Jump to content

Talk:Dave Sim

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

Quotes section

[edit]

What is going on with the quotes section? My vote is that we choose quotes that are the wisest things Dave has said. Perhaps others want ones more characteristic of his eccentricities. Does anyone have any views one way or the other? YDZ 23:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC)YDZ[reply]

I think that we should choose quotes that have significance and are relevant- wise, eccentric or otherwise. To limit quotes to those that portray Sim well or badly would be a disservice. Snipergirl 0558 (Aust Pacific Time), 4 March 2006

My feeling is that the quotes should be a sentence or two max and no more than 3 or 4 in total, but that's just me. Think in terms of sound bites. Full size quotes are readily available elsewhere. -- Richfife 23:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that the quotes should only be a couple sentences. I think they should be Dave Sim quotes only, not quotes from characters in Cerebus. It would be nice if the quotes were referenced. So if someone wanted to look up the rest of the essay it came from, then they could. Also, the quotes could easily be verified. Margaret 23:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the material out there is directed towards his eccentricities (not surprising). I'm going to assume that area is either covered or very easily covered. I culled some links that are focused elsewhere: [1] [2] [3] [4] -- Richfife 16:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave's Bio

[edit]

I removed the sentence "Sim was admitted to Kitchener General Hospital by his wife and mother after several days of taking LSD" as the source used has several factual errors and is not a reliable source. If a reliable source would be cited, then I would understand including it. Margaret 02:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I switched to a more reliable source. -- Richfife 02:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article should feature something about Sim's contretemps with Jeff Smith. I will add it if no-one beats me to it. YDZ 03:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Attending city council meetings, etc.

[edit]

I'm not TOO offended by the last insert by 129.97.22.158 (I'm certainly not going to pull it), but a cite would be nice for verifiability. -- Richfife 21:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't add the statement you discussed above, but it is verifiable, Dave wrote a series of articles for Xen Magazine which from this article [5] (which appears now to be taken offline, but the google cache is still up): "As you have expressed interest in the hitherto closely-guarded secret of my Monday evenings—I am the only citizen of Kitchener, so far as I know, to attend all of the Public Committee meetings and City Council meetings" also, in Collected Letters 2004 on p. 204 is Dave's letter to Mayor Carl Zehr, the mayor of Kitchener which Dave talks about his attending City Council meetings. Margaret 02:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably a more stable link: [6] I'm of several minds here. Attending city council meetings doesn't mean you're not a recluse. Attend one sometime and you'll see what I mean. A lot of the people there come across like this is the only time they get out of the house. My gut instinct is that his reclusiveness is overstated, but I don't have any evidence either way. The "Saturday Night" article here [7] refers to him as reclusive, but implies that's only because of deadline pressure. -- Richfife 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the last couple of changes re: City Council meetings, etc. I was the co-publisher of Xen and live in K-W and can confirm, yes he goes to all the City Council meetings. That, plus attending SPACE and other conventions, doing guest work for stuff like Too Much Coffee Man and Following Cerebus, I think, kind of kills the "recluse" tag. Actually, as you can see from one of the XEN articles (the one on the Schoerg Barn), I would actually describe him as active in the local community. - Sandeep S. Atwal

Tangent

[edit]

I reverted back the edit which made "Tangent" to "Tangents" as Dave's essay Tangent does not have an 's' on the end. I cited page 18 of Collected Letters 2004, quoting Dave: "...[I]f Dave Sim is so inherently and self-evidently wrong in "Tangent" and his other essays (and let me express my appreciation: you are the only person who has used the correct name instead of "Tangents")..." Margaret 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly Critical of Feminism vs. Opposed to Feminism

[edit]

To be honest, the former is a much better description and is not unencyclopedic. -- Richfife 06:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dave is quoted in numerous sources stating he is "opposed to feminism." Stanley Lieber 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good, but he only gets one vote. Hardly anyone thinks of themselves as anything but a moderate, even people you and I would describe as extremists. -- Richfife 22:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it though: Sim doesn't think of himself as or portray himself as a moderate. He describes himself as "vehemently opposed to feminism in all of its forms." He's fairly easy to contact and we could ask him which way he wants it. The answer might surprise you. (Before this turns into an argument, I understand your point that how someone wants to be described may not be the best way to describe them; but my point here is that "opposed" is probably more accurate than "critical" precisely because Sim doesn't even pretend to be moderate -- in fact, he takes pains to explain that he is not moderate.) Stanley Lieber 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UT
I see the problem. To me "Highly Critical" is a stronger term than "Opposed". To you, it's the other way around. Of course, YDZ changed the term already, so it's kind of a moot point. And "Driven into a state of psychotic rage that he attempts to mask with sarcasm" doesn't really work on Wikipedia. -- Richfife 16:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day Prize

[edit]

The entry about the Day prize makes it sounds like Dave Sim nominates AND selects the winner of the prize. Following Cerebus talked about how Dave picked the nominees and Gerhard selected the winner. So the entry should be changed, right? I'm new to this, so I haven't made the change yet, in case there's some reason it's how it is.

