Talk:Ethan Van Sciver

Pronunciation of Van Sciver's surname

How is this guy's last name pronounced? Van Skeever? Sky-ver? Siver like the sci in science? Doczilla _STOMP! 08:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It's "Sky-Ver" according to himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.76.74 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Controversy

In addition to his illustration work, Van Sciver has received significant media attention for expressions of his sociopolitical views, a fact which is not reflected in the article currently. It seems to be particularly relevant to his recent transition from a regular DC freelancer, to concentrating exclusively on a previous creator-owned property. (See here if you don't know what I'm talking about.) Because his views are highly polarizing and likely to invite edit-warring, I think it would be useful to first discuss and develop some consensus here about how to present this information in the article, what sources to use, etc. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the change from saying he "has been" a central figure in Comicsgate to "was". This is contradicted by this article, which indicates his involvement is ongoing. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit ambiguous whether Sciver references the word or the movement here (which indeed he very well might be aware of). 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Nearly every article about Comicsgate as an ongoing campaign identifies him as a central figure. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

How in the world is describing Comicsgate only in terms of its detractors compliant with NPOV? 4.16.26.19 (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

That's a valid criticism. I've borrowed the description from the Comicsgate article and added it. Magic9Ball (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It's actually wholly unimportant and unrelated to Sciver himself. It has no place in the article at all. Now, if you wanted to include him doing stuff like cutting up effigies of Last Jedi characters... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.183.76.75 (talk) 17:32, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that Sciver is a prominent figure in Fandom Menace, but the source cited doesn't directly prove it. I've removed it once, and it's been reinstated. It mentions Sciver in passing, but given the contentious nature of the subject matter, I would suggest a source that quotes Sciver directly (they do exist)

We cite reliable sources to verify what we write. The first source identifies EVS as one of the group's leaders. (I've added another.) A quote from him wouldn't "prove" anything one way or the other; he might falsely claim or deny involvement. Magic9Ball (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Nicknames in lede

I don't see encyclopedic value in putting affectionate nicknames in the lede. The article Stan Lee doesn't call him Stan the Man, Walt Disney doesn't call him Uncle Walt, Bette Midler doesn't call her Divine Miss M , Ronald Reagan doesn't call him The Gipper, etc. Unless the subject is formally credited by a nickname as a stage name (e.g. Nat King Cole) or routinely referred to by a nickname by journalists or others outside of their fandom, it's overly familiar, and doesn't belong in the lede. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The editor here is biased. And has shown to be biased, as demonstrated by his user page. I request a third party be involved. If not, then there will be no conversation of any kind.

Have a good day.

MontChevalier (talk) 17:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

While I do have personal opinions about Van Sciver (I bet you do too), they don't prevent me from editing the article fairly and objectively. I'm trying to discuss what's noteworthy enough to include in an encyclopedia article about him. The only obstacles to that are those you've thrown in the way, such as insulting me and demanding that my editing privileges be revoked.[1]

So... can anyone make an argument for why we should dispense with WP's formal tone and its focus on noteworthy facts, and feature the pet name his fans use with each other in the lede? The closest precedent I can find is "Uncle Miltie" but that was more than a fan nickname... the media routinely referred to him that way, to the point that if you said it to any random person on the street, they'd know who it was. -Jason A. Quest (talk)

Since this editor said he was leaving Wikipedia,[2] and blanked his user and talk pages,[3][4] I assume that his "objections" no longer stand, and I've made the appropriate WP:RS edits. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

TV credits

IMDB has some TV credits that have twice been added to this article, incorrectly implying that Van Sciver worked on those series. These were characters that he co-created in comics that were later used for the TV series, and the series credits him for that because that's how credits work. Listing things that are based on his work, but he had no personal involvement in, would be like listing every movie based on a play by Shakespeare (which we do not do). Leave the exhaustive listing of every place his name appears to IMDB; that's their job. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Original Cyberfrog 1996

I am a big fan from the moment I found this man's work in 1996. I own a full set of what I assume is the original Cyberfrog, first issue February 1996 published by Harris comics. Ethan created, drew, and wrote the series, which has never failed to impress me on the many times I have revisited it. It should be included in this article, as it is a seminal accomplishment, not just something he has done for a major publisher. Thank you for your work sir. Psycho D (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Ps...I am also willing to send pictures of the issues I have to the editor of this article to help show his talent. Psycho D (talk) 20:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Psycho D. Welcome to Wikipedia. Just so you know, content on Wikipedia must adhere to policies that include WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:IRS, and WP:CS. et al. Nightscream (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Right-wing social commentary as focus of Van Sciver's YouTube Channel

The lead section contains the assertion that Van Sciver's YouTube channel "focused on right-wing social commentary" in the late 2010s. No inline source is provided.

