version. Please discuss changes to the article here and once consensus has been agreed upon, the page can be unprotected. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 21:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see an agreement happening anytime soon as N. Caligon will only be happy if the article makes Rob out to be some sort of idiot, who no one likes and can't draw.

Agreed. The admins are handling this terriblly. Lock the page in a version that only one person wants and then tell everyone else to work it out, when the only person who actually has any problem has been given everything he wants by the admins when he should have been blocked for have 9 reverts in a day. Now all N. Caligon has to do is not back down and he gets what he wants and the majority gets absolutely nothing. Oh the tyranny of Wikipedia.--198.93.113.49 13:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Bear in mind that protection of one particular version of an article is not endorsement of the current version

Those are just words. Anyone should be able to see that the version of this page wanted by only a single user who blatantly violated the 3RR rule (in spite of what two amdins may claim --9 reverts!--) has been locked in place and the majority has no redress. That is a pretty clear endorsement of one particular version of the page or more accurately one aprticular editor who seesm to have a friendly admin who wants to make him happy.--198.93.113.49 13:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the person at all, and so cannot judge which version is correct. What I do know is that the page had to be protected due to an edit war, and will remain protected until the dispute is sorted out here. I can edit the page while it is protected, however I need some assurance from you that your argument is not just "my version is better than his because I say so". Sign up for a username, and it would help your cause if you didn't insult the admins because they've done something you don't like. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And no it is not obvious that the version of this page wanted by only a single user... has been locked in place because that user is the only one here that has bothered to sign up for a user name. While you are making edits without logging in I don't know if you are expressing the opinions of one person or a thousand people, or even if the two IPs that have joined in this discussion since I got involved are the same person or not. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If a person had 2 IPs he could create two seperate accounts and no one would notice. So your assumption to two accounts means to users and 2 IPs is more likely multiple users is ridiculous.--198.93.113.49 14:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know it seems silly but I prefer working with usernames than with IPs. I still have no evidence from you that you are speaking for anyone other than yourself however - see my comment left below. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 15:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The thing is 198.93.113.49, are you arguing about the Rob Liefeld article, or just "scoring points", as you point out regarding NC's "9 Reverts"? You didn't show an interest in this article previously except to point out NC's alleged 3RR violation. I really hope you're not just watching him hoping for payback for your temporary banning.

I think the goal of Wikipedia is to do what's best for the articles above all else. The only reason I objected to your Byrne edits (along with others) was because your quotes weren't balanced and were mostly taken from a message board, rather than going thru Wikiquote and doing research--in other words, you weren't doing due dilligence and it appeared you had an agenda. You were just dumping quotes in.

I will say NC has shown a bit of bias with a jab at Liefeld in the trivia section. And he has made complaints that the Byrne article is still too much about "grumpy guy", yet this article is similarly themed. But at least it seems accurate and researched. That's what we all want. Maybe we can make a more neutral tone. Or expand upon it. --66.189.63.91 19:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair comments that deserve a reply. The trivia comment is, I admit, snarky, and I probably would have undone it by now if the page hadn't needed to be locked. I think there's a big difference between the Byrne situation and the Liefeld situation. I think the focus on the Byrne controversies, outweighing his large, large, body of work, is inappropriate. Byrne can't be fairly characterized as "controversial guy who occasionally produces comic books." But "Rob Liefeld, controversial guy who occasionally produces comic books" -- you'd find a lot of people who think that hits the target. Popular music analogy, lip-synching -- it's important, even essential, in talking about some performers -- Ashlee Simpson, Milli Vanilli -- but in most cases, adding a list, for example, of TV shows where the performer lip-synched would be inappropriate. (Especially in the case of 1960s TV shows, or whatever that EuroTV show was that did its best to require lipsynching) N. Caligon 20:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Certainly the article is going to have to have some criticism of Liefeld in it, as he's a controversial figure in comics. That said... I think some of the art criticism like the Captain America caption can go - it's original research, frankly. Snowspinner 23:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also take out the whole artistic criticism section. Everyone should make their own evaluations of Liefeld's work. They don't need someone to point out obvious things. Some of the idiosyncrasies are commonly ignored by comic readers. Every artist draws a certain way they shouldn't be looked at as flaws especially since they're intentional.

Heh, looks like N.C. doesn't know what he's talking about. here's a message Rob Liefeld wrote on the Herorealm boards.

N.C.

I have wireless mobile in my house. I don't need to go to Starbucks to log onto the net. Haven't for months. Thanks for asking though.

rob

I agree with all of the above. It's pretty clear a concensus has been met. Why is the page still locked?--198.93.113.49 14:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate to me where, above, a consensus has been met please? -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

No not really. If you can't read the discussion and see for yourself that no one's disputing the fact that that current locked version of the page contains POV criticism that should be removed then it's beyond my power to help you.--198.93.113.49 14:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read the discussions above and it is clear to me that there are two distinct points of view here. What I am asking you to do is to provide some hard evidence as someone who knows the subject area that your preferred edit should take preference over what is currently displayed on the page. Until you do that I can't do anything to favour one point of view over another, or to reach for a mututally beneficial consensus. If I was to change the text of the article to your preferred point of view now, all I am doing is favouring one editor over another, which is exactly what you have accused Gamaliel of doing above! Please either provide me with evidence that your preferred text is correct, or point specifically to evidence above that a consensus has been met by the community. If you don't there is nothing that I or any other admin can do to help you. Your frustrations at the admins and the system here can be alleviated greatly if you take these few simple steps to help yourself! -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 15:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. A fancy way of saying that as long as N. Caligon wants the article a certain way its going to be locked that way.

No it is not. What I am trying to get through to you both (you and N Caligon) is that in order for this to continue you are both going to have to provide evidence that either side is correct. The longer you keep up this hostile pretence towards anyone who steps in to try and help out, or to anyone who disagrees with your point of view, the longer it is going to take to sort this whole mess out. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 17:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't lump me together with 198.93.113.49 -- I've consistently acted in good faith, I've done my best (and I hope I've succeeded) to stay within the dispute guidelines, and I'm not wandering around the site posting abuse about people who disagree with me on unrelated pages. The anonymous user or users from Liefeld's message boards want to demonize me as somebody who's posting motivelessly malign nonsense to the page, but the great bulk of the material they object to was on the page, in one form or another, well before I made my first constribution to the page, and represents, I think, the solid consensus of page editors prior to the outbreak of this edit war. (If you go back to the "Re: Reversion" section of this page, you'll find me encouraging one of Liefeld's defenders to add certain information favorable to him to the page, but he didn't follow through.) I asked for page protection here a day before things got out of control, knowing perfectly well it could easily result in a version I strongly objected to being locked in place. What I've tried to do in my edits here is greatly improve the discussion of the comics business itself, to the extent it's important to the article, and to try to keep the commentary about Liefeld and his work in line with what was generally reported/published at the time he was actively producing work. And the latter is going to be quite harsh, because Liefeld's work, from the beginning of Image if not sooner, was very, very badly received. (The Comics Journal review quoted above is about average, maybe even a bit mild.) There's really no debate about substance here; from the beginning of the edit war last weekend, the anonymous editors haven't made a single substantive comment about the page. Most of the contentious issues were hashed over previously here, and various editors' positions regarding what had been close to a consensus text were set out; I don't think there's much point in asking folks to restate what they've already said; the initial burden should be on the anonymous editor(s) who want the changes to provide a basis for them. I may argue my points more strongly than most, and write lengthy, turgid comments (like this one) -- but the other side in this dispute is, for the most part, just behaving abusively. N. Caligon 20:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologise if you feel offended by being grouped together with the unregistered user in this dispute, my point was to show that I am by no means taking sides, just trying to be an independent voice helping to achieve some form of consensus in this discussion. At least you've been civil, which is more than can be said for the other guy. Thank you for coming and letting me know your side of the debate. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 22:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I can at least provide evidence that some of the stuff should go - unsourced art criticism is original research. Snowspinner 17:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

You're certainly right about that caption; I tried to NPOV it a while back, to describe the image as an example of a commonly criticized, characteristic feature of Liefeld's art, but either it's been changed again or I didn't succeed. The "criticism" section generally doesn't do much more than restate the most common criticisms of Liefeld's work -- less caustically than many versions of them that can be found on the net or in print. The framing paragraph needs a cleanup, I'd say, but most of the rest of it just reports what's generally said about the work. N. Caligon 20:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with N. Caligon also that the CRITICISM section and the caption need to go. A few other problems I saw was this: "He is often credited with creating a new leader for the team, the heavily-muscled, heavily-armed, glowing-eyed cyborg Cable, who instantly became a popular anti-hero; however, the prototype for Cable, tentatively named "Commander X," was initially devised by Marvel editorial staff, with Liefeld developing character designs from the assigned script.

Liefeld also created the wise-cracking assassin Deadpool and a group of immortal mutants called the Externals. Both were popular, but prompted Liefeld's first charges of plagiarism, as fans debated similarities between Deadpool and DC's Deathstroke the Terminator and between the Externals and the immortals from Highlander."

These statements basically claim that he didn't "really" create Cable, and that Deadpool and the Externals are ripoffs of other characters that he flat out plagiarized. If you open any issue of Cable/Deadpool the creative credits look like this "Cable created by Rob Liefeld and Louise Simonson" and "Deadpool created by Rob Liefeld and Fabian Nicieza". Also Rob said in an interview stated that he came up with the character "Cable" when asked to make a new leader for the team. Marvel editorial staff wanted to call him Commander X. Rob said that his name was Cable and if they wanted to use that name he wasn't going to use his character. Fans can find similarities in LOTS of characters that doesn't mean that the artist/writer stole the ideas from someone else. Liefeld has never been formally charged with plagiarizm, ever. So "fans" debates on the subject aren't really fact. If you're going to say Rob Plagiarized Deadpool and the Externals then it should also be added that Nicieza helped as a co-creator.--Timrock 22:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, I didn't say the criticism section should go; I said the introduction should be changed to make clear that the section is reporting the most common criticisms of his art.