Sim's Religion

[edit]

Dave Sim's take on "Abrahamic religion" is so very much outre that it cannot be blithely lumped in with the mainstream the way the article has done. It's way out on the fringe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogface (talk • contribs)

I agree. - Richfife 02:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph beginning "He's also in the process of reading the gospels..." is completely garbled. I don't know very much about Dave Sim, and I can't even guess what this paragraph is trying to say, or else I'd edit it myself. I can say, however, that Westcott and Hort is a Greek New Testament, not a "Greek to English translation." The paragraph's bizarre defensiveness about Jehovah's Witnesses (note spelling) also doesn't make much sense to me; it seems to be arguing against a view that nobody has proposed. I hope somebody who knows something both about Dave Sim and about religion edits this into clear, meaningful English without the factual errors that riddle it now. --Hapax 20:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cards on the table here, and with all due respect to the other editors, but some of the contributors to this article (and Sim fans in general) scare me (Not you, Hapax). I haven't been working on it much lately. - Richfife 01:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.peterbreedveld.com/archives/00001774.html

^^ on this dutch site, where he has recently published a column with the name "islam, my islam". Below the column you can find a picture of him, with a text that says that he is a muslim.--sehzades (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

[edit]

What's with the picture? There must be a better one and one which doesn't make Sim look like an asshole.

  • But he is one, so it seems approriate.
Although I wouldn't mind seeing a different pic of Sim in the article, let's be adults and keep the personal invective out of the talk page, please. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Influenced

[edit]

Sim influenced Gaiman and Moore too.I'm adding.Anyone who doesn't agree should post here after reading Gaiman's blog and reading a little about Moore and Sim's relation.

Pre-Cerebus Work

[edit]

For completeness it might be helpful to add Dave's contributions to both Captain Canuck [poster in Summer Special edition] and his pencil and ink work on Phantacea, which he was doing just prior to launching into Cerebus. Verne Andru 18:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


There is also his strip, The Beavers.Guest

Dave Photo

[edit]

Who cropped that photo of Sim by Dave Fisher? Obviously someone without any design skills, it looks like crap now. I'm going to upload another one. Don't crop it! 216.16.232.250 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to upload a better photo, please go ahead. I cropped that one because the purpose of Wikipedia photos is not to provide "action shots" of the subject or to promote their opinions, but to show what the subject looks like. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. The original, uncropped photo was pretty inappropriate. I think the current cropping point is about the best that could be done given the source. - Richfife (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If y'all would like a different photo, please feel free to grab one of the ones I took at SPACE last year and crop it as you see fit. Margaret (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Margaret, I've e-mailed you a pic that I cropped from one of the originals you took...since you took them, it seems fitting that you should be the one to put up a new pic since you have all the pertinent info for the description and sourcing. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a great contribution! And by-the-by, William Messner-Loebs could use a photo, too. Jimcripps (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has been updated. Thanks to Willbyr for the nice cropping job. I'll do the same to Mr Messner-Loebs picture and post his when I get back from work. Margaret (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic novel

[edit]

