Talk:Pat Lee (comics)

Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. --KenWalker | Talk 04:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I want you guys to understand this.

Now, it's not my edit, I'm restoring a previous edit that briefly, (and if you want to remove reference to "butt of jokes" things like that, I think that's fair) and I feel, nuetrally, point out the well documented issues surrounding this artist, including non payment of freelancers in his company (for which he has been sued, a matter of record) and not drawing his own pages (which again has been reported on reputable comic websites and I believe in the comics journal).

Part of the problem here is I think is that Pat Lee (rightfully so) has fans that don't like to see "ugly" facts about him. I can understand that. But the John Byrne listing has plenty of negative things to say about him, because it's part of the story.

These contraversies are well documented (in periodicals such as the Comics Journal, the only real legitimate comics news publication) and are part of what makes this person "notable".

I suspect that as fans, you want to protect his "reputation" but you have to also understand that this site is about fairness and that these contreversies are not being generated by whomever wrote those original edits (I assure you it wasn't me.)

And by trying to constantly hide them, you are drawing attention to how important you think they are.

I've submitted the matter to mediation. I will voluntarily stop restoring these edits if they opine that they are innappropriate. Everytime you try to remove them during this process, it will be reported, and the edits will be restored.

If you let it go for now, it will go a long way to making me feel that you are willing to be reasonable and disengage in and "edit war."

Plus, I'd like to add that there are lines of text that border on advertisement for services, which is not allowed under wikipedia.

Mediation

Hi, I received an unofficial request to mediate a dispute going on in this article. First off, mediation is a voluntary process, so if any of you don't want to go through mediation, let me know and I'll leave. Secondly, if for some reason you would prefer private (e-mail) mediation, let me know.

So, here is my attempt to summarise the dispute so far. Let me know if I get anything wrong. The disputed paragraphs are the following:

However, he is the subject of much criticism over his financial practices, especially surrounding the closure of Dreamwave, notable the failure to pay staff whilst items such as sports cars were exempt from debt collection agencies.

Also, his art-style, usually in regards to Transformers, came under fire from fans, and after the studio closed its doors, became the butt of many art-based jokes, or cynical takes on the Dreamwave closure episode, especially in light of the revelation that many of his art pages are being drawn by sub-contractors.

The concerns about including this are neutrality, verifiability, and that this is a biography of a living person. Others feel that this material is neutral. Is that correct?

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I believe those are the issues at hand. Aside from the jokes thing, which has been going on on various websites, but I'm not sure is appropriate for wikipedia, (or it may be), all the references to art practices and not paying off freelancers have been covered in the COmics Journal, which is the only reputable printed comics trade publication, including that bit about the porche.

His art being drawn by others has been verified by Comic Book Resources.com, with examples.

Okay, so in addition to what I listed, you are also concerned that some parts of this article may be biased in an overly positive way. Waiting for response from Bloodpack. Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 17:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to say concretely that I know what's in another users mind, but it seems clear to me at least that the reason to delete these edits and add things that are borderline advertisement, well...I mean...it certainly seems like an overt positive bias. 70.19.97.253 18:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Still waiting for a response from Bloodpack.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 19:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

okay, actually theres no problem to me if you guys place controversial topics about Pat Lee. First off, im not one of his crazy fans whos trying to protect his rep. If there are things he did wrong in the past, then by all means clearly elaborate each and specifically, but please bear in mind to put citations on these matter, like a link of THAT website (stating all these controversies) perhaps? My only point is, we should be careful on what we place here on wikipedia (infos), because there are people who use this site mainly for reference, and 99.9% theyll believe whats written in it. So again, at least give a LINK/FORMAL CITATION of the site stating these controversies, and not just plainly saying it "ITS WRITTEN EVERYWHERE," so it would not appear unfair for Pat Lee or to our fellow wikipedians. Also, i noticed that ended his bio with "TO DATE..." and then you followed it by "HOWEVER..." which seems kind of an "awkward placement" of these controversial infos (may be it should be put in the middle of the article? Cheers †Bloodpack† 12:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The issue is, Pat Lee's being sued for non-payment to freelancers, and the company going bankrupt is not a personal slight, but a matter of public record. It is covered briefly here: http://www.answers.com/topic/dreamwave-productions. The situatin was also covered at length in a 2006 issue of the comics Journal, which does not publish its artciles online, and of course, on Comicbookresoruces.com. When I get home from work, I will try to find a link to a more thourough online article. However, my understanding is that a trade magazine is a better source, so we can source that.

no prob, feel free to re-edit the article with proper placement of references once you have the citations †Bloodpack† 14:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think wanting references is the same as wanting to remove all negative information. Looking at the magazine would be good, but as far as internet resources go, the Dreamwave Productions article (which is what Answers.com copied from), has two relevant sources:

• Comicbook Resources - Dreamwave's financial debts
• Newsarama - "Dreamwave closes shop?"