MOS:LEADCITE allows for lead sections to forego inline sources provided that the statement is substantiated in the article itself. In this particular case, I have not been able to find a corresponding / substantiating statement in the text.

My attempt to clean up the lead section was reverted by @Grandpallama stating that "text supported by body and numerous sources". I simply cannot see where the lead statement is substantiated in the main body. If there are reliable sources that make this specific claim, they should be referenced.

Please clarify or refrain from reverting edit. Arcadia Darell (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

There's an entire section called "Political commentary", where this claim is elaborated on with citations to both Buzzfeed and The Daily Beast that explicitly support this. Grandpallama (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Please note that I am not questioning whether Van Sciver has engaged in Political Commentary on his channel. Neither am I questioning that some of that commentary has been categorised as right-wing by some sources. What I am questioning is whether this is sufficient to make a factual statement in the lead section that his channel has focused on right-wing content.

Also note the term "right-wing" is not used in the article. Neither is there any substantiation of this being a focus of his content. Arcadia Darell (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

What I am questioning is whether this is sufficient to make a factual statement in the lead section that his channel has focused on right-wing content. Yes. That is what RS report, so that is what we say. Grandpallama (talk) 14:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Which RS specifically? None are quoted inline in the lead section. The article body does not make the same claim. Arcadia Darell (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have already responded to this, and your claim is demonstrably false. This is addressed by the first sentence of the "Political commentary" section, which is reliably sourced. Your edits here and at Comicsgate are increasingly of a WP:NOTHERE nature. Grandpallama (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are not addressing my point. My apologies if I have not made it sufficiently clear. Let me reiterate:

The lead section states:

In the late 2010s his "ComicArtistPro Secrets" channel on YouTube focused on right-wing social commentary, through which he became a central figure in Comicsgate. (emphasis mine)

The "Political commentary" section states:

In 2017, Van Sciver began a YouTube channel called ComicArtistPro Secrets, which originally featured demonstrations of illustration tools and techniques, but which later focused on commentary about comics, other comics creators, and fan culture. (emphasis mine)

Those are two different statements. There are several possible solutions:

1. My initial edit was a suggestion to bring the lead section in line with the main body.
2. An alternative route would be to provide additional sources that support the statement in the lead section.
3. Yet another route would be to adapt the main body to be in line with the lead section. One would have to make sure that such a change would be properly sourced.

I have initially opted for 1 because it does not require me to defend somebody else's seemingly unsourced claim.

I am unsure where our disagreement arises. Do you dispute that the two statements above are different? Arcadia Darell (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The lead accurately summarizes the content of the "Political commentary" section, which is what leads do. Grandpallama (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I have to disagree strongly.

The "Political commentary" section lists various events that people might characterise as "right-wing", but it's not clear how many of those actually happened on his YouTube channel. Van Sciver literally seems to have thousands of hours of commentary on his channel. At what point does "right-wing social commentary" become a focus? Which source is stating that this is the case?

To state it was a focus of his channel (again without sources) is an extrapolation and interpretation of the material that is properly sourced. From WP:NOR:

"[Original Research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented." (emphasis in original)

Neither the Buzzfeed nor the Daily Beast article directly support the claim that Van Sciver's YouTube channel focused on right-wing social commentary. Arcadia Darell (talk) 16:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Ownership of "Comicsgate" Trademark

Ethan Van Sciver is the owner of the "Comicsgate" Trademark: https://www.criticalblast.com/articles/2023/01/12/ethan-van-sciver-secures-trademark-comicsgate-what-means-going-forward

My inclusion of this information was removed by @Grandpallama stating that my edit was the "addition of info sourced to an unreliable source"

Critical Blast publishes news, reviews, opinions and interviews from the field of entertainment and pop culture, including comics. It employs multiple writers, editors, and correspondents.