There are a number of sources which describe Cerebus as a single graphic novel. What that does to our definitions of te phrase is somewhat irrelevant. In Invaders from the North: How Canada Conquered the Comic Book Universe it is described as a "300-issue graphic novel", Graphic Novels: Stories to Change Your Life describes it as "a massive and massively daring novel mapped out over 6000 pages", indeed according to Kelly Rothenberg in Cerebus: An Aardvark on the Edge (A Brief History of Dave Sim and His Independent Comic Book) in 1979 "Sim proclaimed that Cerebus would be a 300 issue graphic novel with a definite beginning and ending". Dissent is voiced from Charles Hatfield, who notes in Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature that Sim's "books are at best problematic examples of the 'graphic novel'". So, how to proceed, since ignoring these sources because of what they might do to a perceived definition of the graphic novel isn't really within our remit, is it? Hiding T 18:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As in any field of art, a creator self-proclaiming that his comic-book series is a graphic novel doesn't make it so. James Frey called his autobiographical novel a memoir, for example, but that doesn't change the objective fact (as he, Oprah, and a highly embarrassed publishing company found out). Our definition of graphic novel at Graphic novel isn't so much the issue; it's how the publishing industry and general usage define it. And with all respect to John Bell and the over quarter-century old Dundurn Press, and to Paul Gravett and the even more distinguished publisher HarperCollins, these seem very much to be minority views.
My suggestion, for what it's worth: Put this information in a footnote. I, for one, certainly think it's worth noting that Sim has said this and that two books report his doing so, because it adds to our understanding of the author/artist. But I don't believe Sim's saying so changes the fact of what was physically published. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be curious as to why you state these are minority views. And it isn't two books reporting him as saying so, it is two books describing it as so. There is one journal paper recording him having said so. How we proceed from here probably needs more editors, but I'm happy to let the facts speak for themselves. If we have sources which state the single body of work itself isn't a single graphic novel, fine. But using our definition of graphic novel or somebody else's definition to decide what it is or isn't is prohibited per no original research. Hiding T 19:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Frey, etc. issues you raised related to people making statements that were demonstrably false, as opposed to an author or critic's statements on how something should be classified. If Sim said Cerebus was a memoir, I certainly wouldn't support changing the classification to please him. - Richfife (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creators, as many an aesthetics professor and professional critic has rightly noted, are not the best judges of their own work. And many are prone to grandiose self-assessments. Sim's opinion is not disinterested. Again, Steven Spielberg could call Taken a 20-hour movie — does that make it so? --Tenebrae (talk) 20:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE TAG REMOVED - IT BELONGS ON EACH OF THE ARTICLE PAGES - NOT ON THE TALK PAGE --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to begin a discussion on that page, and even gave a "hangon" rationale when that page was suddenly up for speedy deletion ... but it was deleted anyway:
  • 01:33 . . NawlinWiki (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Talk talk:Dave Sim" (G8: Orphaned talk page of non-existent or deleted page)
  • 01:33 . . NawlinWiki (Talk | contribs) deleted "Talk talk:Dave Sim" (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)
So should we discuss merger here? If so, I vote Merge since this related discussion is now on two pages (here and Talk:Cerebus the Aardvark). If we do merge, what would be the best place? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and copied it over. We can archive this here if you like? It makes more sense to discuss over there. For this article I'm happy to leave it as is; there isn;t any real need to get into the ins and outs of it in the lead. Hiding T 11:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you, H! See you there! With my regards to you as always, --Tenebrae (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Errr... Sorry about that. I guess I stepped outside the template's comfort zone. - Richfife (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

[edit]

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dave Sim. 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: 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 18:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dave Sim. 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, 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His views on women

[edit]

Given that his views on women are all ultimately rooted in his belief that women are emotional and men aren't, it's... strange... that the article goes out of its way to leave that unsaid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 03:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dave Sim. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

[edit]

The WP manual of style discourages Controversy sections. Such material should be folded into the general personal life, career and reception sections. Also, I believe the word 'controversy' is overused in the article. The word is almost meaningless. It is better to just simply state what the view is, or what the reaction was. Ashmoo (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if the "Controversies" section is going to be kept, does the "Creators' rights" subsection really belong there? I don't see anything in that part that suggests controversy. kane2742 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of accusations of grooming young girls?

[edit]

Have I missed it or does this entry truly have no mention of the credible accusations which Sims has actually no refuted of grooming underage girls? BS6 (talk) 21:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited material in need of citations

[edit]

I am moving the following uncited material here until it can be properly supported with inline citations of reliable, secondary sources, per WP:V, WP:CS, WP:IRS, WP:PSTS, WP:BLP, WP:NOR, et al. This diff shows where it was in the article. Nightscream (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]

Sim also worked on Oktoberfest Comics, a one-shot published by Kramer.[citation needed] He became friends with artist Gene Day in 1974, and the two worked together on a proposed character called the Partisan, which they hoped would run in Jim Waley's Orb Magazine.