I don't know whether you two consider these sources to be sufficiently reliable, at least with attribution. The first is marked with an "amber light" by the site's editor, meaning the editor doubts it somewhat. The second it from a forum, however the press release seems to have been published elsewhere, like by the Anime News Network.

So, please let me know if you think any of those internet sources, and Ughmonster's Comic journal, would be acceptable.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

thats good enough for me, feel free to incorporate these links to the article †Bloodpack† 16:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

They are at Talk:Pat Lee/Working. (Which, for the record, I am not endorsing, just suggesting.) But you might want to make other changes - moving the paragraphs somewhere into the middle of the article, possible rewording? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

yes yes, please by all means, im sorry but im kinda lazy right now †Bloodpack† 16:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Current edits into the preceding paragraph works for me and seems to defray a perceieved negative bias. I'm still a little concerned that the last sentence seems like a list of services, considering that his foray into clothing, for example, is not widely reported but sounds like blurb copy from Pat Lee's website. Appropriate? --Ughmonster 18:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it something that would sound better to you if you reworded it? Or do you want a reference for it? Or do you think that even with the "negative" information it still sounds like "advertising"? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 20:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I wrong to think that the last paragraph reads like a promotional brochure? Is that inappropriately worded? I'm asking. --Ughmonster 20:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

doesnt look like a promotional brochure to me. Just a plain statement of whats keeping him busy at the present moment aside from doing comic books. Besides, i dont see any words or item that he is promoting †Bloodpack† 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As a mediator, I can't tell you if you are wrong or right, although at least it doesn't look like Bloodpack intended it to be promotional. But can you think of any changes that could be made that would make it more acceptable to you, for example references or rewording? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 21:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Concluded?

So, just to check: are both of you happy with the article now? Do you still want a mediator? Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 02:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to put that stuff in its own paragraph just because it doesnt seem to go where it is now. --Ughmonster 03:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Waiting for response from Bloodpack.... Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 03:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

no prob †Bloodpack† 14:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Great! I'm glad you both seem to be happy. Also, please consider letting me know if this mediation was a positive or negative experience for you at a feedback page I recently created. Thanks! Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Armed

my problem with this is that it is very difficult to believe that anyone who has even a passing familiarity with comics over the past two to five years, especially someone whose wiki history inidicates a particlar interest in asian artists (and rightfully so) would be himself ignorant of the fact that dreamwave, pat lee's previous company, crashed, burned, went backrupt amid many allegations, was sued, and such general events. But maybe that's besides the point. --Ughmonster 14:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Making changes to the entry in sandbox, thoughts? --ConeyIslandBoy 02:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain the sandbox? --Ughmonster 02:03, 24 October

2006 (UTC)

Ughmonster may have a point but the edits seem fine now. --Mild Mannered 02:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit war?

It appears that someone keeps insisting on removing the vastly sourced section about the controversies surrounding Mr. Lee and his well-known (and sourced) past business practices entirely, and replacing them by very shallow, overtly positive resume details.--87.164.127.133 (talk) 21:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably Pat Lee himself, somebody that works for him, or a really sad fanboy of his. Lately they've been posting news about his recent activities on TF boards, after all. - FFN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.138.143.250 (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the IP address used by the latest vandal, which is located in Hong Hong (where Pat Lee is hiding out), it seems very apparent this is the "Transman" himself editing his article. --Hiryu84 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Could also be one of his Hong Kong-based fanboys. - FFN --144.138.143.84 (talk) 08:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it's someone he's not paying to do this.--87.164.88.215 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever it is, I'll make sure this article is POV-free †Bloodpack† 05:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

It made Rich Johnston's Lying in the Gutters: "Who is the mysterious 'Hyrocomics' user ID cleaning up Pat Lee's Wikipedia history and replacing his history of bankruptcy and dodgy dealing with one of success and admiration?". (Emperor (talk) 18:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but the article was purely POV. While controversies regarding the person of Pat Lee and his business practices do belong in the article, details such as "he bought a new apartment and a new Porsche" can't be simply stated as facts, especially when thwe single source of information is a biased gossip column. I changed the article accordingly, making sure that all sides of the debate are represented properly.--132.252.176.18 (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone can find more direct statements by former Dreamwave employees or freelancers that directly address the issue of Pat Lee's business practices, those can be cited in the article as long as they're credited to the person making those claims, and not stated as fact. If we have ten people saying "Pat Lee really ripped me off" complete with sources for those statements, that's a lot sharper than generalized, unsourced statements along the lines of "Pat Lee ripped of a few people and drove off in a shiny Porsche". Unsourced claims can be questioned, direct quotes speak for themselves (they can be questioned too, but the fact that those quotes actually exist can't).--87.164.104.135 (talk) 22:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaand now someone thinks the "controversies" section doesn't belong in the article at all as per WP:NPOV, WP:BLP and WP:MOS. This is beyond ridiculous. (what's even more ridiculous is that people enforcing those edits never seem to see the need to justify them on ther talk page, which I consider an extremely rude holier-than-thou attitude)--132.252.185.42 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Has it gotten to the point where perhaps these edit wars are notable enough to be included in the article? 142.167.171.151 (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Pat Lee Seems like this is the place to discuss the article now...--87.164.68.46 (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It's happened again... ARGH.--132.252.185.42 (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned up

