Talk:Rob Liefeld/Archive 1

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)

"Self Taught Artist"

What is the criteria for being a "self-taught" artist? Has he never taken an art class in his life? Otherwise, maybe it should be replaced with something like "comicbook artist". --Moncubus 23:50, 29 October 2006 (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). Liefeld himself has, however, admitted that Youngbloods is based on a Titans project that DC refused to greenlight.
  • 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

This should be further discussed as its fairly well substantiated from many sources and makes for a more comprehensive report on the relationship between Rob and Image and chronicles part of the reason for his fall within the industry. -Before Rob could be fired he left Image and tried to raid the talent pool of Top Cow by attempting to bring Michael Turner with him. As a result Top Cow left Image, then only returned when Rob was gone completely.-

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. Hiding 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. Hiding 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. Hiding 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? Hiding 17:07, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re:Reversion

I'm sorry if i stepped on your toes, Hiding, 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. Hiding 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. Hiding 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. Hiding 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. Hiding 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? Hiding 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. Hiding 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 21:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Comments are being removed from this page

Gamaliel keeps removing comments from the page. Perhaps he as been correct to do so in the past, but since it is a questionable practice it should be discussed. It could easily get out of hand if certain users becomes cavalier about deleting others comments. Unfortunately when I tried to bring the subject up for discussion, I found that my comment on the matter was removed by Gamaliel. Please, Gamaliel stop this. Even if you were right to delete the other comments you have no right to prevent the matter from being discussed.--198.93.113.49 18:33, 28 July 2005 (UTC) PS. You can find my deleted comment in the history. I'm concerned if I repost it I could be blocked.

The sole purpose of this page is to discuss the article Rob Liefeld. I will continue to remove comments from this page which have nothing to do with that article. If you have a problem with this, file an WP:RfC, complain at WP:AN/I, or take the discussion to user talk pages or to the Village Pump. Please stop interfering with people who actually want to improve this article. Gamaliel 18:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Well said, Gamaliel. Any edits to this page that are nothing to do with the article in question will be reverted and/or deleted. Such as the one I just reverted bgy yet another anon IP. -- Francs2000 | Talk 19:11, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I just think that we should ere on the side of inclusion on a talk page. If it is obvious to everyone that a comment does not belong here then it can be deleted, but otherwise I think it should left alone. It's s slipperly slope to get into and this talk page will become useless if comments become deleted to easily. I'm particularly disppaointed that me previous attempt to start a discussion about this was deleted. The proper way to handle discussions on the page is very relevent to the Rob Liefeld article, because if we cannot agree to manage the talk page in a fair way then this page becomes useless.--198.93.113.49 19:16, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In accodance with the policy listed above, i will now begin deleting anything i feel isn't relevent to the article begining with all posts by adimins who have no idea who rob liefeld is. Secondly, because i believe i am right about how this article should be, i will then delete anything that disagrees with what i want the article to be.

I know the admins are going to come down hard on this guy, but he makes a perfectly valid point. This is exactly what would result if everyone decided that they could delete any comment on this page which in their judgment didn't contribute anything to the discussion.--198.93.113.49 19:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

We've wasted enough time on this already. This discussion is over. Discuss Rob Liefeld or find somewhere else to post. Gamaliel 19:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Since when do you get to determine when a discussion is over? I'm still concerned that there is too much deleting of comments going on here and while most of the comments deleted so far problably won't be missed I want to make sure this does not get out of hand so that this discussion of Liefeld can continue smoothely.--198.93.113.49 19:49, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The best way to ensure that the discussion of liefeld can continue is to start discusing liefeld. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 21:58, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

OOh, admin pile on!

Not to beat a dead horse but whats the justification for wiping my post, defending Liefeld against charges of plagiarism as regards Deadpool? it is relevant given the article as it stands makes reference to it! Who gets to judge what comments are "constructive"? Archive the old comments if necessary, but dont wipe a few based on some arbritrary criteria of your own. Very dodgy territory. Hueysheridan 23:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks to me like your post was wiped by accident. On July 21, user:Timrock inadvertently cut-and-pasted an entire copy of the talk page into itself, so everything except his most recent comment appeared twice. Here's the edit where it happened

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rob_Liefeld&diff=next&oldid=19298860

With all the nonsense that was going on, nobody noticed the problem for several days. Your edit was in the (top) duplicate copy that was chopped out; most everybody else was posting at the end of the talk page, and I think admin Francs2000 just didn't see that your comment wasn't duplicated when cleaning up the page. Why don't you just go back into the history, and cut-and-paste it back into the current article. I'd do it for you, but it wouldn't be signed right, and with all the hoorah about editing other people's comments . . . N. Caligon 01:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

More Liefeld History

This should be further discussed as it’s fairly well substantiated from many sources and makes for a more comprehensive report on the relationship between Rob and Image and chronicles part of the reason for his fall within the industry. Before Rob was fired he left Image and tried to raid the talent pool of Top Cow by attempting to bring Michael Turner with him. As a result Top Cow left Image, then only returned when Rob was gone completely.

It's in the article already, just not in that much detail. But is this pro or con vis Liefeld anyway -- why should the Image partners agree not to compete for work-for-hire artists to sharecrop books for them? Why was it wrong for Liefeld to offer Turner a raise in return for jumping to his studio for Silvestri's? One of the rare issues where Liefeld may have been on the right side? N. Caligon 22:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, and here’s why. For one, imp fairly certain Turner was contractually obligated to a certain amount of books at the time, which would then of course make it illegal. For two, Everything Rob did from the point of him facing his own employment termination not only conflicted with an unspoken standard of industry wide common courtesy it went against all known practice of business etiquette in general. To cause that much profound disruption and turmoil within the company and industry and then to headhunt in another company in a shameless act of "raiding the talent pool" is not only unheard of within the comic industry, is unspeakable in terms of public relations within a peer or even competitor group. Instead of leaving gracefully and trying to salvage some bit of integrity and humility, Rob sleazed even lower to try and steal someone else’s investment. Subsequently this news leaked and his already tarnished reputation took yet another black eye. So your question was "do I think it was one of those rare issues where Liefeld may have been on the right side?" In retrospect, looking at the fairly predictable outcome, and with any shred of ethical decency in me from a moral standpoint, clearly.. no.

You don't get out much, do you? Headhunting and talent pool raiding aren't exactly unusual (in any industry), and Image Comics itself was just a giant raid on the Marvel talent pool. N. Caligon 13:55, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Now you’re just slinging mud because I made the point. Not that what you just wrote is relevant (or even accurate), but I work in a similar industry where this doesn’t happen. Image comics was started by people that left Marvel. No one sleazed them out of Marvel. Rather than making baseless claims and trying your hardest to justify the underhandedness of Rob Liefeld's shady interaction within the industry. Maybe you should study business law and look into common practices vs. myths and faux pas.

Maybe you should read up on antitrust law and learn why "competitive partners," such as teams in sports leagues or members of marketing cooperatives, cannot agree not to compete for the services of employees and contractors in the absence of a statutory exemption or an appropriate collective bargaining agreement. Maybe I have studied business law, too. Maybe you should brush up on your spelling and punctuation rather than straining so hard on your invective. N. Caligon 19:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Never "strained" writing before, nor do I plan to. Why, is that what you were doing? And if you take logical analysis of case based evidence and general topic discussion or debate as "invective" then I can't help you in that regard. I only made a suggestion to keep you from digressing, not meant as an attack. Since these "discussions" aren't publicly shown on the article, I see no reason why I should start prioritizing nitpicking of occasional punctuation errors. In hopes to salvage something productive from the debate over this detail; I challenge you to produce record of one or more incidents of someone from a middle or large sized company within the comics industry where someone has deliberately tried to lure, entice, or employ a companies top-flight talent while they were still employed and working on a current title (other than Liefeld of course). If you can, I'll concede that it has happened before, though not as scrutinized or as scandalous as when Rob did it, for the obvious reasons I mentioned before.