As for the comments about who created Cable, the version in the article is dead-on accurate. Liefeld is credited as co-creator because he created the character designs (which are certainly not unimportant for a comics character). Liefeld says a lot of different things in interviews, but the accounts that were published early on line up with the article, and weren't disputed by Liefeld for several years.

Outside of the academic world, you really can't charge anybody formally with plagiarism, only copyright and trademark violation. And Marvel was pretty formal with regard to Agent: America and Fighting American. My comments try to work off the term "derivative," which avoids implications about Liefeld's intentions. But it is accurate to say that many comics readers have called some of Liefeld's work "plagiarism," as a Google search would show.

One more thing with regard to the comments about plagiarism, Deadpool, and the Externals: I know Nicieza is a hard name to spell, but that's the worst misspelling of it I've ever seen. ;-) N. Caligon 23:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with the way the intoduction to the Artisic Criticism section is written. I'll give you the creator of Cable thing, there's no real way to know the truth to that, but it should be rewritten to show he co-created him. As I mentioned before, the way it's now written makes it sound like he had little to do with the creation. Give the guy a little credit for co-creating an original character.

Derivative would be a better term because no one really knows if he really intended plagiarism on those characters, you can't prove it even if he did, you can't possibly know what Liefeld's "intentions" were. Why should it mention all the common criticisms in the bio and in it's own section? I say keep the Criticism section but take all the citicisms out of the bio. They don't need to be posted twice.--Timrock 00:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"Below are common characteristics of Liefeld's artwork." is not really a good introduction for a section that goes on to call things "bizzare,' which just isn't NPOV. If we're going to keep the harsh language of the criticism section, we need to frame it in NPOV. And I agree with paring back the criticism in other sections as well - establish that he's controversial and criticized in the intro and then put the criticism in the criticism section. Snowspinner 14:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

So, how should this rewrite be written? Someone want to start? Original text with my commentary:

"Rob Liefeld (born October 3, 1968) is an American comic book writer, illustrator and publisher, who is one of the Modern Age’s most popular and controversial figures. "

This first sentence is fine.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether Liefeld is actually one of the "most popular" figures in modern comics is open to debate. Many fans/readers regard him as a one-trick pony who happened to be in the right place during a speculative bubble. It would be better to say "best-known and controversial figures." "Most popular" is no more appropriate than "most notorious." We really don't know what percentage of the comics that dealers bought actually sold on the market, and we don't know what percentage of retail sales went to speculator-collectors who didn't care (in terms of personal taste) whether the book was created by Rob Liefeld, Rob Reiner, or Rob Zombie. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Next:

"Although briefly but undeniably a superstar artist in the 1990s, the backlash against his bombastic art style and widely derided writing, his repeated failures to maintain publishing schedules, his contentious ouster from the Image Comics partnership and allegations of plagiarism have eclipsed his early successes."

This horribly long run on sentence is full of negative POV. Breifly a superstar? It was a couple years from the 89-92 that he was most popular. 3 years is hardly breif. There was a backlash against him but most from what I can remember was because of publishing schedules in 93-95. To call his art style bombastic and writting derided is also nagative. His ouster from image however was full of controversy and both sides should be shown in this subject. Even so, they didn't really "eclipse" his early success. His early success with Hawk & Dove and New Mutants is still revered even after the controversy.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey! That's not a run-on sentence. It's long, syntactically complex, and difficult to follow, but it's grammatically sound. "Bombast" is not an inherently negative term; if you search the site, you'll find dozens and dozens of uses of it -- some negative, some descriptive, some complimentary (check the Carroll O'Connor as an example of the latter). Liefeld was by no means a "superstar" in 1989 -- his first New Mutants is the February 1990 issue which might have hit the racks in late 1989. (I just don't remember when the cover dates got adjusted to reflect reality, but in this case that detail doesn't matter.) "Widely derided writing" is an accurate description of the way his work was received, and he later acknowledged the flaws to some extent (but shifted the blame to his writing partner, Hank Kanalz.) X-Force 1 made him a superstar, as the comment about "breaking" him worldwide later in the article indicates, but the time the Youngblood mini had finished up, his superstar run was over. The Image controversy should be detailed in the bio, not the intro. The "eclipsing" reference means that the later controversies now pretty much define him in the public eye, not his early artistic success. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok so you agree, everything is fine so far except the Image controversy should be moved from the intro to the bio. Otherwise, I agree with all the rest. I think we're making progress so far.--Timrock 22:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

From recollection Liefeld's first New Mutants is actually in the 1989 Annual, although it's a short back-up story (but in 1994 it still commanded silly prices for an annual of that era - I haven't looked since). Marvel brought the dates closer in 1989 - the July issues are coverdated November, August "Mid November", September December, October "Mid December" and then from November onwards they're all two months ahead.

Next:

"Liefeld and his partisans now flaunt his image as "The Most Hated Man in Comics," a particularly ironic form of self-aggrandizing in light of the frequent accusations of plagiarism: The label is lifted from Jim Steranko's self-promotional materials."

Personally, I find calling Liefeld's fans "partisans" offensive. Liefeld and his fans are not self-aggrandizing. His fans like him and his art because it's what they enjoy. Also, plagiarism has not been an accusation in a very long time. Finally, What are Jim Steranko's self-promotion materials? I've never seen them before. Reguardless his opinions, are not popular belief--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC).

I added this, and I'm not calling all of Liefeld's fans partisans; I'm describing the behavior of a particular group of his more devoted fans. Steranko applied the label to himself way back in 1997, in the publicity material for his autobiography, "Steranko: Graphic Prince Of Darkness." Maybe the sentence can be NPOV'd a bit more, but there's no real denying the underlying source. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I think the quote should stay, but the reference to the fans as partisans and being self-aggrandizing should go. It's negative. It's the kind of sentence that would make someone not want to be a fan just because they don't want to be associated with these types of people. Not all liefelds devoted fans are like this.--Timrock 22:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Next:

"In the early 1990s, Liefeld became a superstar 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 high-profile 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, and anatomy ranging from the improbable to the impossible."

I see nothing wrong with this. It does reflect popular belief at the time.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Next:

"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, leading some to deem Liefeld a plagiarist."

This paragraph, I think should be removed from this section, and put into the criticism section, or just removed completely as I believe it's highly opinionated and not popular belief.

This is mostly a description of reputation, and as such is accurate. Maybe "bear" isn't quite the right word, but there's very little argument about the underlying similarities. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That is corrected there are similarities, but to call them two dimentional and generic I don't recall anyone (not even people who hate Liefeld) to call the characters that. I might have heard it from some of the other charactes from his Image studio but not all of them were created by him.--Timrock 22:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Next paragraph:

"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"

I don't see anything wrong with this paragraph it should stay.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Next:

"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."

The whole thing is whining about the same things previously mentioned in above paragraphs. I say it goes.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Next:

Biograpy

"In 1988, at the age of 20, Liefeld completed his first significant published work, pencils for a mini-series featuring the superhero pair Hawk and Dove for DC Comics. After disputes with his collaborators at DC, he soon moved to Marvel, where in late 1989 he became the regular illustrator of The New Mutants (starting with issue #86), starring a junior team of X-Men. The popularity of Liefeld's art soon allowed him to increasingly take control of the series' story. He is often credited with creating a new leader for the team, the heavily-muscled, heavily-armed, glowing-eyed cyborg named Cable, who instantly became a popular anti-hero; however, the prototype for Cable, tentatively named "Commander X," was initially devised by Marvel editorial staff, with Liefeld developing character designs from his own design and, the assigned script, and insisting on the name Cable.

The issue that broke Rob Liefeld worldwide. X-Force #1 (August 1991), featuring story and art by Liefeld.Liefeld also created the wise-cracking assassin Deadpool and a group of immortal mutants called the Externals. Both were popular, but prompted Liefeld's first charges of plagiarism, as fans debated similarities between Deadpool and DC's Deathstroke the Terminator and between the Externals and the immortals from Highlander.

With The New Mutants #98, Liefeld assumed full creative control over the book, pencilling, inking, and plotting, with Fabian Nicieza writing dialogue. He then transformed The New Mutants into the platoon-like X-Force. The 1991 debut issue of X-Force sold four million copies, an industry-wide record soon broken by X-Men #1, illustrated by Jim Lee. In both cases, variant editions were used to sell multiple issues to single collectors; but where X-Men used multiple variant covers, X-Force relied on multiple variant trading cards polybagged with the comic itself."

I'd also mention that the marketing scheme there at the bottom of this paragraph was Marvel's idea and not Liefeld's or Jim Lee's. I've made several minor edits that are in italics and I'd change the term "charges of plagiarism" to "allegations of plagiarism"--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Next:

"Liefeld's relationship with Marvel began to break down in 1991, when he annouced plans to publish an original title, dubbed "The X-Ternals," with competitor Malibu Comics. Faced with the loss of his Marvel work, and with the threat of trademark litigation blocking his new project, Liefeld scrapped the title and incorporated the "Externals" into his X-Force continuity."

I don't believe this paragraph is entirely accurate, it would take a little research to find more about this topic. This is all I'm going to do this morning I'll finish this later.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

How about a paragraph on all of Liefeld's documented lies.

I got a better one, how about you flame somewhere else.--Timrock 22:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well Timrock, at least I am not a part of an organized effort to change this page, like you and the other herorealm.com trolls.