I don't mind discussing it here. Let's start from the top:

• We don't do personal attacks.
• We use reliable sources. Rich Johnston's gossip column is not, and never has been a reliable source. I'm sorry if that seems unfair, but we don't use gossip columns as sources.
• The quote regarding Pat Lee stating he learned an invaluable skill: speed. What's that about? Why's that in the article? Why that quote out of all possible quotes available? And why presented in that way?
• Now you've got a quote about someone saying someone else made him draw some way but he refused. Is that related to Pat Lee or to Dreamwave? To me, that's related to Dreamwave, especially given there's a source who states it was Dreamwave house style. Sticking it in this article gives the illusion that it somehow came from Pat Lee when there is no direct source which states that is in fact an actual fact. Unless there is a reliable, secondary source which states unequivocally that Pat Lee made artists draw like him, you don't get to state it through insinuation. That's not how Wikipedia works. Sorry.
• Now you've got a bit about Adam Patyk and James McDonough and a lawsuit and a lot of weasel words like supposedly and allegedly and so on and so forth. Again, we don't do weasel words. Now, is this lawsuit against Pat Lee or against Dreamwave? Because that matters. Where was the lawsuit heard? Was it heard? What do we actually know? Not a lot.
• Next up you've got a bit about people who aren't so explicit on the issue, which is a very leading statement, breaching pov because you're taking sides on the issue by saying those that are explicit are the ones telling the whole of the issue.
• Next up you're saying Pat Lee has not addressed these issues. Why's that here. What are you trying to say? The problem you have here is that you have a whole lot of nothing. A company went bust owing people money. Happens every day. Was this Enron, and there's government investigations and a lot of reporting and a vast amount of secondary sources we can summarise per WP:PSTS, WP:V and WP:NOR to maintain a WP:NPOV? Or is this a whole lot of he said, she said, she didn't say? Are we synthesising a lot of primary source material to make a case that no reliable secondary source has made? If you want to rely on gossip sites and fan sites for your sourcing, that's fine. But our policies don't allow it. If the main point you wish to add to the article is that the company went bankrupt and a lot of creators were owed money, fair enough. But Wikipedia articles aren't hatchet jobs, they aren't places to air personal grievances and they aren't built on primary sources. Hiding T 09:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so you're even questioning the sources provided for the date of Dreamwave's launch and their separation from Image, because there is no "secondary" source reporting those? In that case, this article has no place on Wikipedia at all, since no scientific publications have seen fit to address the person of Pat Lee thus far.--132.252.185.42 (talk) 10:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. If the mountain of documents addressing the mountain of controversy surrounding this person is completely (and mightily conveniently) dismissible, then clearly there is nothing substantial to say about him at all. So let's delete the page. Clearly the only people who care about Pat Lee are the "fan-sites" whose contributions are apparently irrelevant. --ItsWalky! (talk) 12:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't WP:WEASEL meant to avoid generalized "it is claimed...", rather than sourced "Person Y claimed...[Footnote]"? According to WP:WEASEL, "The key to improving weasel words in articles is either a) to name a source for the opinion" So, if the source is named, how can it be a weasel word anymore? Also, if the lawsuit is against Dreamwave, obviously the company's "President and CEO" is not responsible for the actions of his company at all. I guess Dreamwave came to life on its own and screwed over its employees as well as Pat himself.--87.164.86.216 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That is true right here. We have not used any weasel words. Everything is sourced, we have not pulled any attacks, only stated the facts. Any facts that are simply rumored (ie LITG columns) are explicitly noted as being rumors in the article. You just don't want to see anything bad said about your precious Funana. I will be at Transformerscon this June. I will bring my camera and try to see if Matt Moylan and Alex Milne will be willing to talk about Dreamwave and Pat Lee in front of it. We'll see what you have to say about video evidence. --74.57.3.251 (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't put rumours in a Wikipedia article period, whether you say they are rumours up front or not. We simply don't use them. As for your video evidence, it would still be unusable as original research. The whole article breaches WP:NPOV. I'm sorry, but that policy is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. Hiding T 18:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is getting ridiculous. A video posted on Wikipedia is original research. A video posted on an external site is not. Unless your definition of "original research" is "anything that puts Pat Lee in a negative light".--87.164.86.216 (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Original Research and it isn't a reliable source, because there's no editorial oversight. It won't be valid or usable. We can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you like? I've just chased through my Comics Journals and I have a snippet on the Fed Ex business and unpaid freelancers, but I still feel that all belongs in the Dreamwave article. Hiding T 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is an interview with Alex Milne where he directly addressed the issue of ghosting for Pat Lee and not getting credited. I guess there's some reason why this is unsuitable too?