DC just signed Adam and Andy Kubert away from Marvel, since you hadn't noticed. Image recruited Dale Keown off Hulk in the 90's. DC signed Byrne to do Superman, while he was working on FF and Alpha Flight etc at Marvel in the 80s. DC got an unsatisfied Jack Kirby away from Marvel in the early 1970s. The entire Cross Gen kickoff. Valiant hired Bob Layton away from Marvel. On the writing side, Marvel hired Gerry Conway away from DC in the mid-70s. Is that enough of a cross-section, in terms of times and talent for you, or should I mention DC's hiring away most Charlton's top talent in one swoop? Don't you understand what the "free" in freelance means? N. Caligon 22:36, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Are these examples of freelance you are producing? Or are we still talking about the same thing, where one is contractually obligated to finish a book? In Mike Turner's case that being Witchblade when the issue in question went down. I know for the Kubert's they were technically freelance and had ended out a contract anyways. You do know there was an agreement among the original Image creators to not go after each others talent right? That is why this move by Linefeed is being scrutinized, as it further underscores all of his questionable behavior before and after this took place. That was one of the key reasons Top Cow jumped Ship when Rob got sleazy. Well anyways, I thank you for the examples. Though because you didn’t specify the contract scenarios of each situation, I can’t comment further on those and am not convinced this is commonplace because you are talking Freelance, and I am talking duration of contracts. I was hoping you could demonstrate something as scandalous as the Rob Liefeld lowball tactics that further distanced himself from everyone at Image. Bottom-line is this is a small detail, but I suggest reading all the available information that can be found on it, citing those sources and deciding based on the majority opinion on how this is described.

"You do know there was an agreement among the original Image creators to not go after each others talent right?" If there was, it was an illegal agreement -- particular to the extent that Maximum Press, a non-Image publisher, was involved. When Kirby first left Marvel, he didn't finish the last issue of the FF he was working on. And what's your source for the dubious information that Turner was under a contract which barred him from taking other work than Top Cow offered? N. Caligon 17:21, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's in one of my issues of Wizard in either 96 or 97 recapping the domino effect of events that unfolded in the wake of Liefeld's career suicide. I remember it vividly because at the time i was a big Turner fan. If you have these years of Wizard you'll find loads of Liefeld action during this period of issues, and that article as well. I'll try to track it down for you. It's not "dubious" i assure you, Turner wasn't a janitor when he was solicited by Liefeld.

I'd like to just correct the above statement that it was "illegal" to offer work to Turner while he was contractually obligated to finish other work (BTW, I'm no fan of Leifield). While Leifield could probably have been sued for the civil tort of interference with business relations, there is no criminal liability associated with causing an artist to breach an existing contract.

Unprotection

Since User:Francs2000 will no longer be working on this article and I don't think it's necessary to drag yet another admin into this mess, I'm going to unprotect this page. Play nicely, please. The article will get locked again at the first sign of an edit war. Please adhere strictly to the 3RR, and if you have any doubt, let someone else revert - there are plenty of people watching this article. Gamaliel 18:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Tenses in the intro paragraph

One of the ongoing arguments between Liefeld's fans and detractors is whether he currently matters, or is a has-been. My text admittedly comes close to weaseling on his current status -- it leaves the question open, even I think the evidence is pretty clear that he's just a cult figure now, and not a terribly important one. Saying he "has been" prominent doesn't imply he is prominent now, and doesn't imply he isn't. Saying he "was" prominent implies he isn't anymore. N. Caligon 03:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Clearly he is no longer a prominent figure within the comic book industry. Ask anyone that one, the answer is unanimous. His slow trickle of the odd sympathy jobs here and there for the past 5 years indicate that, as if his own company (Awesome) sales werent enough proof. Rob even has a thread at his own webpage named 'Lonesome Liefeld @ Comicon', which he deleted and tried to explain away what some unbias fan had noticed while at the San Diego comicon. Calling him a prominent figure now is just plain silly, and will confuse those that are actually in the idustry loop, who see a much different reality.

That's your opinion, and while it mostly mirrors mine, it's not fact. Given the treatment of his Titans mini-gig on sites like Newsarama, it's so clearly not a unanimous opinion that you can't advance a claim like yours in good faith. N. Caligon 14:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Overwhelming Evidence of Liefeld disapproval is Industry Majority

In case you missed that i pointed out a fan witnessed Rob Lonely at a crowded San Diego convention all day, i took the liberty of posting the complete story towards the bottom of the following misc. forum opinions about Rob below -

At the DC forums in Teen Titans section here is what i found perusing the first page - heres the first two topic titles i saw right off the bat with no supporter topic titles anywhere to be found

"Screw the Crisis--it's Rob Liefeld we have to worry about!" and

"ok..who allowed Rob Liefeld to draw TT ?" -

Additionally here my case is proven that Rob Liefeld is disliked all over by the majority of the comics industry with these various forum chatters discussing the frequent Rob Liefeld "bash" topics suggesting how often it takes place. - (these are all different forums btw):

gatts888

Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 97

"This must be like the 5th anti-Liefeld thread in a month Razz IMHO an anti-Liefeld thread should be stickied, I stated it before, because new ones always seem to pop up.

Anyway that "Godysseye" crap was incredibly craptastic, although I don't think it was drawn by Mr. Crap himself."

SkippyP

joined: Jun 2004 Posts: 1,585 Default

"I'm a little tired of all the rampant Liefeld bashing on the net, even though I contributed to some of it. Anyone remember Micah Ian Wright, the guy from Team Achillies that completely fabricated his military history, brought disgrace to the comics industry and was refused work by all the publishers? Why don't we hate on him for a while?"

sweetbabyblue

Posts: 57 Registered: 5/30/05

"OH MY LORD!!!!!

How many of these ant-Liefeld posts do we need!!!

We don't like him. We hate him. His art brings back horrifing images of the early ninties and the crap that bubbled up from it. I am so on the same page. But come on does every person have to start thier own thread about this."

d.l.m

Posts: 139 From: Suckbridge, Ontario Registered: 3/15/05 Posted: Jul 22, 2005 12:11 PM

"Guys, don't start the bashing up again, please. It doesn't change the fact that Rob will be doing two issues of TT. Besides, we get Tony Daniel for 3 or 4 issues after that."

wilb

Posts: 613 Registered: 9/23/04

"I've seen lots of Liefeld bashing on the internet and elsewhere. I'm fairly new to comics, so what is the deal. Forgive me, I'm ignorant.[confused]"

---

Here are more forum excerpts from forums at Comic Bloc (popular large-scale online comic community)

Sentinel joined: Jan 2004

Posts: 79 Default "Let's not forget that Liefeld produced what is perhaps the single worst run of Avengers ever (almost as bad as Bendis' Disassembled), Avengers Reborn. It was SO bad that while the other Heroes Reborn titles did well, Marvel had to replace Liefeld with Walt Simonson to try and salvage what was supposed to be a big moment for Marvel and the Avengers."

steven_eks joined:

May 2004 Posts: 551 Default "Jon Malin, you sound like a really nice guy but I simply refuse to buy any book with Rob Liefeld's name on it or if he's even remotely involved...even if my life depended on it.

Good luck in your future endeavors."

goldenboltm joined: Feb 2003

Posts: 894 "It's strange. There are very few things in this comic book industry that truly piss me off and one of those things is Rob Liefeld.

When former Flash and Wonder Woman writer William Messenger Loebs can't get a job at DC Comics, is out of work, homeless, jobless, foodless, etc..... and Mr. I Still Haven't Bothered To Learn How To Draw Liefeld can keep getting work.... well, that just makes me furious."

tuck071473

joined: Sep 2004 Posts: 370 "YOUNGBLOOD will always be a piece of crap, no matter how much you shuffle, re-write, and re-color. My favorite story is right when the Image comics started coming out, and Youngblood #2 came out, I was hanging around the LCS I went to at the time. The manager was joking with myself and another regular about how much we all hated the book, and how much he should charge for the #1 issue. I suggested that he put it out for $10 and to my surprise later, learned he actually SOLD IT for that price. Amazing. I wonder how the person feels some 13 years later now that you can find it in most 25 cent or 50 cent boxes."

capt._dallas

Moderator SBC's Reviews Editor joined: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,755 Default

"I'm surprised this is the first time you've heard about Liefeld's plagiarism. I don't know how long you've been collecting/reading comic books, but Peter David first discussed Liefeld's plagiarism 12 years ago in his "But I Digress..." columns. What you found on Wikipedia is just the tip of the iceberg."

greenflameuk

joined: Nov 2004 Posts: 737 Default "Is this piece of Captain Marvel art real?, i've seen it posted loads of times but it just looks so unreal that he could screw the perspective up that much, i remember reading on another board that it's just a parody of his work."

Impulse

joined: Apr 2004 Posts: 1,439 Default "Nope - unfortunately, it's real. I distinctly remember that image being used in the old 'Marvel Vision' mag to publicise Heroes Reborn. How that slipped past editorial remains one of the great mysteries of comics history...."

siberut

joined: Aug 2002 Posts: 1,103 Default "I find it sad... Even sadder that he is allowed to draw teen titans..."