Cerebus

[edit]

In the 1980s, Sim traveled widely to promote Cerebus, which became a successful independently produced comic book, with a circulation peaking at 36,000 copies. In 1984 he began a collaboration with Gerhard, who handled the background artwork in the series. Aardvark-Vanaheim, managed by Loubert, began publishing other comics besides Cerebus, such as William Messner-Loebs' Journey and Bob Burden's Flaming Carrot. After Sim and Loubert's separation, Loubert started Renegade Press, which assumed publishing duties for all non-Cerebus Aardvark-Vanaheim titles in 1985.

Post-Cerebus work

[edit]

Following the completion of Cerebus in 2004, Sim produces occasional guest work, goes to conventions and regularly attends city council meetings, provides interviews and art for a Texas-based magazine called Following Cerebus, and provided commentary and reports on Kitchener politics for two local magazines (called Xen and Versus).

Controversies

[edit]

Relationship with The Comics Journal

[edit]

Early in the 1990s, Groth took issue with Sim's stance of self-publishing as the best option for creators, and began to disseminate the view that it was best to work for a publisher, mentioning Ivan Boesky's address to the University of California's commencement ceremony in May 1986, where Boesky informed his audience that "greed is all right, by the way. I want you to know that. I think greed is healthy. You can be greedy and still feel good about yourself."[citation needed]

Despite this adversarial relationship, Groth later published an issue of the Journal featuring a critical roundtable on the series.[volume & issue needed]

Views on Jesus Christ

[edit]

Following his reading of the Bible and the Qur'an beginning in December 1996, Sim underwent a religious conversion from atheist secular humanism to his own mixture of the Abrahamic religions. Sim's beliefs are based on the premise that conflicts in scripture are the result of an ongoing argument between the true male God and Yoowhoo, a false female God.<ref>Sim, Dave. (2007) ''[[Latter Days (comics)|Latter Days]]''.</ref> He lives a lifestyle of fasting, celibacy, prayer, and alms-giving, and considers scriptures from the Jewish (but only the Torah, and Nevi'im), Christian (but only the Gospels, Acts and the Book of Revelation), and Islamic (the whole of the Qur'an) religions to be equally valid as the Word of God.<ref>"Just to be clear on the subject of what I consider scripture: the Torah, that is, the Law and the Prophets as held by Orthodox Judaism (i.e. no Ruth, no Esther, no Daniel, no Job, no Song of Songs, etc.), the First Book of Moshe through to Malachi, the four Gospels, Acts and John's Apocalypse, and all of the Koran." Sim, Dave. (2007) ''Collected Letters Volume 2'', p. 90.</ref> He explored theological themes heavily in the later issues of Cerebus.

Awards

[edit]

Sim has been nominated for many awards, and has won several:

  • Diamond Gemmie as Small Press Pioneer
  • Inkpot Award 1981
  • Kirby Award: Best Black & White Series, 1985 and 1987, Cerebus by Dave Sim
  • Harvey Award: Best Cartoonist (Writer/Artist), 1992, Dave Sim, for Cerebus; Best Letterer, 2004, Dave Sim, for Cerebus
  • Eisner Award: Best Graphic Album: Reprint, 1994, for Cerebus: Flight by Dave Sim and Gerhard
  • Comic Book Legal Defense Fund: Defender of Liberty Award 1996
  • Ignatz Awards: Outstanding Artist, 1998, Dave Sim, Cerebus
  • SPACE Lifetime Achievement Award 2004
  • Joe Shuster Awards: Outstanding Canadian Comic Book Achievement, 2005, Dave Sim and Gerhard for completing 300 issues of Cerebus in 2004; Canadian Comic Book Creator Hall of Fame, 2006; Outstanding Canadian Comic Book Cartoonist, 2009, for Glamourpuss and Judenhass