--87.164.86.216 (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, basically the view is that it is unreliable, because it is a primary source, and policy on primary source is as follows: Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. So you've got to weigh it all up. Is that website a reliable source, by which we mean, 'credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made So we've got to look at the website, and ask; have they done their fact checking? Have they put the claim to Pat Lee? To others involved? Have they discovered if it is substantiated? Have they followed basic journalistic principles? Given policy at WP:BLP is to err against inclusion of poorly sourced material, it is likely it will be judged unreliable. We can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you want. Or give me time to chase through my comics journals. They don't seem to have covered Dreamwave in great detail though. Hiding T 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And again, "it is claimed" and "people think that" are weasel words. "Person A claims that..." is not a weasel word if it's sourced and the point is the claim by that person with the emphasis on the claim rather than an attempt to present it as fact. "Pat Lee ripped off his employees" is an unsourced allegation. "Alex Milne accused Pat Lee of not paying him" is verifiable if there is a link to Alex Milne making such a claim.--87.164.86.216 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• They had then filed a lawsuit against their former employer, and when that became public, they had allegedly also heard from other Dreamwave employees and freelancers who were supposedly also complaining about not being paid anymore. That's full of weasel words, and since it isn't a direct quote sourced to a person it isn't compliant with our policies. They either heard from other employees or they did not, and those employees were either complaining or they were not. Do you see what I am getting at? Hiding T 19:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • So if Pat Lee were to give an interview outlining his side of the story, that interview would not be considered useable according to Wikipedia policy unless someone else were also to comment on the interview? That perspective seems severely skewed, and I doubt it is what the people deciding upon the policy actually had in mind.--87.164.86.216 (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Depends where it was published. And actually, Larry Sanger is pursuing a harder line at Citizendium, so I'd say that negates your second point regarding what the founders wanted. And you are speaking to someone who has played an active role in deciding upon the policy. Hiding T 20:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually tried to bring up all the issues with Pat Lee on his AliveNotDead site only to find my post deleted within an hour of posting. Make of that what you will. --74.57.3.251 (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is some of the most amazingly over-defensive holier-than-thou bullshit I've ever heard. You're deliberately applying preposterously literal interpretations of Wiki's guidelines because you, apparently, don't want to see a bad word spoken about Pat Lee. - 81.156.35.34 (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• No, I don't care what we say about Pat Lee provided we source it per our policies. Subtle but rather large difference. Hiding T 20:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is stupid! Your tagging his DOB with "citation needed?" This is getting out of hand. I took his DOB from his interview with Wizard, everything whats stated in the initial paragraph of this article. You want me to scan my magazine to prove as citation? Heck, its already in the Footnotes section! †Bloodpack† 22:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't do that. That was an anonymous editor proving a point I believe. Also, you;ve reverted the article back to a version that violates WP:BLP. I'd appreciate it if you undo that. Hiding T 22:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, sorry about that. Its just so frustrating to see an article getting "ping poned" (i revert, you revert, i revert, you revert, etc.) Perhaps, this should be taken to a "request for mediation or comment" to settle this? †Bloodpack† 22:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't mind. I am simply applying WP:BLP, which quite clearly applies to this article and which states quite clearly that Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". A number of respondents on this page seem to have issue with that, but that is the policy. Write conservatively and do no harm. Also, given that Pat Lee is relatively unknown, all Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. and Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth. I've gone out and sourced multiple, highly reliable sources and removed that which can't be sourced there. You want to take this to mediation, feel free. I'll go to arbitration if you want. The policy is actually very clear, I feel I have tried to work collaboratively and attempted to source material and add material and remove poorly sourced material and I have been reverted at every turn whilst attempting to comply with policy. Hiding T 23:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I clearly understand. Perhaps, youll do the honor of introducing this article to the proper forum? †Bloodpack† 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've listed it at WP:BLPN, WP:ANI and added to your request for protection. If you want to make a request for mediation, go ahead. As I've explained above, this article breaches WP:BLP. Do you agree with that, or not? Hiding T 23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Lol, yes I agree with that =] *sigh* Ill just leave it up to you guys. Im too lazy to get myself so involved (editing, proofreading) to something Im not having any income/pay †Bloodpack† 00:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevant policy

Let's just read through WP:BLP and see what we all think, yes. Here's a good section:

“ Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims.

Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).

