Talk:Scott Lobdell

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Controversy[edit]

I've edited the controversy section as I noticed any and all of Lobdell's work in highlighting and promoting gay superheroes seems to have been removed from his biography in terms of both the benchmark that was the outing of Northstar as well as his latest addition to Teen Titans, Bunker.

Also in going into the Starfire controversy, the previous summation used a writer at ComicsBeats own use of the term "slut shaming" and had directly attributed to Lobdell. That comicsbeat piece actually used snippets froma comicvine interview that is now directly cited to give lobdell's response to the matter accurately.

deloreon01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deloreon (talk • contribs) 01:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, the original controversy section wasn't even necessary the citations were so inaccurate but if we're going to insist the Starfire "controversy" is worth noting, the Northstar controversy that proceeded it is truly worth mention, The citations in the original author's version still attributes comments to Lobdell made by other writers of news pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deloreon (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Awesome" comic[edit]

All the sources comparing Lobdell's new comic to a Buffyverse comic come from blog and message board posts, and read like the irate rantings of fans. If no one has an objection I will delete the comparisons unless someone can properly source them from reliable sources. I'll check back some stage tomorrow and see if there have been any changes or objections. IrishStephen (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've removed the sentences that read like undue criticism. IrishStephen (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Scott Lobdell. 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:

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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Scott Lobdell. 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:

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) 20:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bleeding Cool Accusations[edit]

Rather than engaging in an edit war, I'd suggest Lcodyh803 and the unnamed editor who has issue with the inclusion of the accusations discuss them here. For my two cents, after reviewing the article before the edit it looks like the information provided was documenting the accusations reported at secondary sources rather than making accusations directly, and the tone of the writing was appropriately neutral. I would support its inclusion. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 19:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought as well. I will restore the content, and if the IP still believes it should be removed I am open to discussion. Lcodyh803 (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy Section[edit]

There has been repeated efforts to remove mention of controversies regarding Lobdell on this page. Lobdell is, without question, a controversial figure with multiple credible accusations leveled against him, and therefore the controversies surrounding him and his career are legitimate inclusion in this article. Edits and properly cited disagreement may be warranted, but wholesale removal of all reference of controversy is not. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the portion regarding the accusations from BleedingCool should be permanently deleted until they can be proven. As I have argued many times before, there is literally no credibility to the accusations whatsoever. No official statements from either DC or Lobdell, no confirmation by any other legitimate sources, just BleedingCool's word. There is no proof that Lobdell is responsible or that he has enrolled in anything. Therefore until such a time where the information can be properly verified, any information to the article should, morally, be excluded. Georgemiser (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As was mentioned here, I and Argento Surfer agree that this section should be removed. Bleeding Cool has offered no evidence for the accusations, and Wikipedia should not repeat something as gospel that can actively destroy the reputation and livelihood of an innocent person. David A (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of basic decency. As I have mentioned multiple times, unless Lobdell or DC issue ANY kind of official statement, it is morally incorrect to have this information on this page. Therefore, regardless of whether it is true or not, if it cannot be proven as such, to treat it as truthful is, by definition, against everything Wikipedia stands for and must be condemned. Georgemiser (talk) 06:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Innocent until proven guilty should always apply in a democratic society, even if the current lynchmob social media climate tends to enforce the opposite principle. David A (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, the offending section has, at last, been removed. So far, so good. However, I will be keeping an eye on the Lobdell page to make sure it stays that way. I don't want to have to raise another moral fuss, but I will if someone else decides to put BleedingCool's handiwork back on. I stand by my convictions and I'd like to thank Dave A and Argento Surfer for standing up for what is good and correct. I'd also like to sincerely apologize if I annoyed any admins or mods with any of my actions. My intentions were good, but I should have channeled them through the proper streams in the first place. Thank you. Georgemiser (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These "controversies" are petty and not notable enough to include here. The first paragraph in this edit is a quote farm lifted wholesale from the article on the comic book. My edit moved this to the career section and retained the point: critics didn't like his portrayal of the character.
The second "controversy" says that Lobdell had a bad experience on social media and quit using it. How is that notable? That describes lots of people. Heck, it describes me. What's the point of including it, except to tell the reader that one time that "hey, one time, this guy kinda-sorta defended some people who might have had racist motives, maybe."
The third paragraph is "one time, Lobdell wasn't nice to someone. He didn't realize it made her uncomfortable, and he apologized when told about it." Just because the Beat covered it doesn't mean it needs to be included here.
The fourth paragraph is "a rumor website said he did something, and his employer applied a basic corrective action." This isn't notable. None of this should be in a BLP. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Argento Surfer. David A (talk) 15:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lcodyh803: you expressed interest in discussing this in the section directly above. Any thoughts? Argento Surfer (talk) 12:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for the ping Argento Surfer. I agree that the paragraph on his social media seems unnotable, but I think the last two should remain in. Especially the third paragraph in particular, given that he issued a public apology for it. And as mentioned in the above section, the removed content was written as documentation of the accusations, and especially with multiple incidents, I don't think they should just be completely removed. Lcodyh803 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, you're saying the one about on-panel harassment and the one about the gender sensitivity training should remain? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. An added sentence on the current second paragraph about the bleedingcool accusations would be okay with me. Lcodyh803 (talk) 17:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Brother Bulldog: how do you feel about this?

During a discussion panel at the 2013 Long Beach Comic Con, Scott Lobdell's behavior toward comic book artist/writer and fellow panelist MariNaomi on stage prompted her to submit an article to XoJane describing how she had felt harassed without naming Lobdell. Lobdell identified himself as the panelist in question and issued an apology to MariNaomi through Heidi MacDonald of ComicsBeat.com. In 2019, Bleeding Cool reported that Lobdell was enrolled in a gender sensitivity workshop after identifying him as the subject of an pseudonymous 2016 blog post describing harassment at a comic convention.

Argento Surfer (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. I actually don't have a dog in this fight other than ending the edit war, and this feels like a pretty solid compromise. Thanks for working to settle this. - Brother Bulldog (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that only cases for which clear evidence has been provided should remain, given that what we place on this page can easily destroy the life of an innocent person. David A (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to structure the last sentence to make it as neutral as possible. In this particular case, if you're concerned about potential impact on Lobdell, I think building up other parts of the article would be the better route. The Northstar thing was a big deal when it happened, but it's barely noted here. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it would be better if we all try to be responsible Wikipedians who do not spread unconfirmed accusations from gossip sites as gospel. David A (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, as you all likely know, the horrible "guilty until proven innocent" state of modern social media ensures that Lobdell will likely be continuously terrorised by activists for many years and have his career destroyed if we let these seemingly unfounded accusations remain in Wikipedia. It doesn't sit right with my personal sense of right and wrong. David A (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I think everything except the Starfire criticism falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP. Of the other four people who've contributed to this discussion, two think it should all be gone and two support some kind of inclusion. My proposal greatly limits the weight of the claims. If someone wanted to expand the biography content, these two items could even be broken apart and put in chronological context instead of an eye-catching "Controversy" section. Putting aside any feelings I may have about the importance of the material, I don't see a strong enough consensus here to just blank the section. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that we should blank the section entirely. I am just saying that we should only include the verified information, not unproven gossip. David A (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scott_Lobdell&oldid=1215550196"