Ok, sorry, i was just having fun. In all seriousness, there is an organized effort to change this article and sanatize this man, who whether they will admit it or not, has said and done things that haven't always been honest. I will make an effort to bring these things to light for i belive they should be noted. But to play devil's advocate critism of his art should be left off this article because it is after all subjective.

For any one who doesn't belive me just go too Herorealm.com and click on Rob liefeld forum. Find the wikipedia thread. You might just recognize some names.

If anyone has anything to add it is welcomed, but remember to keep a NPOV. Facts are good also. Degrading remarks or rumors about Liefeld or his fans can stay out of this page and the Liefeld article.--Timrock 00:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as rumors, Timrock, you and i both know these are much more than just hearsy, and Liefeld explainations for them are debatable at best. For example-

Kurt Busiek- Why does rob keep giving this man a writing credit he doesn't want?

Divorce from Image- Did rob quit or was he fired?

Did rob steal money from Image?

Why did Awesome Comics really fail? Why does he keep missing deadlines(cocaine)?

you lose, you're non-contructive comments are being ignored.--Timrock 22:55, 19 July 2005 (

Whether you will admit or not, timrock, at least one or two of those questions i raised wasn't a joke, and should be included in any article on Liefeld.

Kurt Busiek- Why does rob keep giving this man a writing credit he doesn't want? I don't know maybe Kurt isn't proud if his plot. Kurt mentioned something about not wanting to be used to help sell the book. Either way Rob only gave him credit for plots only in the comic and in solicitations as Kurt asked, and only mentioned him as a writter on one post on millarworld.com but specifically said Brandon Thomas was writting dialog. Kurt overreacted about it. I could write that into the article but I don't see why it's of no consequence to anyone.

Divorce from Image- Did rob quit or was he fired? both sides of this matter should be mentioned as no one knows with a 100% definety.

Did rob steal money from Image? Speculation, it was rumored I believe but it's mentioned in the article already under misuse of funds, but as i recall nothing ever went to court, or was he ever officially charged.

Why did Awesome Comics really fail? Why does he keep missing deadlines(cocaine)? Awesome comics lost a big financial backer and didn't have the funds to continue. I seriously doubt that Liefeld does cocaine, logical theory for his lateness out of no where.

I personally just want to see both sides represented Liefeld's accounts and other's that's what I'm trying to accomplish so serious help like sources and documented quotes would help.--Timrock 02:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

the levis ad happened before image comics it was aired as late as 1990

Here's the image I want to put up - "The Art of Homage". It shows six examples of Liefeld's work, juxtaposed with 6 images created by other artists, and lets the viewer decide. Would this count as fair use? DS 17:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Minor issues with Jan 5 edits by Phthoggos

• In the introduction, I would separate allegations of creating generic characters from allegations of legal plagiarism. While most of Liefeld’s characters have been called uncreative adaptations of superhero stock characters, there are only a few instances in readers have noted that a characters is obviously based on another specific character (Deadpool, Fighting American).
  • Okay. Have any of these accusations (except the American, as already noted) actually gone to court? Because otherwise, it's just people complaining, and I would find it hard to draw the line between "people complaining about generic characters" and "people complaining about characters that are obviously based on another specific character." Personally, I always felt that Deadpool only stole the least important parts of his character from Deathstroke - his name, mostly, and other details. But that's neither here nor there. If you have a plan for a different organization of this section, I'd love to see it, either as an edit or in a /temp page. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:45, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I don’t think it’s POV to state that his Image line "helped popularize Liefeld’s repetition as a style-over-substance creator." It just goes into specifics of why it gained no critical respect. I was a yuggin then and it was a while ago, but I remember 1993/94 as the time when it became embassarring to admit you liked Liefeld-owned Image books.
  • A couple of the changes I made were not because I disagreed with the phrasing, but just to cut down on the sheer density of the criticisms. There was a point where almost every single sentence was reminding the reader "oh yeah! have we mentioned his art is ridiculous and everyone hates him!?" The reader has surely gotten the point; there's no need to keep beating a dead horse. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:45, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• I would also put a picture in the intro, just as an introduction to Liefeld's art. Maybe X-Force #50 because it just doesn't really fit anywhere elese

--Rorschach567 23:56, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • I was saving that space for a photo of Liefeld himself (hopefully with trademark baseball cap), but then had trouble finding one. Also, there are copyright issues. -leigh (φθόγγος) 20:45, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

My idea for an intro

I’ll just continue with the first issue because I see your reasoning in the second and I don’t think there’s any big disagreement in the third.

Anyway, my intro would go like this:

Rob Liefeld (born March 10, 1967) is an American comic book writer, illustrator and publisher, who was one of the Modern Age’s most popular and controversial figures. Although an undeniable superstar in the 1990s, a backlash against his bombastic art style and allegations of plagiarism made him known as "The Most Hated Man in Comics."

In the early 1990s, Liefeld became a superstar due to his work on Marvel Comics’ X-Force. In 1992 he and other popular Marvel illustrators left the company to found Image Comics, which helped bring about a wave of popular comic books owned by their creators rather than a large publishing house. Although somewhat high-profile, Liefeld’s line of comics failed to gain much critical approval. [Seperated recap of career and recap of criticism]

Fans praise Liefeld’s artwork as energetic and action-packed but it has been widely criticized for excessive flamboyance, limited versatility, and impractical anatomy. [I cut “undeniably” just because it seemed strange. I suppose someone could deny it if they really felt that such artwork was banal. Also “impossible anatomy” wasn’t totally true either. It’s possible that a real person could be shaped like a Liefeld drawing; it’s just very unlikely. How about "improbable"?] Liefeld's original creations, like many Image properties, have been panned as two-dimensional and generic. A few of his characters bear specific similarities to previously existing ones, leading some to deem Liefeld a plagiarist.

Most fans agree that bombastic artwork and deceased focus on character development were widespread trends in mainstream comic books in the early 1990s. For this reason, many consider Liefeld merely the most vilified representative of an industry-wide fad.

• I like it a lot. How about the slight modifications I've made? Using "deem" twice in any article is probably a misdemeanor. The only thing that still makes me a little uncomfortable is the use of the past tense in the lead paragraph. I mean, he is still making comics. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

With the exception of the Captain America lawsuit, both criticism of characters as generic and allegations of plagiarism are “just people complaining.” But I would say that the main difference between the two allegations is:

• Generic characters generally follow the mold of classic characters. In the 1990s, many superhero teams had a Cyclops character (strict, morally upright leader), a Wolverine character (gruff, emotionally tormented loner) and a Storm character (strong, independent-minded female) ect. without copying any specifics from their forerunners.
• Plagiarized characters take specifics from other characters. As the Deadpool entry noted:

“Both characters' costumes share similar themes, both are mercenaries who use similar weaponry, and (most tellingly) Deathstroke's real name is Slade Wilson, while Deadpool's is Wade Wilson. Deadpool's relationship with Siryn also mirrors Deathstroke's relationship with Terra. Additionally, Deadpool routinely clashes with X-Force, a group of teenage superheroes, which is not unlike Deathstroke clashing with the Teen Titans, a group of teenage superheroes.”

I also think it is especially important to note the difference between criticism of characters as generic and allegations of plagiarism here because almost all Image creators, and many others throughout the industry in the 1990s, were accused of the first but only Liefeld, as far as I know, has been accused of the second on multiple occasions.--Rorschach567 22:33, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• I see your reasoning, and I'm somewhat persuaded, but I still feel the distinction is fuzzy. Lee & Choi's Grifter is basically Gambit (especially the Gambit from the 1993 Howard Mackie limited series) - in a way that goes beyond mere archetypes. I'd consider him a stronger case for plagiarism than Deadpool. At this point, though, I feel we're arguing over minutiae. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:23, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

---

I don't know anything about this subject, but in reading the article, it seemed a little too POV. I don't dispute the truth of any of the statements, but the tone used suggests bias. Specifically, the description of this guy's artwork comes off a little snarky. (Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of snarkiness...) I think the critisisms of his art DO belong in the article, but just try not to sound like you're enjoying it so much! Maybe I'll take a stab at myself, but like I said, I'm not familiar with the subject. ike9898 20:01, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Now that I've looked at the article's history, I can see you guys are already dealing with this issue. ike9898 20:03, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

This let's-all-blast-Liefeld situation has gotten out of hand. Latest example: N. Caligon claims to have improved the POV situation with his last edit, but just made it worse. SpaceCaptain 15:07, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• To be fair, many of User:N. Caligon's changes were indeed helpful - he removed the line about "his inability to draw an aesthetically pleasing image," for example, and added useful detail to earlier passages. Like all WP articles, it's a work in progress, and we'll just keep hammering it into shape over time. Feel free to join in. -leigh (φθόγγος) 18:44, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say all of his changes were bad, just overall there was no improvement. But some (i.e. the Mort Weisinger reference) are good. I'm not even sure where to start to improve the POV situation on this page. All I have going for me is the fact that I came to this page with no prior dislike of Liefeld. SpaceCaptain 23:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a big difference between neutral POV and avoiding judgmental discussions of craft. Some aspects of an artist's craft can be judged objectively. It's one thing, to use an analogy, to describe a particular recording of a song as annoying (which is subjective); it's another to point out that the singer is hitting the wrong notes or that the lead guitar is out of tune (which are objective).
By objective standards, the level of craft in Liefeld's 1990s comics lines was generally substandard. That's a different issue than the artistic quality or entertainment value of the comics, which are judged mostly by subjective standards. (I don't think Erik Larsen draws very well, for example, but I think Savage Dragon was the most entertaining and accomplished title put out by any of the Image partners. Objective/subjective.)
I think if you go back and look at my comments, I've at least tried to maintain that distinction.
I've put back a couple of changes (although, due to my flaky cable connection, they've appeared under the ISP/proxy server address rather than my login). One deserves particular comment/argument. Much comics art is "unrealistically exaggerated." Kirby's certainly was. So is Walt Simonson's. Lots of manga. Jim Lee. Frank Miller's style in the first "Dark Knight." Dave Stevens. Kevin Maguire. Whoever first described Liefeld's art as "bombastic" came up with an almost perfect metaphor, but it can only stand light use. I've used "wildly and unrealistically exaggerated" because it distinguishes between the styles buyers mostly rejected -- out-of-control, interfering with storytelling -- and the styles that were commercially successful.