Self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs[5] should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article (see below).

Editors should avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject. When less-than-reliable publications print material they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the original publication doesn't believe its own story, why should we?

Editors should also be careful of a feedback loop in which an unsourced and speculative contention in a Wikipedia article gets picked up, with or without attribution, in an otherwise-reliable newspaper or other media story, and that story is then cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original speculative contention.

”

So let us ask ourselves what our sources are, and what we're doing with them. Are we repeating gossip? Do we have bloody good sources or self-published websites, zines and the like? Rich Johnston is not a reliable source on Wikipedia, so any material sourced their is out, period. Now what else have we got here? For me, it is mostly gossip. I've got a TCJ source on the FED EX business that between discussing this I will add to the article on Dreamwave, but it doesn't belong here. Hiding T 19:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So basically your entire reasoning could be summed up as "internet sources are not reliable, only print sources count"?--87.164.86.216 (talk) 20:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No. It depends on the web source. Publisher's Weekly is good. You need evidence of editorial oversight. What internet sources do you have in mind? Hiding T 20:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So theoretically, according to your logic, anything said by Hasbro at BotCon in front of several hundred witnesses would not suitable as evidence in a Wikipedia article when the only sources reporting on the Hasbro panel are three fan sites, because mainstream media have no interest in things said by official parties at an officially licensed fan convention? For that matter, content from Hasbro's public website would be no suitable source either, because there is no secondary source reporting on the Hasbro website content. Is that correct?--87.164.86.216 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Do you have a specific in mind, or are you just tossing out generalisations? It depends on what it is sourcing. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Hiding T 22:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Aaaaand I just noticed that Pat lee Productions, Pat's own website, is listed as a source, even though I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight there. Plus, it's a primary source. Zing.--87.164.86.216 (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiding isn't saying ALL internet sources are out - we kicked this issue around a while back on the Comic Project talk page. Online gossip columns are out (even if Rich Johnston is right more often than he is wrong, he still maintains a traffic light system by which he grades how likely the rumours are - so even he knows not everything can be trusted) and while other guidelines have exceptions where it comes to online sources (you can use an artists blog posing on what style he was aiming at or what his ideas where for a character design, for example) once there is a whiff of controversy they are out. If we are going to claim someone is engaged in illegal activities then we are going to need some rock solid sources and if there aren't any then it raises the question on the notability of the topic. He is notable for his comic work, which we can clearly source, and it should be given the proper weight in the article. (Emperor (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC))

From the latest LitG: "Apparently this column is not a good source - which is fair enough. So, anyone care to put a few more reliable sources online?" I am surprised there are so few good sources - you'd think a local paper would be interested at least. Hopefully his request for reliable sources will turn up something we can use. I'll keep an eye out and see what comes of it. (Emperor (talk) 01:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC))

BLP/N response

In response to the BLP and RS issues, I'm not going to make any actual edits to the article, trusting that the interested editors here can come to an understanding of what is and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I'd suggest everyone take a step back and (re-)read the relevant policies kindly listed above by one of the editors. That said, gossip columns and gossip websites are not RS, and commentary repeated from a CON is not allowed because it's unverifiable until/unless it's reprinted by a RS. You might be 100% correct that is what was said, but until other editors can see find it printed by a reliable source, it's also 100% not allowed in the article. And please, editors, kindly keep the personal attacks out of the talk page. (To the last point above regarding using the subject's website, see Wikipedia:BLP#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source for policy regarding why that is allowed, to a point.) --Faith (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, in that case, about 95% of the content of the BotCon article needs to be removed because there is no reliable secondary source reporting on what happened at the convention. The only content left would be a few newspaper reports confirming that BotCon does indeed exist.--87.164.86.216 (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• That would be something to be addressed on the relevant talk page, as it has no bearing on this topic. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument for retaining BLP violations and unverifiable content. --Faith (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some sort of scale for stringency with regards to subject matter? Sources can be credible for material in certain areas and not credible in others. For example, while a Transformers fan site may not be a credible source for a Wikipedia article about injection molding, it would certainly be credible with regards to Transformers product--especially if multiple fan site sources corroborate the information. This also applies for primary sources within the fandom's scope--comic book artists like Figeuroa and writers like Patyk and McDonough are unlikely to be asked for interviews by "mainstream" publications, but their strong proximity to the area covered by the fan site suggests that the interviews are credible--if they weren't, they would have made noise about it within the fandoms to discredit the interviews.

Similarly, in the age of the Internet, a web site itself can be considered a primary source. While a rumor posted in Lying In The Gutter is clearly not something to be included in a Wikipedia article, the existance and spread of a rumor in relation to a controvercial figure COULD be considered relevant in some situations where the rumor's existance and the figure's response to the rumor's existance is being discussed, and an article such as Lying In The Gutter serves as a primary source for the existance of the rumor.

