Talk:Chuck Austen

POV/NPOV discussion

I dont really care for his work either, but this article is definitely npov. --DrBat 01:01, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Couldn't stand his work on Superman (without even knowing who he was at the time), but the article definitely comes across as one-sided. Dascott 18:13, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is looking better now. Dascott 4 July 2005 15:36 (UTC)

I think this article is now about as neutral as you can get. Honestly, the man has very few positive contributions and they've been listed, and the negative points against him have been changed to show they're the opinion of a large majority of the comic reading populace. I recommend getting rid of the neutrality challenge unless someone can think of any other ways to clean things up? Nezu Chiza 02:25, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but no. That version was far from complete. It was also lying about how Austen was "fired" from Marvel, wich he wasn't. And I challenge that notion of "a large majority of the comic reading populace". If you happen to know "a large majority of the comic reading populace" then you must have a very long adress book. I don't agree with that and I'm not a disguised Austen under an alias. Yes, he was heavily attacked on the internet by a much vocal basis. Yet his book didn't lose readers while he was there. Others bombed and some others actually gained readers while he was there. The text must reflect that. Not just your opinion or mine. Tino

OK, I hate Austen as much as the next guy, so I'm trying to read this without bias. While I think that the mention of his smutty work that early and prominently in the article is a little bit coloring, I think that the rest is fine, and we can probably remove the NPOV tag already. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:45, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

The mention of Strips early on is actually a positive thing. The first few issues are among Austen's best work. I mean it is what is, but it's better than you might expect. The first few issues, I mean. Then he comes back after a few years with a very different art style and plot points. But the first few issues...man, that's good comics. Adult comics. --Chris Griswold 09:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree with Tino on this. Aside from possibly the firing from Marvel, this article seems to me to be as neutral as it can get when it comes to the controversial topic that is Chuck Austen. Whether you like him or hate him, if you keep up with the politics in Comicdom, you should know that the majority of the opinion and feedback you'll run into for Austen is going to be on the negative side. Acknowledging that doesn't require a long adress book (sic) of names to back it up. As a staff member for Comixfan (who conducted, to the best of my knowledge, the last interview with Mr. Austen, which is now linked on the front page, just prior to his departure from Marvel) which played host to many interactions and debates on this author's work, I can vouch for this personally as well.

Since it's been some time since the POV/NPOV issue was discussed, I think we should reevaluate the article as it is. By now, the intro is neutral, the issues on controversy all focused on in the specific category, the acclaim section (mostly, lets face it, there for compensation, since the positive attention he got doesn't really warrant much more than a couple of lines somewhere along the article...) is probably as realistic as it could be, the previous intro is trimmed and cut off into two sections that divide his work without, again, too much on the controversy issue... Is it really POV as it is now? I don't see what else can be done to it, as far as POV goes, anyway, but then, hey, me is me. Thoughts? Zeppocity 00:20, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Right. Nothing. I think I'm gonna go ahead and detag it. Zeppocity 22:12, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There were some crazy interjections and blatantly POV editing by an anon user, so I went in and tried to fix it up a little. It's far from perfect, but there it is. TsunamiWave7 16:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

>Sorry boys, but this article isn't npov, it's been gutted so much it's useless.

I don't care whether a writer/artist is living or dead, it's a cop-out not to address the controversy that the writer generated. It would be like saying that "Lewis Hine took pictures of factories" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Hine). The controversy IS the story, and the reason for the Wikipedia entry. Austen generated huge and lasting animosity on his X-Men run. Not to note that is unprofessional and defeats the purpose of Wikipedia. This isn't the Miami Beach Who's Who, where everyone is cheerful and successful and the children are all above average.

Just make sure you find citations to back your VALID pov. CaseyAtyBat (talk) 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Acclaim section?

Another interesting aspect of Austen's work is that while his mainstream work starts off strong and gets weaker as time goes by through mismanagement of his subplots his non-mainstream work, or non-continuity work, seems to shine and possess a strength not seen in works like Uncanny X-Men or Action Comics. Books like the Eternal and Worldwatch, in spite of their pornographic elements, containinsightful and interesting concepts and ideas that deserve further exploration.

IMHO, this sounds extremely generic and written just to pad the section. Could somebody be more specific, i.e. pointing out a concrete example? If not, this is just "weasel talk", see Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms, but if yes, please let it be known. --- Onomatopoeia 17:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

And now it's gone from that to pure POV... to rephrase a character's loss of sanity and attacks on her friends as "An additional example was Polaris, which he turned from a second-stringer into a powerful and dangerous character." seems like little more than an attempt to put a positive spin on the matter for those unfamiliar, and should be revised. I might actually try and rewrite this section, taking in account the one truly important point there, the soapyness of his run, which has indeed been well received by a portion of the readership. Zeppocity 22:51, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, and I rest my case. Acclaim for Chuck defies me. Onomatopoeia 13:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup

Not entirely aware of this page's history before I came across it, hum, just making clear here that after some editing some time ago, I've gone ahead and divided the large, unfocused main text (which included a number of references that are inappropriate and unhelpful in an introduction), into two sections on his body of work, namely Mainstream Work and Other Work. References to supposed lack of quality and relating controversy should really be kept in the Controversy section and as such, there's none of that in them by now, I think... Aiming for neutrality, naturally enough. I'll grant however that expanding the introductory line might be a good idea, but I'm not quite sure how to do it without veering off into the controversy issues which, again, comes off as inappropriate to me. Anyway, any issues as to the slight trimming and restructuring I've done? Maybe someone more familiar with Austen's work (a rare breed of animal, maybe: a Austen fan) can come by and write down some more on his early work...? Anywho, cheers, Zeppocity 01:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Gambit

I specified that Austen did not create Gambit, I'm not sure if that came across too clearly originally.

External links

Does anyone have links to back pages of forums where Austen got bashed? It would help validate the sections dealing with fan criticism Rorschach567 15:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

U.S. War Machine

Could a section about Austen's contributions to the US War Machine be added, althought not popular, the comic was a unique piece for both Austens career and comics @ the turn of the century.

X-Men Section

I've removed this section entirely, according to WP:LIVING. It's not OK to have a massive uncited criticism section on a biography of a living person, and obscene to drown out all actual description of his career with fan complaints about one of his writing assignments. 128.227.99.129 22:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The only reason people know his name is that he was so controversial on X-Men! It's foolish to ignore that controversy. The criticism, whether fairly or unfairly, colored much of his later work. There's a ton of postings on DC's web site that bashed his work on X-Men while he working on JLA.

Who are you trying to please here? Public opinion? Austen's feelings? CaseyAtyBat (talk) 05:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Chuck Austen on Wikipedia

"I was known for writing rather a lot of Marvel comics and a few DC comics a couple or more years back, and was notorious as the most hated man in comics for a period of time. Even I am not entirely sure why. Google my name if you’re curious, or visit Wikipedia where people who clearly don’t like me have made the reasons to dislike me sound almost intellectual and reasonable—even though they are largely untrue or very skewed." [1] --DrBat 03:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChuckAusten.jpg

Image:ChuckAusten.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Church of Humanity

Was this organization Austen's creation, or Joe Casey's? The Church first appeared during Casey's run on "Uncanny X-Men", yet the "Church of Humanity" entry here states it was created by Austen.--Fingerknöchelkopf 07:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It first appeared in Joe Casey's run, but it was Austen who revealed their origins. --DrBat (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

JLA

His JLA run isn't even mentioned. (and it was very good, for a few issues)(Artie85 (talk) 21:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC))

"Twelve Internet Trolls

As this has become a meme, this needs at least a section within this article explaining its origin, as well as a link to the Newsarama and CBR interviews where he made the claims. As to adding the fact that a simple census of comic book forums would easily disprove Chuckles' number claim, I leave it to you kids to figure out how to add that info without someone coming along and trying to squash it under the excuse of "original research".

Removed the bit, since it's WAY too POV for the article (plus the term never really caught on, as far as comic fandom seeing it as Austen trying to negate legitimate criticism of his writings online). --BakerBaker (talk) 04:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Eternals

Chuckles also did a six-issue Eternals mini for Marvel that was critically accepted, but had the misfortune of showing up when Chuckles' popularity was hitting the skids.

Avengers

Re-reworked the Avengers section; more emphasis should be placed on Captain Britian/Lionheart and the use of Austen's second and final arc to launch the 2004 Invader series. The stuff with Hank Pym and Wasp should be downplayed, given how Bendis pretty much went into overdrive to pretty much reset the status quo on the two as soon as he took over the book, let alone how utterly unpopular that arc was. Onomatopoeia, see if you can find some links about the 2004 Invaders series for the Avengers section since Austen helped write that book's #0 issue.

Another rewrite + NPOV tag lifted

I just spent quite a bit of time cleaning up and adding more info to Austen's controversial X-Men run. I put in many inline citations from reliable sources (WP:CITE) into the article. With so much sourced information from third party sources, the majority of all POV issues should be eliminated. Also, Austen IS controversial, so as of WP:SPADE, don't be shy to say so. —Onomatopoeia (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but as he's still alive, certain rules come into play, as noted at the very top of this very discussion page. This is why I made the changes I did. Nuetrallity is important on Wikipeda. Lots42 (talk) 03:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chuck Austen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130417024716/http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/108145525884129.htm to http://www.comicsbulletin.com/features/108145525884129.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chuck Austen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160830023003/http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-89-the-rise-and-fall-of-chuck-austen/ to http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-89-the-rise-and-fall-of-chuck-austen/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160830023003/http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-89-the-rise-and-fall-of-chuck-austen/ to http://comicsalliance.com/ask-chris-89-the-rise-and-fall-of-chuck-austen/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)