---

Here are other forums including DC forums, Zcult, and Daily Planet

johnhenryirons

Posts: 80 Registered: 5/30/03 Posted: Aug 1, 2005 4:07 PM

"No, no, a thousand times NO. I won't be buying the Liefeld issues and if he's allowed anywhere near Superman, that will be the week I begin buying all Marvel comics."

thecrowing

Posts: 56 From: Washington State Registered: 7/8/05 Posted: Jul 22, 2005 1:32 AM

"Has anyone seen any of the preview art and covers for Teen Titans 27-28?

I've heard a lot of rumors about some of my favorite heroes possibly kicking the bucket before the end of Infinite Crisis and it's got me a little worried.... But I swear to God, if they have to exit the DC Universe for good, can they at least take Rob Liefeld with them?

Robin looks like crap and seems to be sporting the Dick Grayson fairy boots, Wonder Girl and Raven's tits just got three cup sizes larger somehow, and Cyborg looks like something that X-Force crapped out fifteen years ago. SOMEONE PULL THE PLUG ON THIS GUY BEFORE THE BOOKS ARE ACTUALLY RELEASED!!!"

chrissynn

Posts: 73 Registered: 11/6/04

"Gail does rock eveyone knows that now,but there is no #$% way ever(!!!!) that you could get me to like rl.Guess ill have to learn braille."

docseth81

Posts: 101 Registered: 7/7/05

"he sucks, he will always suck. Did anyone read the x-force mini series. His art killed it"

batnipples

Posts: 98 Registered: 3/19/05

"I've noticed that some people actually like his crappy art style....um, I mean his "unique" art style. Could these said people (not for sake of starting an argument, I just want to hear your opinion) perhaps come up with reasons why the Liefeld haters SHOULD like Liefeld's art? I personally believe that he:

- Does not know how to tell a story. Each panel is a pin-up unto-itself. His lack of a spectrum for facial expressions kind of plays into this. One of the TT preview pages has EVERY SINGLE FACIAL EXPRESSION ON THE PAGE THE EXACT SAME FOR EVERY CHARACTER!!!???? Regardless of what they're feeling or doing, they all had the same expression.

- Anatomically his work is just plain horrid. I realize that in comics, anatomy needs to be exagerrated and every artist has their own unique "style" but his anatomy isn't exagerrated...IT IS WRONG. There is a BIG difference. Oh, and where did he learn how to foreshorten anatomy? Because he sure doesn't know how to properly.

- You knew I was going to say it...LACK OF BACKGROUNDS. The only good thing coming out of this is that colorists that color his stuff get a real workout in Photoshop. With the lack of backgrounds, atmosphere and mood are not created and the story just seems bored or static.

There. That's all I want to say right now. I'm not trying to start an argument, I'm just stating my opinions. I'd like to hear some opinions FOR Liefeld's art just so I know what actually attracts people to it. Ugh, I'm gonna have to go look at some Neal Adams art to get the Liefeld art out of my head now...."

:: mutanthunter77

Posts: 1 Registered: 8/1/05 Click to reply to this topic "Rob never quite got light source down in all these years. Even some of the really bad artists got that down. When you look at his stuff its all flat, he dosent know how to use blacks or where to put them. Thats pretty telling of his level as an artist as far as im concerned."

Darklight

I dance for the Japanese man Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 558 Default

"damn no place to write about how much we think Liefeld sucks!!!!!!!!!!!!!! on that page that I can find anyway.. oh well...."

FusionState

Wonder Twin Wannabe FusionState's Avatar Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5

"Talking Rob Liefeld Sucks gallery Official Rob Liefeld Sucks gallery - post your favorite lame picture That Rob turded out - Rob Liefeld's poor use of page space, Rob Liefeld's sorry excuse for anatomy, Rob Liefeld's awkward and contrived forced poses, Rob Liefeld's horrible storytelling ability, Rob Liefeld's arbitrary and frivolous crosshatching, Rob Liefeld's innate ability to make 80's costumes, Rob Liefelds plagiarism's - Rob Liefelds horrible feet and small hands, If You got it, post it here. And do your best to explain away his fumbling mistakes and mentally challenged reasoning.

Ill start it off with a few of my own superb Liefeld doodoo's"

TelepathyCrimewave

Age: 27 Joined: 17 Jul 2005 Posts: 94 Status: Online PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:01 pm Post subject: Rob who ? i thought he died ..

"anything comic related with Rob Liefeld's name on it can be used to line my garbage can or be orgami'd into a barf bag for boat and airplane trips - so indirectly.. it is rather handy ! thanks for pointing these out [Smile]"

CrackMonkey

Dark Knight Joined: 04 Mar 2005 Posts: 459 Status: Offline

"ROFLMAO. I remember seeing the first two pages somewhere, but I didn't realize the context. What the hell is Rob smoking? I think the strain of trying to come up with a single original idea has finally caused him to snap."

Jack Spencer Jr

Underling Joined: 06 Jul 2005 Posts: 37 Status: Offline

[Rob Liefeld wrote: "Then in 2002 Jim Lee joined the best selling Batman scribe of his era in Jeph Loeb and the two of them created "Hush" and reminded everyone how much they liked pretty pictures to go along with their well crafted stories. ..."]

"Of course, that's where your arguement falls down, Rob. You need a well crafted story or else you're just drawing pin-ups. It's like the old movie saying "There should be a movie in the rough cut. You should be able to follow the story just from the artist's rough pencils. We can't really do that with your stuff. You're drawing posters too much."

Velocity

Underling Joined: 28 Jul 2005 Posts: 29 Status: Offline

"This is proof that Liefeld has gone insane, right? I mean, we can get him tossed into the nut house with this as our evidence, can't we?"

Sleestak

Suspended in Gaffa Joined: 02 Oct 2004 Posts: 3517 Status: Offline

"For art technically as bad as liefeld check out Hulk: Destruction, He's definately Rob influenced. The bad persepctive, missing limbs, poor anatomy, the heads and distended necks with body off panel makes the characters look like they are bent at the waist and peering around a corner. Ugh, awful. Poor PAD."

ironian

Daredevil Age: 34 Joined: 23 Mar 2005 Posts: 113 Location: Manila Status: Offline

"Hahaha, I'm a Roman Catholic and I know this thing would offend a lot of Catholics. But since it's by Liefeld, I just can't find it in me to take it seriously.

Of course I know I should be worried how it will affect other people's perception of Catholicism, but I honestly cannot think any lower of Rob Liefeld. I mean, he's always been and always will be, pathetic. He's just trying his best to shock people.

Rob, if you really want to make an impression, please learn to draw better. That's all we ask. Then we'll respect you."

The Wraith

Dread Avenger Veteran User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 7,258

Quote: Originally Posted by CrimsonLine Rob Liefield is still alive?

"Yes, unfortunately. I kid, but thankfully his career is in the toilet now."

shows just how "popular" he is at the conventions - given the reality of rampant Rob Liefeld bash threads vs anything good about him guess my opinion is fairly unanimous afterall

---

The Lonesome Liefeld thread i mentioned earlier

gl0tch Youngblood

Age: 25 Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:52 am Post subject: Lonesome Liefeld @ ComicCon

OK I just got back from the SanDiego Comic Con (my feet are hurting!) I had this moment of revelation while doing the rounds... I saw Rob Liefeld and couldn't help but wonder what was up with this guy now!

To clarify...

I'm 25 and was REALLY into comics from like 1988-1995, then I backed out until recently. With the availibity of certain titles online now, I've recently got back into them. Given that and the fact that I am walking distance from The Con, I figured I would check it out.

So....

I saw all the old heads, now doing their own thing. Noticed there is MUCH more respect to indie comics now (due to online presence?) and saw the unbeliveable - Rob Liefeld at a small booth with NO ONE there in line (contrast that with the 50+ people at the Top Cow booth) and he had a large, unbought stack of all this comic art he did, being sold for mediocre prices at best. For me, this was shocking. Consider that until about a month ago, the last time I heard Mr. Liefeld's name he was unveiling a character called Supreme and found himself at the top of (a rather questionable) world I never understood. I guess I should say I never was a particular big fan of his, but I def. knew what he was up to back then. But now, wtf? YoundBlood is still around it seems, but it still looks like crap as usual. He has something to do with J.LO but I have no clue what that is about. So Mr Liefeld is a millionare like Lee, Silvestri, and McFarlane right? Thats funny, b/c today he was just sitting there by himself doing recognizably horrible drawings in his classic Liefeld style and everyone was walking by him like they didn't give a crap !...So what really happened to this man, his career, and his rep? Can someone tell me about how he really fell from a "grace" that I for one never understood in the first place?