And as far as Dreamwave controversies are concerned, if a person is primarily responsible for the operation and financial security of a corporate entity, they are by and large responsible for that company's actions. Even if the controvesy around Dreamwave's demise isn't put on Lee's page, it's a significant enough part of his personal history that there should at least be a link to the specific part of the Dreamwave article discussing the controversy. And for that matter, the material that has been recently excised from the Pat Lee article regarding the controversy over Dreamwave's demise should be included in the Dreamwave article.72.221.67.211 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Commentary from "a Transformers fan site" is not a relible source regardless of the subject matter of the article. However, interviews with artists and writers might be considered reliable, only so far as the interview content itself. This would need to be weighed carefully, though, especially for BLP issues. See WP:BLP and WP:RS. --Faith (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Had people not kept tying me up here I would have added it to the Dreamwave article ages ago. Regarding everything else, please read this quoted section from WP:BLP, which clarifies why we cannot add information in the way you desire; it is simply against policy, policy has in fact been framed to prevent the very actions you wish to perform as per:

“ Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability, while omitting information that is irrelevant to the subject's notability. Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. Material published by the subject must be used with caution. (See Using the subject as a source.)

Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care. In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth.

”

Why can't we do what you want us to do? Because we have to exercise restraint. We have to omit material from third-party primary sources unless it has first been published by a reliable secondary source. We have to treat with special care material that may adversely affect a person's reputation. Any potentially damaging information needs to be corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources. What you;re asking is that we ignore a fundamental, board imposed policy because... um, actually, we have never clarified why, have we. Why does Wikipedia have to publish this information, given all our policies state we should not? If it is already available on the internet, why is it needed in Wikipedia? Hmmm, now I'm confused. Am I missing a motive? What's going on? Hiding T 00:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"If it is already available on the internet, why is it needed in Wikipedia?" Does anyone else see a flaw with this logic?--87.164.113.151 (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. "Material is relevant to their notability?" Check. "Potentially damaging information must be corroborated by multiple highly reliable sources?" Check. "Said sources are specifically noted as making 'allegations', rather than having said allegations are the absolute truth?" Check. The only area of debate here is whether or not the sources are considered reliable, and in this case, my comment with regard to scale still seems relevant. And that's why it's needed on Wikipedia--while it IS available elsewhere on the Internet, and while said sources are credible and reliable, they are not particularly PROMINENT resources, and are unlikely to be included in (for example) the first few pages of results on Google. And as far as your thinly-veiled accusation of a hidden motive goes, may I direct you to a Wikipedia guideline you're clearly ignoring? 72.221.67.211 (talk) 01:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The whole world is in chaos =D. I also suggest you take this to WP:COMIC noticeboard since its comicbook-related †Bloodpack† 00:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It's already there. How do you think I found my way here? Hiding T 00:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a more relevant question to be asking here is "Why no one hatin' on Roger Lee?" There was unquestionably some ethically questionable financial dealing as Dreamwave went down the hole... but it's probably unfair that Pat inherit tontine of blame as the most public face to be put on the disaster. (His attitude in interviews makes me not care that it's unfair, but I will grudgingly admit that it is.) What if Roger is an evil genius who did it all and Pat is just clueless? (I don't think this is the case, I'm simply giving an example wherein pinning all the blame on Pat would be unfair.)

All the gory details of the cars, the beauty pageants, the pile of money and the monkey should be shifted to the Dreamwave Productions page (which currently has an only perfunctory summary of the collapse,) and Pat's page should have a brief section noting how he was involved in DW's business side and how he benefited financially as the company imploded- but point readers to the Dreamwave Production page for the gory details.

That is consistent with WP:NPOV without abridging the documentable facts of the events. -Deriksmith (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I support that wholeheartedly. In fact, I believe I suggested something to that effect a few paragraphs ago. (Though the beauty pageant happened at Dream Engine, not Dreamwave.) 72.221.67.211 (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• "how he was involved in DW's business side and how he benefited financially", if that is the case, HAS to be cited to extremely reliable sources. I can't stress that strongly enough. If you are going to add contentious material, the sources have to be impecable, and yes, beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. --Faith (talk) 01:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And this sort of asinine over-moderation is the reason that most people even within the comics fandom will never know what a <redacted> Pat Lee is. - Chris McFeely (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Redacted comment for BLP issue --Faith (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nationality in lead

Why does "born" keep getting added back into the intro? Does this person hold dual citizenship or something?? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hes born in Canada, but obviously, he looks Asian because hes of Asian descent. Thats whats stated in his Wizard interview and its cited †Bloodpack† 22:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And George W. Bush is born in the USA, yet looks "European". So? Is the Canadian "standard" Caucasian?--87.164.110.51 (talk) 13:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting per WP:MOSBIO. Not sure what "looks" have to do with anything. --68.9.116.76 (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

BLP issues: Perspective from a disinterested editor

Hi. I'm pretty sure I have never read any of Pat Lee's comics, or indeed most non-web-comics published in the past 10 years, other than Cerebus. I don't really know who he is except through discussion on this article and some snarky webcomics in various places. I just reverted a revision of this article before I read this talk page because even a cursory glance at that revision showed it was an egregious violation of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons, our policies on maintaining a neutral point of view, and our policies on reliable sourcing.