N. Caligon 16:28 May 31 05

Artistic Criticisms, etc

Is this section absolutely neccesary? I don't deny it's all fairly true, but isn't it overkill? I mean, Fiore's review(halfway down) is perhaps a better place to point people than performing such a hatchet job, because Liefeld certainly holds appeal, for all his faults. He'd make a good pin up artist. Steve block 19:02, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've put back two changes. "Variously reported" means that different magazines (etc) had different versions of the events from different sources at Image; it ain't perfect, but there's no better short way to say it. The comment about Liefeld's extravagance was commonly reported at the time -- I heard one version of it from an Image spokesman at a Diamond retailer meeting, and you can pull all sorts of supporting references out of the contemporaneous comics press. N. Caligon 17:58, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Steve block 14:37, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

I've removed the part about Liefeld being still more popular than some alternative and independent artists, because I don't think it's particularly important. Which independednt artists? How do we tell? Also removed balancing comments in criticisms of art, because Liefeld is felt to have gone further than the standard having a version of a big companies heavy hitter. As for the copying of panels and calling it tribute, I'm not sure Liefeld's used the phrase, and it isn't felt that his use of the technique is homage. Steve block 17:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In the "copied panels" part, with the link to a composition, as much as I don't like Liefeld (and I don't like him at all), truth must be said that some examples there are not fair. I mean, you can't even count the times the covers of Action Comics' first Superman and Amazing Fantasy's first Spider-Man were used, and they were all paying homage. I'd give this guy a little, not much, credit for homaging Steranko in that Captain America picture and wouldn't bash him for using a photo (looks like a photograph... isn't it?) of a beautiful woman as the model for a drawing. I mean, people do it all the time with more or less famous pictures and paintings and various illustrations. I'm not a good nitpicker (meaning I can't recall this kind of thing with perfection), I've only read his earlier stuff (meaning I don't like him only for that, until the point he left to help build Image, but it's still enough for me, given THAT Captain America) and I live in Brazil (meaning I don't have it all), but I'm sure he's got a lot of more obvious examples of panel plagiarism, being who he is, no? Maybe bringing up those would make a better point, instead of allowing doubts with those more dubious cases.

• Okay, I can go along with a balancing comment along the lines of some people call it homage, some call it plaigarism, because he's never actually, all said and done, been succesfully sued, off the top of my head. Wasn't the Fighting American a draw? Steve block 17:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Reversion

I'm sorry if i stepped on your toes, Steve Block, by editing the Rob Liefeld page but I'm not sure my editing called for a full reversion of the article, unless you are a moderator and/or are in control of that article. I just felt that the article was extremely biased (it really seemed more like it wasn't telling people about Rob Liefeld but rather what to hate about Rob Liefeld) and wanted to tone it down a little. In response to the "more popular than most indipendant artists/writers" i said that in general because how many indipendants can say that they have accomplished even half of what Rob has:

• Rather large fan following
• Still on call by the "Big Two"
• Owns own publishing company
• Has been the one to discover most of the fan-favorties of our time and thus has their admiration.
• Has had action figures and trading cards of his characters.
• Has had big names write his books.
• Has hollywood connections
• and so on and so forth.

-Agentofdarkness

• My point is, why generalise regarding independent artists. Most succesful independent creators can hit most of the above clauses, and I can come up with some they hit that Liefeld doesn't, like critical worthiness, but let's not do that, it's meaningless. Let's put that aside. The reason I removed that section was because it is a point of view comment. The original balancing comment, which I inserted as an effort to balance the article, as I share your concerns, was that he still retains some level of popularity today. If you can improve on that in a neutral way feel free. Steve block 17:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If any of my changes could be left i feel that my division between "Artistic Critisism" and "Unwarented Artistic Critisism" should stay. I want this simply because most things listed are just fodder used by Liefeld bashers such as the myth that he doesn't draw feet and "illogical poses" and the like and are, for the most part (even a fan must admit there are some problems with his stuff but what artist doesn't have problems.) and are usually blown out of proportion simply because he is Rob Liefeld and they need things against him.

-Agentofdarkness

• He doesn't draw anatomically correct feet, at least not consistently in comic books. I ghrant you, he may well be able to draw feet, but the record would support that he doesn't, rather than he does. However, I'd be happy to remove the whole section and just place Fiore's criticism:

YOUNGBLOOD #2

"And the little child shall lead them.

"So, we finally come to Rob Liefeld, who exemplifies his era of adventure comics as surely as Jack Kirby personified his -- to which one can only murmur, 'God help them.'

"You know how the human figure is normally drawn as a series of egg shapes? Lieffeld uses watermelons. His characters are so inhuman that they don't even have eyes; just little slits. They have three facial expressions: a frown that serves for most purposes; gritted teeth for those little moments of pre-fight intensity; and a wide-open yawp for once the fight gets started.

"I don't see why people call Todd McFarlane illiterate while this guy's around; Liefeld makes McFarlane look like Moliere. [...] Liefeld's dialogue is inspired largely by wrestling interviews: 'While you're appearance is not familiar to me, your defeat at my hands will become all too familiar to you!' 'From unconsciousness you came, and if necessary, to unconsciousness shall you return!'

"That Liefeld tries to write at all is just an example of how foolish some people are willing to look for money. Given his youth and the facility he's shown, it is (theoretically) possible that -- with discipline and dedication -- he could turn himseelf into a cartoonnist. It is also true that -- with discipline and dedication -- he could become a Capuchin monk. He shows about as much inclination for one as the other."

-- FUNNYBOOK ROULETTE (R. Fiore; THE COMICS JOURNAL #152; August, 1992).

It's on the record, it's fairly balanced and it makes it's point. Steve block 17:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out the final paragraph:

"While Liefeld's artwork, particularly in his earlier efforts, manifested a striking design sense, his shortcomings were initially covered up by strong, experienced inkers. As Liefeld was able to exercise greater control over the form in which his work appeared, those shortcomings became conspicuous, and defined the public perception of his work."

is incorrect. First of all, basically everyone at "Extreme Studios", despite their current top notch tallent were new to the biz and were just getting their first chances so there were no real "experienced inkers" to back him up. Also, I believe that in the olden days he inked himself.

-Agentofdarkness

Your comments about the last paragraph (which I wrote the first version of) are completely wrong. On Liefeld's first significant work at DC, Hawk&Dove, he was inked by Karl Kesel. His early X-fillins were inked by folks like Dan Green and Al Milgrom. His initial run on New Mutants was inked by Bob Wiacek and Hilary Barta. He started getting credited for full pencils/inks at about the time the title mutated into XForce, but it was generally known, later admitted, that these were studio, not solo jobs.

And the reason there were no experienced inkers working for Extreme in its early days was that Liefeld was damfool enough not to hire any. N. Caligon 20:29, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, i thought you meant at extreme. And despite the fact that he may have been a damfool,

it's because of rob that a lot of fan favorite and popular artists, writters and inkers were discovered. Anyways i guess keep the paragraph then.

If you can make a solid case for this, with specifics, it would be good to add to the article, balancing off the criticisms. N. Caligon 01:17, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Source

Critical approval of these characters was scarce; and while Liefeld's wholesale sales to dealers appeared strong, actual sales to consumers, especially of Liefeld's secondary titles, were surprisingly weak.

Given the way the direct market works (print to order, no sale no return) is there any actual evidence of this?

Widely documented at the time -- dealer comments in Comics Retailer, for example. Secondary documentation is also clear -- dealer ads offering Extreme titles at sharply discounted prices were common for several years. If I remember correctly, Liefeld also exploited the distribution meltdown of the period to evade returns on his many late-shipping titles; as smaller distributors and larger retailer-wholesalers closed down, their retailer customers were forced to "eat" large quantities of returnable titles since the return channels had disappeared. (Quick note: under the standard practices of the time, which have tightened up under Diamond, dealers could not reject previously ordered titles which were excessively late (typically 90 days), but were later allowed to return unsold copies for credit. Returns had to follow their original sales channels -- if a retailer's distributor/wholesaler went out of business, he lost return rights.) N. Caligon 13:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Later that year, Liefeld and Lee returned to Marvel to reboot some of the company's classic series, an event dubbed "Heroes Reborn". Liefeld was contracted to write 12 issues of The Avengers and write (with Jeph Loeb) and illustrate 12 of Captain America, but he failed to meet the agreed-on publishing schedule and his output met with an unenthusiastic response, failing to reach the sales targets required in his agreements with Marvel. Marvel terminated the agreement, and the balance of the two series were assigned to Lee's studio.