Sim's religious views and controversy

[edit]
I (Lynchenberg) am responding to this (which is not showing up on the page): THE ABOVE CITE IS THE PRIMARY SOURCE OF SYM'S OWN WORK, WHICH CANNOT BE USED TO SUPPORT "CONTROVERSY", NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF WP:PSTS, BUT ALSO BECAUSE A WORK CANNOT MENTION, AND THEREFORE NOT BE THE SOURCE FOR, CONTROVERSY THAT IT ITSELF CREATED AFTER ITS PUBLICATION:
I don't see this section as making out Sim's beliefs to be controversial. It's just describing those religious beliefs. If we can't include it because it's citing Sim's own writing in self-published sources where he describes his religious beliefs, I guess we can't include it, although as I've said before, I think the rule that "Sim himself cannot say he believes this for it to be considered reliable, somebody other than Sim with a certain amount of prestige has to say Sim believes this for it to be reliable" makes for a poor system for citing info. It puts too much power in the hands of people who may want to mispresent the subject of an article, either to make them look better or worse to readers. But I'll live with it if that's how Wikipedia is. However, if it's being eliminated because it's making Sim's beliefs out to be controversial, well, the passage isn't saying these beliefs are controversial. They may be, they may not be, but the passage just summarizes Sim's stated religious beliefs, it doesn't take a perspective on how others have responded to them. Edit: For the record, I understand these views are controversial, I'm just stating the article isn't taking a perspective on that, so if that's the reason we can't cite Sim's own writing for a summary of his beliefs, I don't think it's valid. I notice that for other topics that are considered controversial (such as Sim's views on self-publishing) Sim's own writing is cited to summarize his views. Blogs run by nobody who Wikipedia considers reliable are oft-cited too.Lynchenberg (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should not have been placed in the Controversy section. As for sourcing, WP:PSTS isn't a a part of the Reliability, it's a part of the NOR policy. We need secondary sources for material that is presented in a way that is analytical, evaluative, or interpretive. This includes an analysis of his religious beliefs, and especially includes that final sentence about how those themes were explored in Cerebus. Nightscream (talk) 03:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was it posted in the controversies section? It doesn't look like it even when posted here. Were his Awards considered "controversies" too? Lynchenberg (talk) 06:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lynchenberg: Regarding your recent removal of the description of Sim's religious views, and the revert of my restoration of my material, you stated in your most recent edit summary:

I checked and the material was cited, in fact by the same exact source it's cited as now (Sim's collected letters, with the additional citation of the notes in the back of Latter Days). These are self-published, thus self-sourced, descriptions of Sim's controversial beliefs with ZERO citations from third-party sources to support it, even though you claim they are. Find the third-party citations or it cannot and will not be included in the article.

The material I moved was that which described Sim's views as "controversial". You need secondary sources for that, not only because it is inappropriate to source controversial material to a primary source, but also for the obvious reason that a written piece in which someone describes their religious views cannot be a source for controversy generated by that written piece.
As for third-party sources, as I stated in a prior edit summary: There is no such policy or guideline that prohibits using a primary source for uncontroversial material, so long as the article is mostly supported by secondary sources; WP:PSTS merely advises caution in this regard. As for self-published sources, WP:SELFPUB says they cannot be used for claims the subject makes about OTHERS, along with a couple of other criteria that are not violated here. Despite this, you have not addressed the criteria described by those two guidelines. Can you do so now? Nightscream (talk) 12:55, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to get into this too much although I agree with Lynchenberg that this seems a bit too much for us to cover under WP:BLPSPS, we really need secondary sources. But anyway putting that aside, the lead said he was known for his controversial religious beliefs (amongst other things). I removed this as it lack a citation and also there is no mention of any such religious beliefs in the article. If the section is re-added with secondary sources supporting these religious beliefs as controversial feel free to re-add that part to the lead. I guess the rest of the lead since I guess his views on women could be regarded as a combination of philosophical and political beliefs and it's established as controversial within the body so IMO it's probably fine even if there's no citation directly mentioning he's known for such controversial beliefs. Although frankly if there only well known controversial political and philosophical beliefs he has relate to women, we probably should just mention this. If he has under controversial philosophical and political beliefs that have been noted by secondary sources we probably should at least briefly describe some of these in the article body if we're going mention it in the lead. We already mention the creator's rights things separately. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream:Sorry for the late reply. Essentially it's just what Nil Einne said. This is just waaaay too much to cover under WP:BLPSPS. Specifically, his religious beliefs are indeed considered controversial, not only because he's committed three-way blasphemy to three of the mayor religions, but because he's also adversarial to atheism. This is not currently cited in the article, but I have come across this information before during my time as a Cerebus fan, though it tends to be in private letters Sim has written to fans or self-published on blogs. I'm not saying you are factually inaccurate, but you'll need to find sources that aren't self-published to add this information to the article in addition to the self-published sources. It shouldn't be that hard to find. Lynchenberg (talk) 01:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Sim's "accusation."