Put simply, the revision of the article in question read like a commissioned hit job. It made no pretense to objectivity, and the sourcing was, to be polite, complete and utter garbage.

After I did that I looked at the talk page, and saw that this discussion had been going on for what seems to be several years.

The issue is not that Wikipedia's dedicated editors want to "side with" Pat Lee against the Forces of Righteousness. It's that we have a responsibility both to the subjects of our articles and, more importantly, to our readers to make sure that our articles are of the highest quality we can manage. The way we do that is by following our editorial policies. Those policies require a certain level of reliability in our sources, and I'm sorry guys, but random interviews on deviantart fan pages don't make the grade, let alone emotion-laden interpretations based on those pages. I appreciate that maybe Pat Lee really is the devil. But unless there is a reliable source discussing how he has horns, a tail, and red skin, such claims do not, should not, and will not appear in the Pat Lee article.

Feel free to try to change the policy. Or feel free to take all of the content in Wikipedia and start your own encyclopedia; that's encouraged. But don't throw snark at dedicated editors like Hiding for doing the right thing. This is not a web forum, this is not USENET, and this is not a battlefield for scoring rhetorical points. This is an encyclopedia, and it has policies that all editors must follow. Even when writing about people you dislike. Nandesuka (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Amen. And that extends to comments on the talk page as well. --Faith (talk) 14:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have semi-protected this article due to anonymous users reverting material that, in my judgment, clearly violates WP:BLP. Nandesuka (talk) 15:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess the question is, what *does* qualify as a reliable source in this case? I mean, this is Transformers and comic-related, and thus niche, it's not like this sort of thing is going to get print in the New York Times or something. If the plethora of information on the deal from prominent fan news sites that are respected in the communities, numerous interviews with involved employees, business-related information on IDW's website, etc. (Pat Lee's business practices are part of why IDW got the Transformers license from Dreamwave in the first place) aren't good enough for you, then I have to ask what exactly *is* good enough. Some of the fans are concerned that if this information isn't put out where it can be, he'll have a chance to keep doing these things to newcomers who haven't been forewarned. 71.127.5.8 (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Another problem is that, apparently, "proper weight" cannot be given as long as, as it appears from his various interviews, Pat Lee has no interest in addressing the matter at all. All he ever said about the Dreamwave bankruptcy was basically "Oh yeah, my company went bust, sad me, I hope I will find something new." The allegations by his former employees are there, and he doesn't even address the fact that those allegations exist. He simply ignores them. I'd be the last one to refuse mentioning the Pat Lee side of things (even if it was simply "No comment on still unresolved court matters" or whatever), but as long as he pretends that nothing happened, his side of things cannot be represented. Which is something I find questionable too - if one side has a publically known dispute with another party, and said other party simply choses to ignore the matter, that'd be an easy way to keep stuff out of Wikipedia.--87.164.114.188 (talk) 18:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to serve as an advocate or to "forewarn" people from engaging in business deals with other people. There are any number of sources that serve as a reliable source for the comic book and toy industry. If you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, then please review WP:RS. There are plenty of reliable sources cited by Wikipedia, and not all of them are the New York Times. Nandesuka (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a matter of having all information available about a person, even if it's negative. But again, I fail to understand why none of the numerous sources available, many of which come straight from the mouths of people who either worked for Dreamwave, or now work for IDW (and had to deal with the fallout), are acceptable. Seems kind of weird, especially since nobody, fan or professional, familiar with the Transformers brand, at least, would dispute the matter. Can you specifically list some of the sources that *would* be acceptable, so people interested in correcting the matter can seek out information from those sources that would be pertinent? 71.127.5.8 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content policies are copiously documented. For starters, I suggest you look at WP:CITE ("When to cite sources"), WP:V ("Material included in Wikipedia must be verifiable), WP:RS ("sources for Wikipedia articles should be credible published materials with a reliable publication process"), WP:NOR ("Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source.") and, most relevantly here, WP:BLP ("Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious.").

Put simply: it is explicitly not our goal to have "all information available about a person." It is our goal to have verifiable, neutral, and reliably sourced information about the subject of our biographies. If you can't find a reliable source for a claim about the subject of a biography -- even Pat Lee! -- then the claim does not belong here and it will be removed. Nandesuka (talk) 01:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, WTF?