At the time I recall some confusion on this - the reports I read stated that the Marvel editorial of the time (who were not in post when the deal was originally signed) had cited one of the more obscure clauses in the contract as an excuse to terminate. However since then I've heard numerous different versions - anyone know the truth of the matter? Timrollpickering 08:25, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Darick Robertson cites retailers selling Extreme Studios books by weight for 90 cents a pound at Wizard World Con 2002 in this interview. That supports the claim that retail sales did not match the wholesale. The direct market system doesn't actually porevent this, in fact it allows it, and it could be argued Liefeld has manipulated the fact retailers order blind by soliciting a large number of titles simultaneously. If the market is no longer there, the retailer takes the hit. Liefeld himself cites low sales as the contractual reason for the termination of the Heroes Reborn deal in this interview. Steve block 10:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Marvel's invoking the sales target clause was widely reported at the time, I've seen (but can't immediately turn up) interviews where Liefeld complained that Lee's sales weren't much better than his, but marginally exceeded the targets. (If, hypothetically, the target was 150,000, Lee would have been selling 153,000 copies, Liefeld 148,000. Illustrative comment only, not based on actual sales figures). The speculation at the time was that Liefeld's undependability was Marvel's real motive for terminating the deal; with a big promotion planned for the "Heroes Return" event, the titles had to wind up on schedule, and Liefeld kept falling further behind. N. Caligon 13:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From recollection, Comics International reported that Liefeld himself blamed a new Marvel editorial or management that disliked their predecessors' deal. The impression given in CI reports in the run up was that Marvel editors were deeply unhappy with his late deadlines and also with the way that fans were crucifying Liefeld across the board. It has always struck me as an exploiting of a clause in the contract to achieve the ends they wanted, rather than a simpe "Liefeld didn't sell". Timrollpickering 18:10, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• But isn't that exactly what the article says? he failed to meet the agreed-on publishing schedule and his output met with an unenthusiastic response, failing to reach the sales targets required in his agreements with Marvel. Marvel terminated the agreement. Steve block 19:13, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's a wording thing - the current text rather implies the reason (not the clause) he was dismissed for low sales, rather than editorial dislike. (Also I wonder how much he was paid and whether a then newly bankrupt Marvel saw the opportunity to save money.) Equally it's important if Jim Lee had fallen foul of the same clause since he wasn't sacked. Since this point comes up a lot in arguments about Liefeld's work, especially whenever one company or another takes him on, precise clarity is important. (On the sales a few years ago I saw reports, but am now not sure at all where, that his Heroes Reborn titles never sold below 190,000 copies.) Timrollpickering 19:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'm not sure you can ever get clarity on issues like this. Marvel may well have had many reasons for wanting shot of him, but contractually, he failed to meet sales and so was let go. According to the interview I linked to above, his Cap was selling 150, and the target was 300. However, yeah, in the interview he cites the bankruptcy as the deal breaker himself, and it's possible Lee was also underselling but renegotiated the contract rather than lose the gig. However, that's all spec on our end, isn't it?

Liefeld's Heroes Reborn books didn't sell up to expectations, weren't delivered on time, a significant portion of the fan market hated them, and only Liefeld's loyalists thought they were any good. Lee's HR books sold better (maybe not much better), were mostly delivered on time, were accepted by the fan market, and were pretty much seen as improvements over the titles immediately pre-HR. There _was_ more to Liefeld being dumped than just weak sales. He was also damaging the properties' marketability. He was doing a _much_ worse overall job than Lee was. N. Caligon 22:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I have a hardcopy source. From Wizard, January 1998 issue, 1997 year in review: "Although Lee's Fantastic Four and Iron Man titles were selling only slightly more than Liefeld's, Lee met the minimum sales clause." FWIW, I don't know that the Marvel bankruptcy had anything to do with the termination. Marvel's corporate structure was complex, and unless Lee and Liefeld made their deals directly with the corporate parent that went bankrupt -- not at all a sure thing -- the deals would not be voidable on account of the bankruptcy. N. Caligon 00:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm really confused now. Is anyone disputing the fact that the contractual reason for Liefeld being dismissed was that he failed to meet the sales targets? Steve block 08:37, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, just that there was more to it which is now virtually an open matter. As a lot of arguments of Liefeld go through the reasons for his departure from Heroes Reborn (i.e. was he good for sales) it is a point that needs to be as clear as possible, not hidden as though the official story is the only one. Timrollpickering 09:07, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is getting circular. Can you give an example of how the line in the article should read. Steve block 09:32, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Liefeld has made statements to the effect that Lee didn't meet the sales targets either, but wasn't fired, and suggested the termination of his deal was either due to corporate infighting with Marvel, or a ploy to get him to accept reduced payments. As far as I know, there's no independent support for his claim about Lee's sales, but several independent denials of it (like the one I quoted). Likewise, there's no independent support for his claims about Marvel's motives. It's undeniable that he wasn't getting the books out on schedule, and that, despite increased sales over the pre-HR versions, word of mouth was very, very bad. These factors place Marvel's termination in a clearer context: whatever the short-term sales boost in raw numbers, Liefeld's handling of the titles didn't look to be helping the properties in the long run. And, however big the sales boost was, it's fair to infer that if it didn't meet the sales targets, it didn't justify Marvel's expenditures in the short run, either. N. Caligon 15:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay how about something like the following changes:

Currently

• Liefeld was contracted to write 12 issues of The Avengers and write (with Jeph Loeb) and illustrate 12 of Captain America, but he failed to meet the agreed-on publishing schedule and his output met with an unenthusiastic response, failing to reach the sales targets required in his agreements with Marvel. Marvel terminated the agreement, and the balance of the two series were assigned to Lee's studio.

New

• Liefeld was contracted to write 12 issues of The Avengers and write (with Jeph Loeb) and illustrate 12 of Captain America. The process did not prove a smooth one as Liefeld often failed to meet the pre-agreed deadlines for publishing. Liefeld's output also met with a very poor critical response, with many criticising both his story structure and his artwork. The sales on both titles were significantly higher than prior to Heroes Reborn, but did not reach one of the targets in the original contract. After 6 issues of each title Marvel terminated the agreement, citing the failure to meet a sales level speculated in the contract, and the balance of the two series were assigned to Lee's studio. Liefeld subsequently claimed that his books had sold similarly to Lee's and that his dismissal was driven by a sceptical Marvel editorial who had disliked both the deal (negotiated by their predecessors) and the hostile reception Liefeld had received.

Anyone able to improve on that? Timrollpickering 15:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it improves on the existing text, and would require an added note that Liefeld's claim contradicts well-documented accounts of the events. What's in there now (mostly if not completely my text, to be fair) is short, factual, and undisputed. (And Liefeld managed to get 7 issues of Avengers out, if I remember right). N. Caligon 17:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Artistic Criticism

It's not really needed. I've looked around and didn't see any other artists with a section like it. It also points out things already mentioned in the bio. Also his mispelling of Anaheim being mentioned in a degrading way which was most likely a typo, should be removed as it is not trivia. Timrollpickering's rewritten article sounds fair and correct. Nothing I've ever read on the subject suggested that Liefeld failed to meet an agreed-on publishing schedule with Heroes Reborn.

N. Caligon you really don't like Rob Liefeld you're really unfit to decide what should be written as you're completely biased.

Someone neutral should be chosen to write something unbiased based on actual facts and not4th hand accounts and speculation from people who just want to make Liefeld out to be "The most hated man in comics".

But he loves John Byrne. Over on that article he deletes even John Byrne quotes if he finds them unflattering to Byrne and his pal User:Gamaliel backs him up there as well. Gamaliel said that he was going to let another administrator handle the Liefeld issue, but he has still locked the page so Caligon's edits cannot be changed. Apparently if you control an administrator you can do pretty much anything you want on Wikipedia.--198.93.113.49 15:40, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Note that I protected this article, which is pretty much standard procedure for administrators in revert and edit wars, before your complaints that I was supposedly in cahoots with Caligon. Due to your objections I have recused myself from further involvement in resolving this dispute, so if you want it unlocked, you will have to find another administrator. Gamaliel 18:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It's too late to recuse yourself after you've taken action. And even though there were 3 different editors undoing Caligon's changes you waited until he reverted th article again before lockinging it. It was locked only two minutes after his revert. Clearly you wanted his version preserved even though he was in the minority. He was in clear violation of the 3RR rule with 9 REVERTS! If you had simply applied the rules of wikipedia he would have been blocked and the edit war ended. Instead you ended the war by taking his side, locking his changes in place, and THEN recusing yourself after it didn't matter anymore.

If you really want to stay out if it unlock the page. LOCKING THE PAGE IS NOT STAYING OUT OF IT.--198.93.113.49 18:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I locked it when I locked it, without heeding which version was the most current. People in an edit war frequently complain that an adminstrator locked the "wrong" version. It doesn't matter which version is locked, what matters is which version stays once the edit war is resolved. It would make more sense for you to focus on the latter.

As far as my involvement, first you complain because I was involved at all, then once I recuse myself you complain because I won't unlock the page for you. I'm not going to unlock a page so you can continue an edit war, nor am I going to take any further action since, as a result of your own complaints, I have recused myself from further involvement in this conflict. I suggest you resolve this conflict to the satisfaction of another administrator.

Caligon's reverts have been discussed on WP:AN/3RR. I'm not going to block him since I have, as noted above, recused myself from further involvement. Another administrator will have to deal with that as well. Gamaliel 18:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Recused yourself from FURTHER INVOLVEMENT! You've already locked the page. You can't recused yourself after the fact unless you actually go back and undo your judgment. How did you get to me a adminstrator anyway?

