Talk:John Byrne

Although criticism may be valid to note, does it really belong on the quote page?

I'm no Byrne apologist, but I'm appalled at the partiality of this page.


 * The remedy for an overabundance of quotations chosen to reflect positively or negatively on someone or something is to add some which counter this. One additional problem on this page, and a few others, is that it is not in our standard format of chronological presentation. It is our experience here that "subject" headings on pages for people are usually created for the pushing of some particular agenda, and I would say that more often than not it is a negative one. Chronological listing of sourced quotes and alphabetical listings of unsourced ones is standard. I doubt that I will have time to organize this page along these lines any time soon, but others are welcome to do so, if I do not get around to it in the next week or so. ~ Kalki 17:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This is an obviously biased and deliberately provocative selection of quotes. It includes many bits that are of no particular importance or notability, except to someone pointedly trying to provide as poor an impression of Byrne as possible. I'll revisit it in a little bit and try cleaning it up, probably by pruning, unless somebody objects.


 * Just because Byrne blogs about chatter in forums doesn't make it quoteworthy. If I cared, I would trim this to just what is actually quoted by notable sources not involved in the chat, but none of this interests me enough to motivate doing the research. ~ Ningauble 19:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If a link no longer leads to it's source, should it no longer be considered a reliable source? Also, if a link leads to a source that links to another source and THAT link that is supposed to lead to the ACTUAL source is no longer available, should it also be considered unreliable? I hope that's not TOO complicated for most. :) Palsunstar (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it would behoove us all to delete any and all quotes that use sources that are second-hand. I realize that this will severely limit things... as well as damage the agendas of certain negative personalities, but I'd like to believe that we are all interested in proof & not hearsay... My Honor. Palsunstar (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I started off with fixing the link in the very first subject... Terrorism. Unfortunately, it's a quote of a quote, BUT it IS from the source site AND corroborated by the ACTUAL subject. Palsunstar (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if hearing Byrne say something is factual enough for the page, but at the SD Comic Con Industry Expo in 93 or 94 (they only had it two years), I heard Byrne opine about Issac Asimov. The last day of the Expo (Wednesday), I and some other people were at the Sci-Fi booth of Doubleday. It was almost the end of the day, and the guy in charge of the booth told us to take any of the books on display because they didn't want to haul them back. I saw a two volume set of Asimov, and exclaimed, "Oh, Asimov!" Byrne was at a table 10 feet away and blurted out, "Asimov's a hack".--Tighelander (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)