I hear of him being ostricized and all this other stuff, but can someone really tell me what happened? I've read both the "i hate liefeld" posts, but they dont seem to clarify. Can someone fill in the blanks for me with Image, the split, Rob's new founded status, and the state of the industry since like '96? (that could be asking a lot, but jeez, that doesn't seem that long ago... I MUST be getting old)

Regardless, from my walk around Comic Con today, although I have been relatively absent from comics over the past several years or so, its obvious to me that Manga and things like the Internet (and its p2p capabilities), increased image-editing software technologies, gaming, and vinyl toys are changing the industry from here on. I guess it was bound to happen.

Strange times, but best regards to each of you always!

gl0tch

---

Soul DraZtic

OverLord Age: 17 Joined: 11 Apr 2004 Posts: 526 Status: Offline

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:58 am Post subject: Reply with quote Report this post to Moderator/Admin.

"well i only got into comics like a year ago but i gotta say....hes got some really horrible art...like it just plain horrible

especially his new stuff for teen titans....nothing looks right...and he does know there all still in school"

Roast Beef

OverLord Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 523 PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:00 am

"Should this lonely Liefeld story tickle me? Because it does."

boohaha

Daredevil Joined: 04 Feb 2005 Posts: 104 Status: Offline

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:32 am "My favorite part was under the trivia section where it says Liefeld edited his own wikipedia entry to fix his birthday and stuff and he misspelled his hometown."

DarthInsinuate

Four Star Cynic Age: 13 Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 398 Status: Offline

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:04 am "the Captain America picture still makes me laugh out loud everytime i see it"

hito

Age: 23 Joined: 18 Aug 2004 Posts: 1799

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 9:28 pm "This is sad. Although I don't like his artwork at all, I would ask him an autograph"

DarthInsinuate

Four Star Cynic Age: 13 Joined: 14 Oct 2004 Posts: 398

Location: Arkham Asylum papuanewguinea.gif

Status: Offline PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:45 pm "sympathy autographs are even more hurtful, it just confirms no one likes him"

FelixTheCatt

Daredevil Age: 34 Joined: 08 Apr 2004 Posts: 122 PostPosted: Wed Jul 20, 2005 1:32 am Post subject:

"I wouldn't have been able to resist walking up and handing Rob one of those "draw Zippy" pamplets and having a laugh. [Laughing]"

---

This was just a smidgen of what exists out there on Rob Liefeld with reader opinions about him. So clearly i'm not alone in my opinion as i made abundantly clear above - btw this source exists on the net - feel free to google any of the above lines and youll find where it came from. B_Navarro --User:24.23.221.xxx 16:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

{personal attack removed) The dozens of recent posts you cite about Liefeld, derisive (and often subliterate) as they are, mostly prove how far wrong you are when you insist that Liefeld isn't prominent any more. Just the amount of negative posting about him pretty much proves he's prominent.

You had a chance to participate in the consensue process on the intro text, and you didn't. Stop inserting your POV comments into the consensus intro. Read the guideline on NPOV; even if you're right about which opinion is in the majority, it's still an opinion, not to be reported as fact. And cite/link your sources; nobody here is going to hunt down your sources when you won't provide useful IDs for them. Start conforming to policy about accurate edit summaries, marked reverts, etc. Or you'll get banned again. N. Caligon 19:47, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Please adhere to Wikipedia:No personal attacks regardless of whether or not you feel you have been provoked. Gamaliel 19:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There wasn't any personal attack intended there; there was a reference to a joke in "Cheers," and I explicitly referenced the source. For someone, as the semi-anonymous editor here does, to argue that someone is not "prominent" by providing an interminable list of public comments about him is so obviously an exercise in self-contradiction that I see no explanations but out-and-out trolling, acute subliteracy, or abject stupidity. Would you have preferred that phrasing to the Rebecca Howe joke? N. Caligon 22:16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you are speaking of when you say someone got banned. I have never been "banned" from Wikipedia as i've never broken any rules. You however, admitting to "weasling" lines in, then having a personal attack removed by an admin in your statements, seem well on your way. The above suggests nothing of Liefeld being prominent, in fact if you had read it, many are humored by the fact he isnt working very often at all anymore. The only groundswell of protest being when he is given the infrequent job or two. Additionally i would have thought the last story by the kid at the San Diego ComicCon witnessing what he perceived as a "lonely Liefeld" booth next to the many "buzzing" and full booths, would have been convincing. Saying Rob is prominent is POV, bias, baseless and unsubstantiated. You have not demonstrated that being a consensus, yet i have demonstrated the opposite. B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 21:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

You've demonstrated nothing except your own lack of honesty. You posted a batch of messages from semi-literate posters who share your poorly informed opinions and left out the messages in the same threads that disagree with your opinions. No wonder you didn't provide any links. Here's one that shows what you've done:

http://www.comicbloc.com/forums/search.php?searchid=25460

Pretending that opinions other than your own don't exist doesn't make them go away, and claiming here that they don't exist, when they're easy enough to track down, is obvious trolling. The bit about "no supporter topic titles" was deliberately deceptive, since if you actually read,for example, the "who allowed Liefeld" thread, 25-33% of the posters are pro-Liefeld. As for the "personal attack," the fact that one hunorless admin didn't like a joke I told just shows somebody was having a bad day. I'm not one for the false "civility" that says when you catch somebody telling lies, it's wrong to say he's lying. As here. N. Caligon 03:19, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

You claimed that it was solely my opinion he was no longer prominent, suggesting it was only me that felt this way with no evidence of such. I then showed you I was far from alone with the majority of any topic discussing him being anti-Liefeld, including examples of people either laughing that he isn’t working or wondering where he’s been. Are you following? This denotes not being prominent. Your ensuing response consisting of attacking grammatical errors, and some frustrated personal attack that was removed shows your inability to deal with that truth, electing instead..to digress and sling mud. I'm sure there are a few Liefeld fans left, I never claimed there weren’t. And i'm also sure that they are easy to please and have a low standard for what comic artwork should look like. Anyone with a trained eye would tell you Liefeld's artwork lacks dimension and volume. It is flat, carries no evidence of a light source. Additionally Liefeld's story telling is infamously weak. He is only able to conjure images for simple, straightforward action poses, as all of his work to date shows. Even in comparison to many independent title artists. This is why the majority dislike Liefeld and talk of his art spurns so much of the familiar criticism associated with him and his body of work. I recognize this like every other seasoned comic reader, and am additionally more qualified than you in saying it because I carry a BFA (Fine Arts) from one of the better colleges on the west coast, and refused an offer to go pro while illlustrating comic book work when i was 21 (had planned on going pro but wanted to work on speed, my page rate was slower at the time). Even my doodles now look better than his work and I have no aim to get into the biz anymore (making more money at my current job than I would in comics). If you’d like to see my comic related sketches I can link you, just ask. That wasn’t what I was trying to get across when I posted the various results of popular comic fan forum threads that even bother to discuss him. The argument is claiming Liefeld is a prominent artist within the field today. This should be easily answered no using common sense, even to you. For whatever reason you decided to crawl into the proverbial hole of denial so I elected to show you with posts like the Lonesome Liefeld @ ComicCon. How you react to these realities is up to you. B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 05:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you tell the truth instead of making things up? You said "Ask anyone that one, the answer is unanimous." I didn't say the point was solely your opinion, I said "it's so clearly not a unanimous opinion that you can't advance a claim like yours in good faith." You responded by by posting a huge pile of semi-literate posts with all the opinions that disagreed with you cut out and insisted it proved a consensus. And now you're whining at ridiculous length since you're caught in your distortions. It's not a unanimous opinion; it's disputed, and you admit it's no better than a "majority opinion." A minority isn't unanimous; there are at least 2 POVs, and neither one should be written into the article. Read the NPOV guidelines and follow them. Since you now acknowledge it's a 2-sided argument, you should have removed your changes on your own. N. Caligon 05:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