I can't? I already did. My involvement displeases you. My uninvolvement displeases you. Apparently, there is nothing that will satisfy you short of following your orders to the letter, which is obviously not going to happen. Since you have now resorted to insults, this conversation is over. I suggest you focus on resolving the conflict over the content of the article instead. Gamaliel 19:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Do you honestly not understand the ridiculousness of recusing yourself AFTER you've alreay renderened a judgment that renders all other actions meaningless? Recusing yourself would mean to refrain from making a judgment. Not making one and then saying that you recused yourself. As for resolving the conflict. That's impossible since the person who had the prolbem with the article, N. Caligon, has disappeared. And why shouldn't he. Thanks to you locking his verson of the article in place he has what he wants. He can now dissapear sure in the knowledge that you are her to make sure his edits are never undone.--198.93.113.49 19:27, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whose version is locked because page protection is not permanent. Gamaliel 19:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm haven't "dissapeared"; I just felt it prudent to let things cool down and leave space for others to comment without having to worry about being caught in the crossfire. But since you insist on a response from me, I'll just comment that a second admin reviewed your complaint, found that your edits to the page were "vandalism," and that "Since the 3RR does not apply to reverting vandalism" there was "no reason" to take any action against me. Now would you please explain, for the benefit of the other editors of this page, why you believe the version of the page that you prefer is superior to the version that I prefer? I believe that the version I prefer is superior because 1) it is properly formatted and includes links to appropriate references; 2) it more accurately reflects the consensus of the editors who contributed to the page; and 3) it has not been "sanitized" by the subject of the article. N. Caligon 19:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I would be happy to properly format the article. Formating issues are not an excuse to insert you biased comments that only you seem to want. If it reflected the consensus how come three eiditors were reverting your reverts but no one was supporting your version. (except of course Gamaliel who true to form swooped in at the alst moment to save you.) And your "santized" by Rob Liefled is just your own paranoia. And what other adiminstrator reviewed my complaint? --198.93.113.49 20:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I do not support any particular version, and in fact have not read either version. Gamaliel 20:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Admin Carbonite reviewed your complaint and responded publicly on the noticeboard where you posted it. Another editor of the Liefeld page independently reverted the vandalism to the same base version I did. Liefeld edited the page as anonymous user 208.54.15.129 on July 7, and announced the new version on his message board minutes later -- the initial tipoff for me was one of his characteristic misspellings, but there's a small pile of other evidence, not to mention the apparent confirmation from one of his partisans at the beginning of this section. You still refuse to address the substantive problems you claim exist with the version of the page I reverted to, so there's no escaping the conclusion that the underlying cause is spite. EOD. N. Caligon 20:30, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to that thread on Liefeld's message board if possible? Gamaliel 20:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The link is

http://www.herorealm.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3711&sid=8c6517ab8f02031ff061d0c88b4b7239

Liefeld's annoucement of a "new entry" is not quite halfway down the first page.

As I said, there's other evidence; for example, the post comes through the Starbucks/TMobile ISP, and Liefeld writes in his online journal that since the wireless net was set up in Starbucks he spends whole days there drawing, etc. http://www.robliefeld.net/journal.htm N. Caligon 21:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel I thought you weren't in this? I brought up a few valid points above and they're being ignored. Oh and N. Caligon is the only one doing things out of spite. Too bad that's not obvious to admins, because it's obvious to the rest of the world.

Independent Admin Assistance

I have looked at the edit history and believe the page has been protected appropriately. Bear in mind that protection of one particular version of an article is not endorsement of the current version. Please discuss changes to the article here and once consensus has been agreed upon, the page can be unprotected. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 21:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't see an agreement happening anytime soon as N. Caligon will only be happy if the article makes Rob out to be some sort of idiot, who no one likes and can't draw.

Agreed. The admins are handling this terriblly. Lock the page in a version that only one person wants and then tell everyone else to work it out, when the only person who actually has any problem has been given everything he wants by the admins when he should have been blocked for have 9 reverts in a day. Now all N. Caligon has to do is not back down and he gets what he wants and the majority gets absolutely nothing. Oh the tyranny of Wikipedia.--198.93.113.49 13:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Bear in mind that protection of one particular version of an article is not endorsement of the current version

Those are just words. Anyone should be able to see that the version of this page wanted by only a single user who blatantly violated the 3RR rule (in spite of what two amdins may claim --9 reverts!--) has been locked in place and the majority has no redress. That is a pretty clear endorsement of one particular version of the page or more accurately one aprticular editor who seesm to have a friendly admin who wants to make him happy.--198.93.113.49 13:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the person at all, and so cannot judge which version is correct. What I do know is that the page had to be protected due to an edit war, and will remain protected until the dispute is sorted out here. I can edit the page while it is protected, however I need some assurance from you that your argument is not just "my version is better than his because I say so". Sign up for a username, and it would help your cause if you didn't insult the admins because they've done something you don't like. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And no it is not obvious that the version of this page wanted by only a single user... has been locked in place because that user is the only one here that has bothered to sign up for a user name. While you are making edits without logging in I don't know if you are expressing the opinions of one person or a thousand people, or even if the two IPs that have joined in this discussion since I got involved are the same person or not. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:08, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If a person had 2 IPs he could create two seperate accounts and no one would notice. So your assumption to two accounts means to users and 2 IPs is more likely multiple users is ridiculous.--198.93.113.49 14:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes I know it seems silly but I prefer working with usernames than with IPs. I still have no evidence from you that you are speaking for anyone other than yourself however - see my comment left below. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 15:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The thing is 198.93.113.49, are you arguing about the Rob Liefeld article, or just "scoring points", as you point out regarding NC's "9 Reverts"? You didn't show an interest in this article previously except to point out NC's alleged 3RR violation. I really hope you're not just watching him hoping for payback for your temporary banning.

I think the goal of Wikipedia is to do what's best for the articles above all else. The only reason I objected to your Byrne edits (along with others) was because your quotes weren't balanced and were mostly taken from a message board, rather than going thru Wikiquote and doing research--in other words, you weren't doing due dilligence and it appeared you had an agenda. You were just dumping quotes in.

I will say NC has shown a bit of bias with a jab at Liefeld in the trivia section. And he has made complaints that the Byrne article is still too much about "grumpy guy", yet this article is similarly themed. But at least it seems accurate and researched. That's what we all want. Maybe we can make a more neutral tone. Or expand upon it. --66.189.63.91 19:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair comments that deserve a reply. The trivia comment is, I admit, snarky, and I probably would have undone it by now if the page hadn't needed to be locked. I think there's a big difference between the Byrne situation and the Liefeld situation. I think the focus on the Byrne controversies, outweighing his large, large, body of work, is inappropriate. Byrne can't be fairly characterized as "controversial guy who occasionally produces comic books." But "Rob Liefeld, controversial guy who occasionally produces comic books" -- you'd find a lot of people who think that hits the target. Popular music analogy, lip-synching -- it's important, even essential, in talking about some performers -- Ashlee Simpson, Milli Vanilli -- but in most cases, adding a list, for example, of TV shows where the performer lip-synched would be inappropriate. (Especially in the case of 1960s TV shows, or whatever that EuroTV show was that did its best to require lipsynching) N. Caligon 20:33, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Certainly the article is going to have to have some criticism of Liefeld in it, as he's a controversial figure in comics. That said... I think some of the art criticism like the Captain America caption can go - it's original research, frankly. Snowspinner 23:31, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also take out the whole artistic criticism section. Everyone should make their own evaluations of Liefeld's work. They don't need someone to point out obvious things. Some of the idiosyncrasies are commonly ignored by comic readers. Every artist draws a certain way they shouldn't be looked at as flaws especially since they're intentional.

Heh, looks like N.C. doesn't know what he's talking about. here's a message Rob Liefeld wrote on the Herorealm boards.

N.C.

I have wireless mobile in my house. I don't need to go to Starbucks to log onto the net. Haven't for months. Thanks for asking though.

rob

I agree with all of the above. It's pretty clear a concensus has been met. Why is the page still locked?--198.93.113.49 14:01, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate to me where, above, a consensus has been met please? -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 14:10, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

No not really. If you can't read the discussion and see for yourself that no one's disputing the fact that that current locked version of the page contains POV criticism that should be removed then it's beyond my power to help you.--198.93.113.49 14:50, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I have read the discussions above and it is clear to me that there are two distinct points of view here. What I am asking you to do is to provide some hard evidence as someone who knows the subject area that your preferred edit should take preference over what is currently displayed on the page. Until you do that I can't do anything to favour one point of view over another, or to reach for a mututally beneficial consensus. If I was to change the text of the article to your preferred point of view now, all I am doing is favouring one editor over another, which is exactly what you have accused Gamaliel of doing above! Please either provide me with evidence that your preferred text is correct, or point specifically to evidence above that a consensus has been met by the community. If you don't there is nothing that I or any other admin can do to help you. Your frustrations at the admins and the system here can be alleviated greatly if you take these few simple steps to help yourself! -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 15:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Blah blah blah. A fancy way of saying that as long as N. Caligon wants the article a certain way its going to be locked that way.