And now the article is just claiming total and utter BS. While extremely popular and profitable for his company, Lee's work on "Transformers" drew much criticism due to accusations that the title was actually drawn by artists recruited by Lee for work at Dreamwave Productions. That is not true at all. Pat Lee is credited for drawing Transformers: Generation 1 (vol. 1; aka "Prime Directive"), Transformers: Generation 1 vol. 2: War and Peace, two issues of Transformers: Armada and one story from the Dreamwave Transformers Summer Special. Edwin Garcia is credited as a background artist for the Generation 1 limited series. To my knowledge, none of those credits have ever been disputed, and all the other Transformers stories and titles that were drawn by other artists are credited correctly. The only Pat Lee credits that are contested are issues of Cyberforce by Top Cow and an issue of Superman/Batman for DC. In both instances, Alex Milne claims being the original artist, and Rich Johnston has posted original pencil artwork from those issues.--87.164.114.188 (talk) 22:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

re-installing his quotations

All info from the beginning of lead intro (including his real name, DOB, birthplace) down to his quotes were directly taken from his Wizard interview. Please dont remove. Thanks †Bloodpack† 05:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Please remember WP:BLP

Everyone editing this article should first read the BLP policy, and note in particular that unsourced controversial content about living people is not permitted. I understand that the subject of this article is somewhat controversial - in the realm of online fandom, at least - but no criticism can be added to this article unless references to reliable sources can be provided. This is one of Wikipedia's core policies, and it's important we get it right - unlike pretty much all our other policies, failing to observe WP:BLP can cause harm to people in the real world. Robofish (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, is THIS a reputable source?

[1] It's Rich Johnston again. Interviewing Pat Lee.--93.130.179.178 (talk) 03:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It depends exactly what claim you're using it to support, but in general, yes it would be. This article would still have to comply with Wikipedia's policy of neutral point of view, however - it can't read like an attack piece. Robofish (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, anything along the lines of "Lee was directly confronted with specific accusations in an interview he himself sought out to give, then either gave vague answers, or dodged answering them altogether and instead returned to a previous question" would be NPOV, right? Lee is given an opportunity to counter the claims, yet he completely dodges a lot of them. The interview is not evidence that the accusations are "true". It is, however, evidence that Lee is a) aware of the accusations, b) considers them important enough to give an interview to someone he knows will bring them up, and c) did not take the opportunity to counter them.--217.187.31.151 (talk) 21:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay wait, looking through the history, someone removed the source for a controversial statement, and then subsequently the statement was removed for alleged lack of sources. Is that how it's done these days?--217.187.52.45 (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pat Lee (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140714151701/http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA496791.html?q=Dreamwave to http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA496791.html?q=Dreamwave

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Split paragraph

I split the following paragraph at the sentence beginning with "[o]ther allegations" (links not included and citation removed):

"In December 2010, Pat Lee gave Johnston an interview, in which Johnston reiterated all of the above claims. While Lee admitted that 'many artists had delays in payment' even before the bankruptcy and 'regret[s] not being able to speak to everyone' beforehand, he also claimed that 'most creators at Dreamwave were aware that we were going through financial difficulties. We didn’t announce it, but people were not being paid in full, and it was pretty obvious.' He also claimed that 'I barely paid myself at Dreamwave, and didn’t pay myself for extended periods so that the company could pay other bills." Regarding the Porsche, Lee claimed that it "was leased by Dreamwave and I was personally responsible for the vehicle at the end', whereas the apartment was a 'small apartment in Toronto that I paid a mortgage on'. Regarding Alex Milne's work as a ghost artist on Cyberforce, Lee claimed that he 'forgot to adjust the credits at the end of the job', which was 'definitely my error', and offered Milne to 'provide me the appropriate documentation and evidence' that 'Dream Engine owed him money'. He also claimed that 'I don’t recall firing Alex', and that he 'expressed to him via email in May 2007 that I understood he was paid in full'. Other allegations brought up by Johnston in the interview, namely that Top Cow had told him [Johnston] that Lee had specifically assured them that he was doing all the work on Cyberforce himself, and that Marvel had told him [Johnston] that they were 'asked to stop paying money to Dreamwave [for outsourced projects such as the X-Men/Fantastic Four limited series] but send it to Dream Engine instead', were not addressed by Lee at all. Lee also did not respond to the specific request to offer evidence to counter the claim that he was trying to "siphon money from big gigs away from Dreamwave to Dream Engine in the months before the bankruptcy'. However, Lee announced plans to set up a 'Creative Refund Movement' with the specific intention to "raise funds to pay former Dreamwave artists who were financially affected by the bankruptcy'. As of 2015, no Dreamwave employees have received any monetary compensation for their work at the company through the 'Creative Refund Movement'."

Could anyone please tell me if this was a good edit?--Thylacine24 (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)