When will you stop posturing and leave your perpetual state of denial? I did write "the answer is unanimous" to Liefeld not being prominent within the industry today. That is a given. Not my "claim to advance in good faith". When I wrote "ask anyone", I literally meant that. Go make a post somewhere and ask if Rob Liefeld is a prominent figure within the industry today. You and I both know what the answer is, since you obviously saw how ridiculous that statement was and changed it to "was a prominent figure". Using your own litmus and distinction for what determines personal opinion vs consensus, one is lead to wonder why then you chose to alter the statements "although briefly a star in the 1990's" to be "although briefly but undeniably a star in the 1990's", since of course that is debatable from the standpoint of early Image comics critics, and carries a 2-sided argument to resolve. The overall feeling and idea conveyed here should reflect the truth. And that truth is closer to the original statements that gave the correct perception that he was a star in the 90's, now he is outcasted, disliked by many, and not working much anymore. The way you are maneuvering it to sound is that he is still popular to some degree. This is not the case. Having a few old loyalist fans doesn’t make him "popular". Especially since those few fans he does have don’t represent the typical true core demographic of seasoned readers; as the forums show them at odds with the majority. And as we know, popular is defined as 'suitable to the majority'. Wizard’s top 10 hottest artists haven’t featured Rob in a decade that should tell you something about his popularity. Please stop coloring Rob to be something he is not. With regards to the general perception of Rob in this article, majority might not be unanimous, but it is still majority. Tell things as they are, not as you inaccurately perceive them to be. There is a saying that comes to mind here, "you can't polish a turd". B_Navarro --User:24.23.221.xxx 17:22, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Read and follow the NPOV policy or shut up and go away. It is inappropriate to write what you believe to be a majority opinion into an article as fact. And stop making up the history of the article; I didn't insert the language about Liefeld being "undeniably" a superstar; I toned it down from its original form. I removed your change because the section was put up for discussion and had consensus. Nor did I change the text to read "was a prominent figure"; you did that. Saying I was responsible for changes you made is pretty strong evidence that you're still trolling. N. Caligon 22:06, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to stay to keep your misinterpretations in check. I'm sure you’d like the only one left to challenge your daily attempts to skew the truth to your liking to "shut up and go away". The fact is Liefeld is not prominent or popular anymore. This isn’t just a majority opinion, it is fact. When debating something as subjective as a modern day comic book artist’s careers, there is too little source material to work with as much of it is (as I mentioned)'subjective'. What we're left with is majority opinion, and personal observation. This is how the "facts" of Rob's career were put together on this page to begin with. Fortunately both the minority and majority can agree that Liefeld is neither prominent nor popular anymore. Professional writers and columnists lend as much credence to the "facts" we know about Liefeld's sordid career as the readers polls do. They to pointed to a virtual freefall for most of the reasons outlined in the article. And if you want to play little kiddy games pretending you didn’t change "was a superstar" to "was undeniably a superstar" fine, just understand that I have a copy of the original. So, before you trample over the article again with clumsy attempts to "sweeten" it up where there is no logical substantiated reason to do so, understand that the moderates (like myself) are policing this article with an unbiased, straight-line, fact based, truth driven motive to see it written appropriately and keep it that way.B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 00:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

In other words, you don't want to comply with the NPOV guidelines and demand that the article reflect your opinion about Liefeld's current stature in the industry. Comply with the NPOV guidelines, or shut up and go away. And stop lying about the history of the text. Reversing your still-unexplained deletions from the consensus text worked out while the page was protected is not, as you claim, inserting new text reflecting my opinions. N. Caligon 01:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Rob made it hard on himself for others to tell his story within a positive context without actually lying. That said, the best possible "neutral" summary is the one in the article that exists now. When I stated my motive was "unbiased, straight-line, fact based, truth driven" did a maligned interpretive ability lead you to believe that meant I did not want to comply with the NPOV guidelines? An unbiased review of Rob Liefeld's career in comics would paint a picture of a man that started well but finished in last place, inciting his own downfall. That is to say by NPOV standard, taking a neutral stance would be to point out that he at one point was popular, but because of his own choices, habits, and inabilities, essentially broke himself. There is no light at the end of this tunnel as Rob has yet (if ever) to create it. Because of the industry depression following events he “dominoed”, many people point to him as the man who almost single handedly killed comics. How do you tell that story putting positive spin on it without making incredulous claims, which on their face are laughable at best. There is undisputable evidence of him being the catalyst for several trends that resulted in industry wide revolutions to avoid a repeat of anything even remotely similar to what he did in all aspects. Essentially one would need to fabricate things and spin events to place him in a light he made sure not to be in. Thus a true "neutral view here is to show outline and map the course of his actions and subsequent events that unfolded and the reactions it spurned throughout the industry. That unfortunately for Rob, isn’t the best picture. But it’s the “neutral” truth. B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 06:27, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You say, over and over, that the article should present the "majority opinion" even those multiple opinions exist. That contradicts the NPOV guidelines, which are explicit on this point (to say nothing of the probably of settling on exactly what the majority opinion is). Your presentation of the "neutral view" is so far from NPOV as to make your comments ludicrous if not overtly malicious. N. Caligon 18:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I merely pointed out what the majority opinion was. I did not say article should or should not "present" it. You seem to want me to contradict the NPOV guidelines while i want to stay neutral and follow the NPOV. Since you dodge all of my questions, ignore all of my suggestions, and repeatedly digress to something that isn’t happening or is not productive, I’ll only continue to post to report what I do and why I do it, while adhering to the NPOV. Btw - the extra edit you reported was a grammer edit. If they keep logs they can see for themselves. If the admins dont want their page to read correctly, i can stop looking for those. B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 19:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Your comment regarding your reversions is false, as anyone who checks out the 3RR section of the noticeboard can determine. Since you are willing to make false claims on such an indisputable point, there is no point in continuing any substantive argument. You are simply a vandal and a troll. N. Caligon 21:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

To be noted by the admins - User Caligon hopes to derail my studied explanations, shift the spotlight to me with name-calling so he can do exactly what it is he is falsely accusing me of doing. Additionally he has shown an increasing irrational desire to radically alter the original text. Caligon seems so intent on winning arguments with me in the discussion, he is demonstrating a willingness to abandon reason and policy, and rewrite the entire article intro in a personal viewpoint that has changed profoundly since his first edits; with no explanation to the changes he made or any substantial evidence as cause to do so. This immature position of his to make new radical public alterations with no other motive but to spite me, is reckless and irresponsible. I have since reverted back to the original intro with the minor neutral edits I was able to explain and justify. This is my second edit of the day.B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 22:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You are now arguing with the history page for the article about your revision history, not me. As for the rest, you are simply making things up to amuse yourself and disrupt Wikipedia. N. Caligon 16:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

N. Caligon is being very fair and completely sticking to the rules in reguards to this article. B_Navarro should stop vandalizing.--Timrock 14:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

What exactly was it that you thought I was "vandalizing"? N. Caligon has yet to justify or substantiate any of his dramatic changes. That is hardly "fair". B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 00:20, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

My "dramatic changes" are either consensus revisions identified during page protection or the pre-existing text, for the most part. "B_Navarro" is simply a dishonest troll taking advantage of administrator fatigue. N. Caligon 01:51, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately for N. Caligon's claims, none of the exhaustive research ive done is dishonest or bias. It's available to anyone when googling Liefelds' name. As for calling Liefled "prominent" that is simply not the case. Not even Jim Lee's page at Wikipedia calls Mr. Lee "prominent". Yet Mr. Lee is arguably the most popular comic book artist working today. Rob Liefeld hasnt worked on a steady title for years, and as the 'Lonley Liefeld@Comic Con thread explained, he was essentially completely neglected at the San Diego Comic Con. Which then further underscores my point that to even suggest Liefeld is or was prominent is misleading and to those in the loop, completely absurd. To call Liefeld "prominent" is awkawrdly forcing his introduction to appear "neutral" using a lie. Anyone that knows anything about comics, that happened to see the Wikipedia Liefeld page would think Wikipedia comic section editors uninformed. B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 07:25, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes. 30,000+ Google hits for someone proves they cannot be prominent. In comparison, Brian Bendis has only 20,000+, Dan DiDio 11,000+, Dick Giordano 26,000+, and Marc Silvestri 26,000+. And, once again, you are deliberately misstating what I have said before. N. Caligon 15:18, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Only 30,000 for Liefeld? Jim Lee was at 15,100,000 and still isn’t called "prominent" on his Wikipedia page and his original art is still extremely rare and very expensive compared to endless amount of unpurchased lower priced Liefeld work. N. Caligon really should stop editing the introduction if his grasp of the industry is going to be so dated. Brian Michael Bendis had 148,000 when I checked Google just now. Dick Giordano is more known for his inking than penciling and is a Dinosaur in the comic book industry. Even still I came up with 158,000 for him on Goggle Just now. N. Caligon should start using truth instead of imagination if he is to be allowed to freely edit on Wikipedia. B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 21:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Learn to use proper syntax when searching google. Your 15+ million hits number is pages including "jim" and "lee", separately or together, not "jim lee". Using your botched techniques, Paul Smith, 30+ million, is the most popular comics artist of all. Any search that shows a comic book artist with more hits than Stephen King (14 million) is obviously fouled up. Didn't all those links to mystery novelist James Lee "Jim" Burke clue you in that something was wrong? Or did you just not care? I'm betting on the latter, since you're just a troll with no regard for accuracy. N. Caligon 04:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In addition to the unsubstantiated claims, wild incredulous and radical editing, and general bias, clearly hypocrisy is not beyond N. Caligon either as the Rob Liefeld search brings up "30,000+" on the name Rob, but not Rob Liefled. Suddenly N.Caligon is a stickler for accuracy when he has yet to prove or even closely justify any of his contaminated misinformation’s to date. That's what makes his double standard search criteria that much funnier in the "supposed" Rob Liefeld + 30,000 hits is actually for the name Rob alone, not Rob Liefeld. Not only has he yet to provide anything remotely close to source material backing his bias wild imaginative claims, but the one time he points to numbers referencing the so called "prominence" of Rob Liefeld, it ends up only being for the name Rob (as Google underlined). Good work N. Caligon, had I known him to be such a natural sleuth, I would have brought in Inspector Gadget to help solve this one. B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 04:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

You're a liar.