No it is not. What I am trying to get through to you both (you and N Caligon) is that in order for this to continue you are both going to have to provide evidence that either side is correct. The longer you keep up this hostile pretence towards anyone who steps in to try and help out, or to anyone who disagrees with your point of view, the longer it is going to take to sort this whole mess out. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 17:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Please don't lump me together with 198.93.113.49 -- I've consistently acted in good faith, I've done my best (and I hope I've succeeded) to stay within the dispute guidelines, and I'm not wandering around the site posting abuse about people who disagree with me on unrelated pages. The anonymous user or users from Liefeld's message boards want to demonize me as somebody who's posting motivelessly malign nonsense to the page, but the great bulk of the material they object to was on the page, in one form or another, well before I made my first constribution to the page, and represents, I think, the solid consensus of page editors prior to the outbreak of this edit war. (If you go back to the "Re: Reversion" section of this page, you'll find me encouraging one of Liefeld's defenders to add certain information favorable to him to the page, but he didn't follow through.) I asked for page protection here a day before things got out of control, knowing perfectly well it could easily result in a version I strongly objected to being locked in place. What I've tried to do in my edits here is greatly improve the discussion of the comics business itself, to the extent it's important to the article, and to try to keep the commentary about Liefeld and his work in line with what was generally reported/published at the time he was actively producing work. And the latter is going to be quite harsh, because Liefeld's work, from the beginning of Image if not sooner, was very, very badly received. (The Comics Journal review quoted above is about average, maybe even a bit mild.) There's really no debate about substance here; from the beginning of the edit war last weekend, the anonymous editors haven't made a single substantive comment about the page. Most of the contentious issues were hashed over previously here, and various editors' positions regarding what had been close to a consensus text were set out; I don't think there's much point in asking folks to restate what they've already said; the initial burden should be on the anonymous editor(s) who want the changes to provide a basis for them. I may argue my points more strongly than most, and write lengthy, turgid comments (like this one) -- but the other side in this dispute is, for the most part, just behaving abusively. N. Caligon 20:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I apologise if you feel offended by being grouped together with the unregistered user in this dispute, my point was to show that I am by no means taking sides, just trying to be an independent voice helping to achieve some form of consensus in this discussion. At least you've been civil, which is more than can be said for the other guy. Thank you for coming and letting me know your side of the debate. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 22:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I can at least provide evidence that some of the stuff should go - unsourced art criticism is original research. Snowspinner 17:38, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

You're certainly right about that caption; I tried to NPOV it a while back, to describe the image as an example of a commonly criticized, characteristic feature of Liefeld's art, but either it's been changed again or I didn't succeed. The "criticism" section generally doesn't do much more than restate the most common criticisms of Liefeld's work -- less caustically than many versions of them that can be found on the net or in print. The framing paragraph needs a cleanup, I'd say, but most of the rest of it just reports what's generally said about the work. N. Caligon 20:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with N. Caligon also that the CRITICISM section and the caption need to go. A few other problems I saw was this: "He is often credited with creating a new leader for the team, the heavily-muscled, heavily-armed, glowing-eyed cyborg Cable, who instantly became a popular anti-hero; however, the prototype for Cable, tentatively named "Commander X," was initially devised by Marvel editorial staff, with Liefeld developing character designs from the assigned script.

Liefeld also created the wise-cracking assassin Deadpool and a group of immortal mutants called the Externals. Both were popular, but prompted Liefeld's first charges of plagiarism, as fans debated similarities between Deadpool and DC's Deathstroke the Terminator and between the Externals and the immortals from Highlander."

These statements basically claim that he didn't "really" create Cable, and that Deadpool and the Externals are ripoffs of other characters that he flat out plagiarized. If you open any issue of Cable/Deadpool the creative credits look like this "Cable created by Rob Liefeld and Louise Simonson" and "Deadpool created by Rob Liefeld and Fabian Nicieza". Also Rob said in an interview stated that he came up with the character "Cable" when asked to make a new leader for the team. Marvel editorial staff wanted to call him Commander X. Rob said that his name was Cable and if they wanted to use that name he wasn't going to use his character. Fans can find similarities in LOTS of characters that doesn't mean that the artist/writer stole the ideas from someone else. Liefeld has never been formally charged with plagiarizm, ever. So "fans" debates on the subject aren't really fact. If you're going to say Rob Plagiarized Deadpool and the Externals then it should also be added that Nicieza helped as a co-creator.--Timrock 22:16, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, I didn't say the criticism section should go; I said the introduction should be changed to make clear that the section is reporting the most common criticisms of his art.

As for the comments about who created Cable, the version in the article is dead-on accurate. Liefeld is credited as co-creator because he created the character designs (which are certainly not unimportant for a comics character). Liefeld says a lot of different things in interviews, but the accounts that were published early on line up with the article, and weren't disputed by Liefeld for several years.

Outside of the academic world, you really can't charge anybody formally with plagiarism, only copyright and trademark violation. And Marvel was pretty formal with regard to Agent: America and Fighting American. My comments try to work off the term "derivative," which avoids implications about Liefeld's intentions. But it is accurate to say that many comics readers have called some of Liefeld's work "plagiarism," as a Google search would show.

One more thing with regard to the comments about plagiarism, Deadpool, and the Externals: I know Nicieza is a hard name to spell, but that's the worst misspelling of it I've ever seen. ;-) N. Caligon 23:37, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with the way the intoduction to the Artisic Criticism section is written. I'll give you the creator of Cable thing, there's no real way to know the truth to that, but it should be rewritten to show he co-created him. As I mentioned before, the way it's now written makes it sound like he had little to do with the creation. Give the guy a little credit for co-creating an original character.

Derivative would be a better term because no one really knows if he really intended plagiarism on those characters, you can't prove it even if he did, you can't possibly know what Liefeld's "intentions" were. Why should it mention all the common criticisms in the bio and in it's own section? I say keep the Criticism section but take all the citicisms out of the bio. They don't need to be posted twice.--Timrock 00:36, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

"Below are common characteristics of Liefeld's artwork." is not really a good introduction for a section that goes on to call things "bizzare,' which just isn't NPOV. If we're going to keep the harsh language of the criticism section, we need to frame it in NPOV. And I agree with paring back the criticism in other sections as well - establish that he's controversial and criticized in the intro and then put the criticism in the criticism section. Snowspinner 14:55, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite

So, how should this rewrite be written? Someone want to start? Original text with my commentary:

"Rob Liefeld (born October 3, 1968) is an American comic book writer, illustrator and publisher, who is one of the Modern Age’s most popular and controversial figures. "

This first sentence is fine.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Whether Liefeld is actually one of the "most popular" figures in modern comics is open to debate. Many fans/readers regard him as a one-trick pony who happened to be in the right place during a speculative bubble. It would be better to say "best-known and controversial figures." "Most popular" is no more appropriate than "most notorious." We really don't know what percentage of the comics that dealers bought actually sold on the market, and we don't know what percentage of retail sales went to speculator-collectors who didn't care (in terms of personal taste) whether the book was created by Rob Liefeld, Rob Reiner, or Rob Zombie. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Next:

"Although briefly but undeniably a superstar artist in the 1990s, the backlash against his bombastic art style and widely derided writing, his repeated failures to maintain publishing schedules, his contentious ouster from the Image Comics partnership and allegations of plagiarism have eclipsed his early successes."

This horribly long run on sentence is full of negative POV. Breifly a superstar? It was a couple years from the 89-92 that he was most popular. 3 years is hardly breif. There was a backlash against him but most from what I can remember was because of publishing schedules in 93-95. To call his art style bombastic and writting derided is also nagative. His ouster from image however was full of controversy and both sides should be shown in this subject. Even so, they didn't really "eclipse" his early success. His early success with Hawk & Dove and New Mutants is still revered even after the controversy.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey! That's not a run-on sentence. It's long, syntactically complex, and difficult to follow, but it's grammatically sound. "Bombast" is not an inherently negative term; if you search the site, you'll find dozens and dozens of uses of it -- some negative, some descriptive, some complimentary (check the Carroll O'Connor as an example of the latter). Liefeld was by no means a "superstar" in 1989 -- his first New Mutants is the February 1990 issue which might have hit the racks in late 1989. (I just don't remember when the cover dates got adjusted to reflect reality, but in this case that detail doesn't matter.) "Widely derided writing" is an accurate description of the way his work was received, and he later acknowledged the flaws to some extent (but shifted the blame to his writing partner, Hank Kanalz.) X-Force 1 made him a superstar, as the comment about "breaking" him worldwide later in the article indicates, but the time the Youngblood mini had finished up, his superstar run was over. The Image controversy should be detailed in the bio, not the intro. The "eclipsing" reference means that the later controversies now pretty much define him in the public eye, not his early artistic success. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok so you agree, everything is fine so far except the Image controversy should be moved from the intro to the bio. Otherwise, I agree with all the rest. I think we're making progress so far.--Timrock 22:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

From recollection Liefeld's first New Mutants is actually in the 1989 Annual, although it's a short back-up story (but in 1994 it still commanded silly prices for an annual of that era - I haven't looked since). Marvel brought the dates closer in 1989 - the July issues are coverdated November, August "Mid November", September December, October "Mid December" and then from November onwards they're all two months ahead.

Next:

"Liefeld and his partisans now flaunt his image as "The Most Hated Man in Comics," a particularly ironic form of self-aggrandizing in light of the frequent accusations of plagiarism: The label is lifted from Jim Steranko's self-promotional materials."

Personally, I find calling Liefeld's fans "partisans" offensive. Liefeld and his fans are not self-aggrandizing. His fans like him and his art because it's what they enjoy. Also, plagiarism has not been an accusation in a very long time. Finally, What are Jim Steranko's self-promotion materials? I've never seen them before. Reguardless his opinions, are not popular belief--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC).

I added this, and I'm not calling all of Liefeld's fans partisans; I'm describing the behavior of a particular group of his more devoted fans. Steranko applied the label to himself way back in 1997, in the publicity material for his autobiography, "Steranko: Graphic Prince Of Darkness." Maybe the sentence can be NPOV'd a bit more, but there's no real denying the underlying source. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well I think the quote should stay, but the reference to the fans as partisans and being self-aggrandizing should go. It's negative. It's the kind of sentence that would make someone not want to be a fan just because they don't want to be associated with these types of people. Not all liefelds devoted fans are like this.--Timrock 22:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Next:

"In the early 1990s, Liefeld became a superstar 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 high-profile 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, and anatomy ranging from the improbable to the impossible."

I see nothing wrong with this. It does reflect popular belief at the time.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Next:

"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, leading some to deem Liefeld a plagiarist."

This paragraph, I think should be removed from this section, and put into the criticism section, or just removed completely as I believe it's highly opinionated and not popular belief.