Please clarify how this source is unreliable or refrain from reverting the edit in question. Thank you. Arcadia Darell (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Critical Blast falls under WP:QUESTIONABLE. It advertises itself as a logistics company that aids in putting together crowdfunding efforts and has a link to a store where it sells products--neither of which is encouraging. In the "About Us" link, it specifically states about its articles that The opinions shared are those of the respective authors, and may not reflect the opinions of CriticalBlast.com or its management, which suggests it lacks any editorial oversight. Opinion/contributor pieces, even from highly respected sources such as Forbes.com, are generally disallowed. This is especially true for such a significant claim in wikivoice; if Van Sciver owns the trademark, it should be relatively easy to find and source the claim from a more reputable outlet. I'm not challenging the fact, but a better source is needed for it. To use Critical Blast would, I think, require some input from WP:RSN as to whether there is consensus that it is reliable enough to make such a claim. Grandpallama (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you.

Where do you see that Critical Blast advertises itself as a logistics company etc.? What I have found is the statement that "Critical Blast is dedicated to delivering news, reviews, opinions and interviews from the field of entertainment and pop culture." both in the bottom and in the "About" section.

The disclaimer you mention seems to be a standard disclaimer to me. It does not imply that all articles are opinion pieces.

I accept your concern about the statement being made in wikivoice. Would you consider it to be acceptable if the wording is softened / elaborated and ideally substantiated by additional source(s)? Arcadia Darell (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Critical Blast is a well-known mouthpiece for Comicsgate advocates; we don't consider similar "news" sites (Bounding Into Comics, Bleeding Fool) to be RS. In this case, it's compounded by the fact that CriticalBlast is also a publisher and crowdfunding assistant of Comicsgate-related materials. I think you either need to find a more vetted and reliable source, or get consensus from WP:RSN that CriticalBlast.com is acceptable. Grandpallama (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I was unaware that "Critical Blast is a well-known mouthpiece for Comicsgate". Do you have any information that I could read up on?

I will try to find a better source and/or get consensus as you suggest. Arcadia Darell (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Commentary following Atlanta Spa-Shooting

The article currently includes the following statement:

Following the 2021 Atlanta spa shootings, in which eight people, including six Asian women, were killed, Van Sciver referenced the incident during a livestream group discussion on film director Zack Snyder, commenting, "He'll never stop me from killing Chinese people, ever. I don't care how many movies he makes. Give me a Tommy Gun and line them up against the wall, as the great Stan Lee once said."

The two sources used for this statement are not reliable sources:

1. The first source is a substack newsletter and therefore does not qualify as per Wikipedia:SELFPUB (https://www.ctec-middlebury.org/p/ctec-newsletter-3-marchapril-2021)
2. The second source is a tweet and therefore does not qualify as per Wikipedia:SELFPUB (https://twitter.com/rewritingripley/status/1372626199969554434)

Unless a reliable source can be provided, the paragraph is nonsensical and should be removed.

My edit was reverted by @Grandpallama referring to it as the "Removal of properly sourced info".

As per my statement above, the current paragraph is not properly sourced.

Please clarify or kindly refrain from reverting my edits. Thank you. Arcadia Darell (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

CTEC is the newsletter published by the Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism; it's a thinktank that is part of the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. While the newsletter is available through Substack, it's also published directly on the institute's webpage, as you may have noticed in reproducing the URL for the citation; it would still be a RS even if we were using a Substack link to it. It absolutely does not fall under WP:SELFPUB. The Twitter citation falls under WP:ABOUTSELF. Grandpallama (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Let's take these separately:

1. The institute's webpage is the Substack. See https://www.ctec-middlebury.org/ It provides no information on what the newsletters are based on and whether or not there is any editorial oversight. I'm not questioning whether this think tank is in principle capable of providing reliable research in its field, I am arguing that an unspecified newsletter from that think tank, a newsletter which is expressly stated to contain material from students, does not meet the requirements of being a reliable source.

Addendum: the Substack has literally 6 posts and was seemingly abandoned after. It was alive for less than a year. It's just not a serious source.

--Arcadia Darell (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

1. As per Wikipedia:ABOUTSELF "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves". This particular Twitter post provides information about somebody else and should therefore not be permissible.

Arcadia Darell (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

The CTEC Newsletter is a product of CTEC, which is part of MIIS. There is no question about its being a reliable source. The Twitter link is being used solely to provide a citation for the full quotation by Van Sciver, which is entirely covered by both WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY. Grandpallama (talk) 14:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)