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=%22rob+liefeld%22&btnG=Google+Search

N. Caligon 05:53, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

N. Caligon had already lost all credibility when he admitted to "weaseling lines in" (as he put it) when he started his vandalism after the lock out ended. Assuming that we're all to ignore that Rob Liefeld the college Professor of Physics, or Rob Liefeld the musician, or god knows how many other Rob Liefeld's there are; would the 30,000 hits on Google make Mr.Liefeld a "prominent" figure within the industry? 30,000 for the guy that almost killed comics is pretty low considering. If people use the link N. Caligon provided, they’ll see for themselves a number of threads discussing how "Liefeld is forgotten", or "where is Liefeld", "Liefeld Jobless", these topics and discussions denote a low profile and an artist faded from the public view. Couple that fact with Rob not working on steadily on any regular leading titles for a great deal of time, or even having appeared in Wizards top 10 list for over a decade. Well even a "sleuth" of N. Caligon's caliber can deduce the obvious: Liefeld is anything but prominent. Which would then make N. Caligon appear the liar, after all he's stooped to do so far, is that really a stretch? B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 23:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he's disappeared from the public consciousness. Everybody's talking about that.

"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

And you lied about the search, got caught, and are squealing like a pig in heat. The issue isn't "how prominent is Rob Liefeld?" That's a disputed question, and you insist on inserting your own limited, rather twisted POV as though it were factual. N. Caligon 00:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

After all of N.Caligon's radical unsubstantiated claims, miscalculations, fumblings and blunderings, I’m not surprised to see him start a sentence with the conjunction "And"(presumably out of frustration). I guess I was supposed to be bothered that someone as incredulous as N.Caligon slang grade school barbs and made shameless attempts to project his inability to be truthful. If it's any consolation, I am amused that N. Caligon is still writing to me after I ended direct discussion with him after he repeatedly ignored the research I provided. To date N. Caligon's only proof for Liefeld's "prominence" is that he came up with Liefeld's name 30,000 times on Google. In this line of thinking I could come up with scores of Hollywood has-been's that generate more hits; such is the flaw in this method. I on the other hand actually pointed to countless others discussion about Liefeld himself, his unarguable state of stagnation within the industry today, his neglected presence at the last San Diego ComicCon and the fact that Rob can barely find work anymore. It doesn’t take rocket science to see Rob Liefeld is as prominent today as a 90's 1-hit wonder. B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 01:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, those "countless" discussions about him prove his descent into public obscurity. Troll. N. Caligon 17:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Liefeld's presence wasn't neglected in San Diego, that article was written by another who wanted people to think he was washed up, when in fact his tables at all the cons this year have been quite crowded according to real reports. I really don't want to argue this point with someone who is so intent on making a guy he's never met look bad, he will ignore all facts and logic. Liefeld's comics still sell. X-Force (2005) remained in the top 20 until issue 4, and I'm sure his issues of Teen Titans will be big sellers this year. Honestly, B_Navarro why do you insist on hating Liefeld, he's just a man that draws comics. If you don't like his comics don't read them. He's not hurting you by doing what he does. Do you really have nothing better to do, like some pathetic troll?--Timrock 21:07, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hating or liking Liefeld was never an issue for me as i am impartial, and hopefully for Caligon that was long ago left out of this. I am out for the unbias truth, nothing more. As for Teen Titans, the fans have spoken (read above). Timrock is Liefeld for all i know, (or if not with a name like Timrock obviously a fanboy) so Timrock can't be trusted for any unbias comments; as such is the case i wont entertain his frustrated personal attacks with an answer as he clearly isn't deserving. - One more time for N. Caligon. The point (that was probably lost on you) in that line you missed was: countless discussions about "his unarguable state of stagnation within the industry today, his neglected presence at the last San Diego ComicCon, and the fact that Rob can barely find work anymore." - How does N. Caligon respond to forum posts such as these? (This article i feel epitomizes the present day perception of Liefled if any at all given by this unbias fan that took notice of Rob Liefeld's situation in camparison to how he used to see him, and is wondering what happened.)

---

gl0tch Age: 25 Joined: 24 Jun 2005 Posts: 12

PostPosted: Sun Jul 17, 2005 3:52 am Post subject: Lonesome Liefeld @ ComicCon

OK I just got back from the SanDiego Comic Con (my feet are hurting!) I had this moment of revelation while doing the rounds... I saw Rob Liefeld and couldn't help but wonder what was up with this guy now!

To clarify...

I'm 25 and was REALLY into comics from like 1988-1995, then I backed out until recently. With the availability of certain titles online now, I've recently got back into them. Given that and the fact that I am walking distance from The Con, I figured I would check it out.

So....

I saw all the old heads, now doing their own thing. Noticed there is MUCH more respect to indeed comics now (due to online presence?) and saw the unbelievable - Rob Liefeld at a small booth with NO ONE there in line (contrast that with the 50+ people at the Top Cow booth) and he had a large, unbought stack of all this comic art he did, being sold for mediocre prices at best. For me, this was shocking. Consider that until about a month ago, the last time I heard Mr. Liefeld's name he was unveiling a character called Supreme and found himself at the top of (a rather questionable) world I never understood. I guess I should say I never was a particular big fan of his, but I def. knew what he was up to back then. But now, wtf? YoundBlood is still around it seems, but it still looks like crap as usual. He has something to do with J.LO but I have no clue what that is about. So Mr. Liefeld is a millionaire like Lee, Silvestri, and McFarlane right? That’s funny, b/c today he was just sitting there by himself doing recognizably horrible drawings in his classic Liefeld style and everyone was walking by him like they didn't give a crap !...So what really happened to this man, his career, and his rep? Can someone tell me about how he really fell from a "grace" that I for one never understood in the first place?

I hear of him being ostracized and all this other stuff, but can someone really tell me what happened? I've read both the "I hate liefeld" posts, but they don’t seem to clarify. Can someone fill in the blanks for me with Image, the split, Rob's new founded status, and the state of the industry since like '96? (that could be asking a lot, but jeez, that doesn't seem that long ago... I MUST be getting old)

Regardless, from my walk around Comic Con today, although I have been relatively absent from comics over the past several years or so, its obvious to me that Manga and things like the Internet (and its p2p capabilities), increased image-editing software technologies, gaming, and vinyl toys are changing the industry from here on. I guess it was bound to happen.

Strange times, but best regards to each of you always!

gl0tch

---

How does N. Caligon respond to forum posts such as these? Simple.. he ignores them, and worse decides Liefeld is subsequently "prominent". Instead of facing specific evidence such as this, N. Caligon relies on broad sweeping blanket generalizations based on his own flawed methods to decide Liefeld is prominent. N. Caligon's "evidence of Liefelds "prominence" conflicts with every known reality out there. One of the more specific examples outlined above where the reality of things in stark contrast to Caligon's imaginary claims.B_Navarro --User:24.23.221.xxx 21:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

My name Timrock comes from my name Tim and Rock from the wrestler/actor the Rock thank you very much. I am a fan but I am very capable of making unbiased comments. You on the other hand are only forcing your own personal point of view on this article over and over and over despite the popular consenses that you're wrong. I've seen Liefeld at several conventions his table while he was there was always full and there was lines that lasted all day just to get an autograph or sketch. the Lonely Liefeld article was probably written to make him look bad, by someone who can't stand the fact that people like Liefeld's work, such as yourself.--Timrock 01:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus here except for the general gist of the article which was decided long ago. There are now two people debating small details, and you the Liefeld fan. If you read up to the top you’ll see N. Caligon (like me and everyone else) knows Rob's career is in the dumps, that part is no mystery. He did that to himself. Haters or loyalists have no influence on that. When Peter David and Wizard price guide (among others) start writing articles about how you're fast becoming the most hated man in comics, that’s fairly telling of what you’ve done to yourself and how the industry perceives you. The original article (as shown now) written by people other than me shows that. Additionally you mentioned people liking Rob's work; some do yes. Some people like obscure wrestling midget movies too but that dosent make it "consensus". As reported by Wizard virtually the entire industry disagree's with Liefeld's personal and professional decisions and dislike his artwork. How do you think this article was written to begin with? People donet pull that idea from thin air. You trolling over from the oft neglected Liefeld forums doesn’t change the fact that 95% of the topics discussing Liefeld are about how bad he is or what poor decisions he's made (many of those Liefeld topic posts shown above within the discussions). The unsubstantiated claims you make aren't even where the article started way before i got here, that's how far off you are. If you can't keep up, best just to keep out.B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 18:35, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

YOUR claims are unsubstantianted Oh, and Mr. Liefeld has two Teen Titans issues comming in 2 weeks, explain to me how someone so disagreed with and hated is working on such a well received title? or how he got a 6 issue mini with X-force last year? he's still a prominent figure and you are nothing but a troll.--Timrock 20:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL!!An admitted Liefeld fan calling someone ELSE a troll in what is supposed to be a neutral point of view debate. I don't think i've ever seen quite a glaring contradiction or clearer case of someone shooting themselves in the foot. That IS funny, thank you for the laughs.