This is mostly a description of reputation, and as such is accurate. Maybe "bear" isn't quite the right word, but there's very little argument about the underlying similarities. N. Caligon 17:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That is corrected there are similarities, but to call them two dimentional and generic I don't recall anyone (not even people who hate Liefeld) to call the characters that. I might have heard it from some of the other charactes from his Image studio but not all of them were created by him.--Timrock 22:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Next paragraph:

"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"

I don't see anything wrong with this paragraph it should stay.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Next:

"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."

The whole thing is whining about the same things previously mentioned in above paragraphs. I say it goes.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Next:

Biograpy

"In 1988, at the age of 20, Liefeld completed his first significant published work, pencils for a mini-series featuring the superhero pair Hawk and Dove for DC Comics. After disputes with his collaborators at DC, he soon moved to Marvel, where in late 1989 he became the regular illustrator of The New Mutants (starting with issue #86), starring a junior team of X-Men. The popularity of Liefeld's art soon allowed him to increasingly take control of the series' story. He is often credited with creating a new leader for the team, the heavily-muscled, heavily-armed, glowing-eyed cyborg named Cable, who instantly became a popular anti-hero; however, the prototype for Cable, tentatively named "Commander X," was initially devised by Marvel editorial staff, with Liefeld developing character designs from his own design and, the assigned script, and insisting on the name Cable.

The issue that broke Rob Liefeld worldwide. X-Force #1 (August 1991), featuring story and art by Liefeld.Liefeld also created the wise-cracking assassin Deadpool and a group of immortal mutants called the Externals. Both were popular, but prompted Liefeld's first charges of plagiarism, as fans debated similarities between Deadpool and DC's Deathstroke the Terminator and between the Externals and the immortals from Highlander.

With The New Mutants #98, Liefeld assumed full creative control over the book, pencilling, inking, and plotting, with Fabian Nicieza writing dialogue. He then transformed The New Mutants into the platoon-like X-Force. The 1991 debut issue of X-Force sold four million copies, an industry-wide record soon broken by X-Men #1, illustrated by Jim Lee. In both cases, variant editions were used to sell multiple issues to single collectors; but where X-Men used multiple variant covers, X-Force relied on multiple variant trading cards polybagged with the comic itself."

I'd also mention that the marketing scheme there at the bottom of this paragraph was Marvel's idea and not Liefeld's or Jim Lee's. I've made several minor edits that are in italics and I'd change the term "charges of plagiarism" to "allegations of plagiarism"--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC) Next:

"Liefeld's relationship with Marvel began to break down in 1991, when he annouced plans to publish an original title, dubbed "The X-Ternals," with competitor Malibu Comics. Faced with the loss of his Marvel work, and with the threat of trademark litigation blocking his new project, Liefeld scrapped the title and incorporated the "Externals" into his X-Force continuity."

I don't believe this paragraph is entirely accurate, it would take a little research to find more about this topic. This is all I'm going to do this morning I'll finish this later.--Timrock 13:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

How about a paragraph on all of Liefeld's documented lies.

I got a better one, how about you flame somewhere else.--Timrock 22:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Well Timrock, at least I am not a part of an organized effort to change this page, like you and the other herorealm.com trolls.

Ok, sorry, i was just having fun. In all seriousness, there is an organized effort to change this article and sanatize this man, who whether they will admit it or not, has said and done things that haven't always been honest. I will make an effort to bring these things to light for i belive they should be noted. But to play devil's advocate critism of his art should be left off this article because it is after all subjective.

For any one who doesn't belive me just go too Herorealm.com and click on Rob liefeld forum. Find the wikipedia thread. You might just recognize some names.

If anyone has anything to add it is welcomed, but remember to keep a NPOV. Facts are good also. Degrading remarks or rumors about Liefeld or his fans can stay out of this page and the Liefeld article.--Timrock 00:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

As far as rumors, Timrock, you and i both know these are much more than just hearsy, and Liefeld explainations for them are debatable at best. For example-

Kurt Busiek- Why does rob keep giving this man a writing credit he doesn't want?

Divorce from Image- Did rob quit or was he fired?

Did rob steal money from Image?

Why did Awesome Comics really fail? Why does he keep missing deadlines(cocaine)?

you lose, you're non-contructive comments are being ignored.--Timrock 22:55, 19 July 2005 (

Whether you will admit or not, timrock, at least one or two of those questions i raised wasn't a joke, and should be included in any article on Liefeld.

Kurt Busiek- Why does rob keep giving this man a writing credit he doesn't want? I don't know maybe Kurt isn't proud if his plot. Kurt mentioned something about not wanting to be used to help sell the book. Either way Rob only gave him credit for plots only in the comic and in solicitations as Kurt asked, and only mentioned him as a writter on one post on millarworld.com but specifically said Brandon Thomas was writting dialog. Kurt overreacted about it. I could write that into the article but I don't see why it's of no consequence to anyone.

Divorce from Image- Did rob quit or was he fired? both sides of this matter should be mentioned as no one knows with a 100% definety.

Did rob steal money from Image? Speculation, it was rumored I believe but it's mentioned in the article already under misuse of funds, but as i recall nothing ever went to court, or was he ever officially charged.

Why did Awesome Comics really fail? Why does he keep missing deadlines(cocaine)? Awesome comics lost a big financial backer and didn't have the funds to continue. I seriously doubt that Liefeld does cocaine, logical theory for his lateness out of no where.

I personally just want to see both sides represented Liefeld's accounts and other's that's what I'm trying to accomplish so serious help like sources and documented quotes would help.--Timrock 02:20, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Most recent edit to talk page

Just to explain the most recent edit, after I blocked the unlogged editor we had a conversation by email and I unblocked them as long as they promised to behave. They have been warned however that with even a hint of their previous behaviour the block will be re-instated. One of their wishes was to come and make some of their previous comments "more constructive", which I don't have a problem with, as long as they haven't changed any conversations substantially, or edited what anyone else has said (I haven't looked very closely tbh - too tired). -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 00:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree about the previous comments not being terribly constructive, but they do refer to matters that have been openly reported and discussed for a long time. I think most comics observers view them as significant matters; the cocaine references, while they might (from the the postings) seem to apply only to his private life, go back to at least one interview Liefeld gave where he discussed creating full comics issues in 48-hour full-tilt cocaine binges and pretty much said that was the way he and his studio colleagues worked. Aside from opening himself up to unsurprising ridicule, it also apparently alienated him from some of his previous colleagues, who denied sharing in his excesses. Unfortunately, the full text of the interview and followup discussion isn't easy to find right now, if it's online at all, but its general substance is solidly documented in reports on other websites. N. Caligon 18:03, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Liefeld himself has admitted some heavy cocaine use. I believe that was at Millarword.com or somthing, i will have to do a google search on it.

The whole Kurt Busiek, and divorce from Image is well documented on the internet. I will search for links.

No one cares about his fight with Kurt Busiek. That was on Millarworld, it was between them and as far as I'm concerned it was settled. I believe it's inconsequential in the bigger picture of his career and that also goes for the whole cocaine thing as well. I did however find mentions of it being said on millarworld as a joke.

Lastly his leaving Image is well documented from both Liefeld's side and rest of Image's side and are already mentioned in the article, and both sides should be shown on the subject. This has already been discussed.--Timrock 13:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The issue of Kurt Busiek isn't inconsequential in that it shows alot about Rob Liefeld character. Regardless I envisioned it being mentioned as blip in a couple of paragraghs devoted to the all controversy surronding Rob. This paragraph can have both points of view expressed.

I believe no one besides you cares about the Kurt Busiek matter, as I've explained there really isn't much controversy to the story. The story fully explained (as I've already done) just make Busiek out to be someone making a big deal over nothing.

The entire article talks about the controversy and both points of veiw are should be expressed properly, that's what I'm trying to do. We could add more detailed info about everything already mentioned, but I think everyone would agree to not let this article become redundant.--Timrock 14:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody cares but me... and Kurt Busiek(one of the most respected comic book writers out there).

Rob Liefeld and Kurt Busiek worked out their problems the matter is closed. Kurt probably doesn't even think about it anymore. So, no he probably doesn't care--Timrock 01:51, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

The anon who vandalised this page earlier on today has been temporarily blocked from editing wikipedia. Are we any nearer a consensus so that the page protection can be lifted? -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 22:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I have a few more additions to the rewrite. I'd like to get N. Caligon agreeance on before we unlock. I'll post additions shortly.

Why are comments being deleted from the talk page?

It is standard Wikipedia practice to remove personal attacks, as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Gamaliel 17:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia policy to delete personal attacks. An admin should know this. Also even though the users comment was a bit course it was not a personal attack.--198.93.113.49 17:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks will continue to be removed from this page regardless of your personal interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Those who persist in posting personal attacks will be blocked. Gamaliel 17:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

How is my personal interpretation? Follow the link you posted where you can read the following for yourself: "Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight, and although this isn't policy...." Furthermore, the probem is you have a habit of declaring anything you don't want to read a personal attack to justify deleting it. You need to stop threatening to block users for pretended violations.--198.93.113.49 17:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

If this is referring to negative remarks made by an unregistered user that were removed from the discussion above, it was the unregistered user themselves who removed those remarks, which is their perogative. If it is regarding the last edit that Gamaliel removed from the talk page addressed to myself I will leave that up to Gamaliel to sort out however it is common practice for admins to remove comments that are unconstructive, particularly if the user that has left them has a history of leaving unconstructive, negative comments. Referring your own participation in this discussion, 198.93.113.49, I note that you have yet to leave a single constructive comment to this discussion, which makes me question whether you are really here for the benefit of the article in question, or just for the purposes of trolling. You are more than welcome to prove me wrong, however if it is the latter, I will have no hesitation in blocking your IP from editing Wikipedia. -- Francs2000 | Talk File:Uk flag large.png 21:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)