[edit]

user:Nightscream This has been downplayed in the article, with Sim's child grooming being inaccurately described as an accusation and dancing around the word p-------e. Firstly, Sim openly admits to his actions, we wouldn't even know of them if he had not. He regrets his actions and continues to struggle with an attraction to children, to the point he has sworn off anything to do with sex to overcome them, as he describes in the letters posted in the article. In terms of Ethan Van Sciver, he is described as far-right in his own article and the article describes Van Sciver defending Sim's misogyny (backed up with his own tweets) and only dropping him when the p--------a came out. Regarding the term p--------a, what do you call a grown man sexually interested in children? Downplaying what he is (even if it is out of an admiration for his undeniable talent) is violating NPOV, not using the word to describe his action and stated primary sexual interest. Nice job rigging the article so I can't even mention the word on the talk page to downplay it, fanboy. I would have been willing to just not use that term as everyone knows what we're talking about anyway when we discuss his sexual proclivities and also dropping the part about Sim specifically working (and being dropped by) a far-right creator, as that's not absolutely necessary to describe the controversy, but now I will fight for both as you clearly want this suppressed. 2001:569:7FCF:5B00:B94C:322A:7FE5:BD7B (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: From Wikipedia, Ethan Van Sciver is described as an advocate of Comicsgate, described in its article as "It is part of the alt-right movement,[6][7][8][9] and has been described by commentators as a harassment campaign[10][11][12] which "targets women, people of color, and LGBT folk in the comic book industry".[13][14] It has been blamed by critics for the vandalism of one store[3] and threats of violence.[15]." The alt-right is in turn described as a "far-right white nationalist movement."

Meanwhile, here's the part where Sim outright admits to being primarily attracted to underage girls: https://postimg.cc/TpD932TB

I won't cut and paste the entire article and Wikipedia articles for you though, read them, then talk. 2001:569:7FCF:5B00:B94C:322A:7FE5:BD7B (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The comment "which led even far-right creators like Ethan Van Sciver, who had no problem with his misogyny, to cancel their projects with him" is not neutral wording, as it is arguing for a point. Using a degree-based phrase "even [this guy] canceled his project with him" is an attempt to illustrate the degree to which the person in question (Sim) prompts industry colleagues to distance themselves from him. If this point was made specifically by a critic in the source, and a direct quote was warranted, that would be one thing. Otherwise, writing it this way conveys that Wikipedia is making a point in its own voice, which is strictly prohibited by WP:TONE, WP:NPOV, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, et al. So does "had no problem with his misogyny", which is not a factual statement, but a personal assessment. You'll note the every time the word "misogyny" or "misogynist" appears in the article text, it is explicitly framed as assessment, and/or attributed to the person who opined it. It does not state it as fact.
Dropping a casual description of Ethan Van Sciver's politics is not relevant, unless there is a context that makes it so. Previously there wasn't. However, I noticed that the passage previously didn't provide any details as to when Sim made these comments, how Van Sciver got invovled, etc. It just said, "Sim has openly admitted...", without context. In providing that explanation (Sim had publicly defended Van Sciver, who had been criticized for being a part of Comicsgate, and possible because Sim was collaborating with him), I found a legitimate reason to re-add mention of those things. I hope that meets with your approval.
Also on this point, the prior wording was pluralized, as it said "far right creators like Ethan Van Sciver..." The cited source does not indicate there was someone other than Van Sciver who canceled projects with Sim. Thus, this is an exaggeration which futhur underscores the POV-nature of the way the addition to this article had been written.
Neither the cited source nor anyone quoted in it accused him of pedophilia, so Wikipedia will not either, pursuant to the policies and guidelines I mentioned above. What "I call" a grown man sexually interested in children is irrelevant to this point. This is not "downplaying" anything nor does removing it violate NPOV -- which is a rather remarkable accusation. I have no admiration for his "undeniable talent". I've read precisely two things by him, as I recall: 1. The one issue he wrote of Spawn, which while well-intentioned, would've been more subtle if Sim and McFarlane had taken turns holding me down while the other repeatedly whacked me across the face with a two-by-four screaming "Message! MESSAGE! Make sure you don't miss the MESSSAAAGGGEE!!!" (to say nothing of the message suffered in light of McFarlane's subsequent treatment of Neil Gaiman); and 2. The one issue of Cerebus in which Sim ran "Tangent", which I found to be poorly reasoned, inoherent, and utterly repulsive.
As far as your accusation, "Nice job rigging the article so I can't even mention the word on the talk page to downplay it, fanboy", I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I haven't "rigged" anything, and you can indeed mention the word pedophilia, as I did above, and again just here. If you wish to continue editing here, I recommend reading Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks.
"...but now I will fight for both..."
And now, I will begin holding my breath. Take care. Nightscream (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dave_Sim&oldid=1198781387"