Yeah the DC fans seem to be taking that 2 issue sympathy job for Rob well:

---

DC Boards:

topic - Screw the Crisis--it's Rob Liefeld we have to worry about!

Author thecrowing

topic - ok..who allowed Rob Liefeld to draw TT ?

Author psiknife

---

Don't see any topics happy that Liefeld is on for 2 issues, but i did see these two rather popular threads posting alot of objections to him working on them. Maybe that's why hes only on for 2 issues eh? Which claims of mine and how are they unsubstantiated? What did you think all of those source citings were for the past hundred paragraphs?B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 00:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

reguardless of what DC board members think Liefeld is still making high profile comics, yours and other people opinions don't matter on this article. your point of view is hardly fact or consenses and far from neutral. please stop trolling. get a life.

I think you meant to maybe type "regardless" and "consensus". If you end a sentence with a period you should start with a capitol. As for the rest of your weird fanboy trolling drivel, I can only speak on what I read from major sources. None of my POV is inserted here, only observations from existing material. I can show you the sources that describe all of this if you are in a bubble or living in a cave and somehow missed major comic news for the past ten years. The truth is what everyone is after, and that comes from impartial observation and existing source material from most professionals that can ill afford to be bias. In that regard, people’s opinions do matter or else nothing would ever be written. My advice to you is if you don't like what everyone is writing about your favorite artist, question the artist not the collective of impartial observers. B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 07:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I want to add that I’m so appalled that Sasquatch (given his authority) would revert my thoroughly studied and substantiated edits back to Timrock's bias version especially given that Timrock initially wrote "I am a (Liefeld) fan" and "yours and other people opinions don't matter on this article" that i've decided to report this; as the articles accuracy is now so far degraded that it looks as if Liefeld is a prominent superstar. Liefeld was never "prominent"

Out of all your tirades, this must rank as the most ludicrous comment so far, and is a clear demonstration of your intent to troll rather than edit. N. Caligon 17:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

and is not today, this is not debatable it is laughably widely known. I'm halfway tempted to go call in the comic forum fans to express how absolutely inaccurate that statement is and I just may at that. The article now is absurd. I've tried my best to help keep it accurate on neutral ground while a Liefeld fan and N.Caligon force statements in a contrived attempt to keep it "neutral". N. Calligon's added lines simply are not substantiated and are farther from the truth than my edits. N. Caligon called in a friend for help editing so that they could monopolize the article and make my 3 edit limit face their combined six,

I called in no one. You are simply fabricating things again. N. Caligon 17:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

while Sasquatch jumped on the bandwagon assisting in their collaborative distortion to impose the now ridiculous article. This article is now so far abstractly maligned and unfairly monopolized that it has become obligatory routine to glorify the widely condemed Liefled by the two others i tried to debate with. If I called everyone from the various comic forums on this issue (which I am close to doing now) this board would be hopping with fifty people reverting to my edits. This will be reported before I go that far.B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 09:49, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't care about the opinions of board members. I want to stick to the facts. You keep talking about what the board members are talking about, and how much they share your opinion. This article however should be based on neutral fact since you obviously hate Rob Liefeld you don't see that you haven't tried to debate anything, you've only tried to force your opinion and the collective opinion of your board member friends onto the article over and over. I mentioned myself as a fan and N. Caligon is not, but we've both agreed that the article that we have worked on is neutral, and only list the facts. Liefeld was and somewhat is still prominent, since you seem to deny it shows how one-sided your POV is. Also, your threat of starting an edit war also shows your bias and inability to debate in a civil manner.--Timrock 12:37, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

One little problem Timrock and N. Caligon, you are required to cite sources to call Liefeld prominent Wikipedia:Cite sources . Timrock claims to rely on fact, yet we have never seen him reveal the source for that "fact". Where then is the source for your claims that Liefled is still prominent? What evidence is there that "Liefeld (is) somewhat still prominent"? The problem here is that while i point to actual sources, the two of you both make claims that are supposed to stand on their own with nothing cited as to why you made that claim. To me you are both trolls because neither of you ever cite your sources as Wikipedia requires of its editors. PS. N. Caligon stop editing my discussion text.B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 22:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I have not changed or eliminated a word or punctuation mark in your comments. Stop your misrepresentations. N. Caligon 23:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Well if you've read the Cite sources article you would have come acrossed this:

"Just because a statement is referenced does not mean that it is appropriate or conveys an accurate impression. As implicitly described in the official NPOV policy, even if a citation is from a reputable source, it should provide the reader the gist of the research on a certain subject and not merely carefully selected or out-of-context quotes to support a certain point of view."--Timrock 23:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

So..where is your source?--B_Navarro User:24.23.221.xxx 23:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Well Liefeld has not only become one of comicdoms hottest creators, but was intrumental in forming Image Press, the hot new comic company." Wizard Magazine #10 June 1992 pg.112

Without him there probably wouldn't have been an Image comics. That shows prominence.--Timrock 23:25, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not Liefeld was a hot artist in 1992 was never contested. That is defined in the article. The Question was what is your source to make this statement ""Liefeld (is) somewhat still prominent" implying that he is still prominent today? The same Wizard Magazine you refrenced an article from in 1992 ran an article in 1996 splashing the words 'Shattered Image' across Rob's picture, in an article discussing his fallout with other Image creators, guess you conveniently missed that one. Here is a more direct, reliable and accurate cite that substantiates the reality that Rob is more staganant than prominent within the industry in this Silver Bullets Comic Books interview with Rob:

"Brandon Thomas: When your name is mentioned, it’s usually accompanied with the ominous “controversial” prefix attached. What do you think makes Rob Liefeld a “controversial” creator??

Rob Liefeld: I have no clue, although I’ve heard my fair share of theories over the years."

"Thomas: Your comic output has slowed to a crawl in the last several years. What have you been doing in the interim?? Still living off that Image money from the speculator age?? How does Rob Liefeld pay the bills??

Liefeld: I haven’t worked much really."

Thomas: You’ve had a few recent online disagreements with creators like Kurt Busiek and former comrade Dan Fraga. Is it aggravating that the advent of the internet allows fans and retailers from all walks of life to play witness to "differences" that would ordinarily remain private??

Liefeld: Actually, it’s more entertaining than anything else. I’m pretty bored from day to day, so I enjoy on-line sparring when it presents itself. It gives me something to do.

- Brandon Thomas Interview with Rob Liefeld Silver Bullet Comics Sep 2003 -

---

Can't debate it when it's from his own lips, Rob is far from hot, prominent or active anymore. The only time his name comes up is to reference his infamy and relation to a time when comics were at their worst.B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 00:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course, you edited out the introduction to that interview, as well as anything that contradicted your predetermined conclusion:

Rob Liefeld is the comics’ industry version of hip-hop mogul Sean “P. Diddy” Combs.

Just think about it. Both rose to prominence during the 90s, setting examples that, like it or not, heavily influenced what was classified as popular. Name recognition alone made hits and then, without warning…the pedestal collapsed under its own weight. The industries they once dominated changed direction, finding new paths and new styles that found little reliance on the creations and input of the “old guard,” which is often discarded when rolling with the new. But the strangest thing happened…they wouldn’t die. Despite controversy and criticism, they can still trigger a response within a great majority of their audience which snaps to attention when their names are mentioned. People claim to “hate” them…but they can’t ignore them.

Your own source said Liefeld was as "obscure" as P. Diddy. Games, set, match; end of discussion. N. Caligon 01:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I simply posted the interview, I never "edited out" anything. I took the relevant point directly as Timrock did from his 92 article. The (african american)interviewer's odd comparison's to P Diddy is his opinion, and irrelevant. The Fact that Liefled admitted to not working much anymore made my point : Thomas: "Your comic output has slowed to a crawl in the last several years. What have you been doing in the interim?? Still living off that Image money from the speculator age?? How does Rob Liefeld pay the bills??" Liefeld: "I haven’t worked much really." That coupled with the Wizard article 'Shattered Image', and the forum thread wondering why Liefeld was alone at the San Diego Comic Con make my point. End of story.--B_Navarro User:24.23.221. 01:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Your own source B_Navarro states: "Just think about it. Both rose to prominence during the 90s, setting examples that, like it or not, heavily influenced what was classified as popular."

The quote of Rob's, "I haven’t worked much really." was during a time when he wasn't doing much. Before he did Youngblood:Bloodsport, X-Force (2004) 1-6, X-Force: Shatterstar 1-4, Nitro-gen 1, and the upcomming Teen Titans issues. Hardly stagnant far from inactive. He is currently working in the industry.

The Wizard article 'Shattered Image' only shows more his prominence or else his departure from Image wouldn't have been such a big deal or story. The article about Liefeld being alone at San Diego, as I've said before was probably written by a detractor to make Rob sound unpopular for his own amusement. Rob Liefeld's own reply to the Lonesome Liefeld @ ComicCon article: "I'll be more than happy to respond to the vibe of this original thread. In short, San Diego was very successful, very, very busy. So much so that I'm still recovering."

End of discussion.

Mr "no-name" - Rob Liefeld's short run on two issues of Teen Titans is what DC would give to a green artist unfamiliar with deadlines or an otherwise prolific work schedule; or worse, has-been's on their way out. If you know anything about comics, two issues heavily protested by fans means the guy is lucky to be doing any work at all. Even the two issues he got were probably tough fought strings pulled by one of his last remaining supporters Gail Simonson as most would agree.

If 'Shattered Image' means 'popularity' to you, then i suggest you retake English 101.

The word prominent in the context it is used during the Wikipedia introduction can be misinterpreted by newcomers reading it. Where Liefeld is concerned, it should denote infamy, not popularity. To discredit an unbias observation from a convention-goer and then take Liefeld's cover up words as law, either shows your lack of ability to distinguish truth from fiction, or exposes the hidden bias Liefeld fan in you.B_Navarro--User:24.23.221.xxx 03:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop making things up. Teen Titans is, as of July 2005, DC's 4th-best-selling ongoing series, not a book the company's going to turn over to a "green artist" or a guy "lucky to be doing any work at all." And there's no "Gail Simonson" working in the comics industry. As for not editing anything out, how about editing this answer

I haven’t worked much really. As a matter of fact I didn’t do anything for about two years after my father passed away and during my wife’s first pregnancy. Mostly I’ve been enjoying my two boys and my wife and exploring other avenues of interest. I was fortunate to have saved plenty of the Image money. . . .

down to

I haven’t worked much really.

Rather different from your "explanation" of events. This one's over. Stick a fork in, you're done. N. Caligon 04:49, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

N. Caligon, our resident "champion of denial in the face of reality" swings and misses yet again. The fact that Liefeld's father passed away is irrelevant, the point was he wasn't working. Today if you call working on two issues of any title "prominent" you need to rethink your logic. As for Gail Simonson typo I was reading an X-Factor before writing this and somehow Walt's name was in my head, my apologies as I meant to type Gail Simone. The interview paste was no more planned than you yourself neglecting an include of the fact that Liefeld himself on his own board reveals in his FAQ Arcade thread :

WHY DOES ROB LIEFELD DO FREELANCE WORK INSTEAD OF ARCADE COMICS?

"The simple answer is that I feel I am taking advantage of what could possibly be my last opportunity to produce work for Marvel and DC and their treasury of characters."

"Let's face it, comics, like sports, is a young man's game and publisher's are fickle. One minute you are at the head of the pack, the next minute you are at the back of the line.

While I disagree with this excuse by him (many veterans are scorching hot in the game today), he again makes my point that he is not working that often anymore and has become old hat. How many times and in how many ways does Rob himself need to tell you that he isn't working much anymore and not by choice? *Hammers N. Caligon's final coffin nail home*--B Navarro 06:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Liefeld does not call himself an old hat, he mentioned that his previous reason for not doing much was by choice after the death of his father and to spend time with his kids. He is working currently and has since his 2003 interview. Youngblood:Bloodsport 1 and 2(bootleg edtion), X-Force 1-6(2004), Cable/Deadpool 1-4(covers) X-Force: Shatterstar 1-4, Nitro-gen 1, the upcomming Teen Titans issues, not to mention 3 sketchbooks and Youngblood Maximum edition.

Lets include the rest of Liefeld's answer to why he's doing freelance work instead of Arcade.

"I am taking advantage of the renewed interest in my work at this point in my career to complete a wish list of projects that I hoped to accomplish. Re-visiting X-FORCE and my current TEEN TITANS work fall into that category. Let's face it, most of us have long relationships with charaters from Marvel and DC and in my case, I'm hoping to fulfill lifelong dreams while I am still capable, have the available time and in prime comic conditioning. I was away from producing work for the big two publishers for a decade, I have some catching up to do before I lose myself in my own catalogue.

The Extreme catalogue of characters is beckoning to me and very soon I will exclusively produce work for my own imprint for a concentrated amount of time.

As always, Thank you for your continued support and encouragement."

Correct me if I'm wrong but he sounds like he still is doing comics and plans on continuing to do comics, and when he's done with Marvel and DC he plans on doing his own comics for a for a long time.

^Sure thing Rob, if going nowhere fast is something to aspire to, don't let us stand in your way.

If the above listed reader protest (In the beginging of Overwhelming Evidence), and the fact that Marvel and DC aren't hiring you on for anymore work wasn't enough to convince you that no one is buying your stuff, far be it from me to keep using reality as a crutch in my debate (lol). With all of the depth and originality circulating "indy" comics, i'm sure the underground scene can always use more shallow storylines and bad art. Afterall, it's important to do what you love, even if that means overstaying your welcome and looking awkward at the Con's.--B Navarro 23:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

That's your opinion thanks for sharing, he's still working and people are still buying his stuff. When Teen Titans comes out check the sales charts.--Timrock 00:37, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually the Overwhelming Evidence section (above) lists a sampling of many people that all feel the same way, sorry. --B Navarro 05:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry for you, because I could also make a sampling list of people who will buy the book. Your "evidence" means nothing because you only listed the comments that reflect your opinion. I'm not going to waste my time on this any longer.--Timrock 13:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, and as N. Caligon mentioned that was 80% of the threads opinion. 80% to 20% validates my points. BTW, i wasn't writing to you to begin with, if you can't keep up best just to stay out in the first place.--B Navarro 13:41, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I can keep up with the best but, I'm not up against the best. There is no argument. You've just admitted 80% of the threads opinion validates your points, which are your opinions. Opinion is not fact in case that slipped by you the first 500 times it was mentioned to you. Now how about what you're editing into the article. You insist on inserting that Liefeld has "few" remaining partisans. What is your definition of a few? 100? 1,000? A few to you might not be a few to the rest of the world. The term "few" is too subjective so remember that next time you revert back to your version. (I know you will, you always do again and again) Oh, and I seem to remember you knocking my grammar and punctuation. I know I don't go back and edit my text over and over again to correct errors like you do. A few things I'll point out to you from your last post though, "I" should be capitalized after your usage of the abbreviated "BTW" <-- also not proper english, and your whole sentence structure here: "BTW, i wasn't writing to you to begin with, if you can't keep up best just to stay out in the first place" could use a little work. It's just a waste of time talking to you because you're close-minded.

Oh, and one more thing, don't bother replying to me it will be a waste of your time because I won't even read it.--Timrock 16:59, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I care less if Timrock the bias fanboy in denial reads anything. He is already a self proclaimed Liefeld fan so can't be trusted for any neutral position. I've clearly substantiated all of my facts by citing sources. Rob has a few remaining loyalist fans yes. This is easy to deduce when you account for the online bombardment of protest vs. the few and far between sprinkle of support. For the first time I agree with N.Caligon in the fact that 80% of the threads even talking about him are anti-Liefeld, in many cases even more. As I've stated on countless occasion, I am indifferent, I only choose to not deny what anyone can see if they read. Timrock admitted to being a Liefeld fan, so by default admitted to being a Troll.--B Navarro 20:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)