Excessive Negativity: Joe Quesada

Peering through the article, I think a massive rewrite is in order here. As it stands right now - all bias towards his works aside - it basically serves as nothing more than an extended Take That! aimed at Joe Quesada, regardless of whether or not it's actually deserved. It focuses far too much on his failures, while not mentioning any of the positive things Quesada did in the past ten years. Coupled with the link to his Twitter account (with the general tone of the page, it just might incite trolling efforts), it... needs work.

Um, we already fixed it, and I think that twitter link was supposed to be already gone for that same reason. I'll delete it again.

EDIT: Done. I don't like the guy, but that doesn't mean Complaining is free there.

edited 6th Feb '11 1:18:48 PM by DragonQuestZ

"douche smile," linking his job description to This Is Gonna Suck, etc, are "fixed"?

No, those were added after a fix made before. I took those off a minute ago.

edited 6th Feb '11 1:19:37 PM by DragonQuestZ

Excessive negativity about Joe Quesada? No such thing.

agreed

I just locked the article for excessive negativity. Someone who wants the privilege should write up a reasonably unbiased version on Sandbox.Joe Quesada that can be subbed for the current page; the writeup as locked is still very negative.

FYI, we are not about creator bashing. A lot of tropers cannot get this simple concept into their heads. Let's not turn this into another CWC.

edited 9th Feb '11 10:01:00 AM by Fighteer

So when will the page be unlocked again?

Read &. Probably never.

edited 9th Feb '11 10:29:28 AM by Ghilz

If and when there's a reasonably cleaned-up, non-bashing page in the sandbox to replace it with. That doesn't mean it will stay unlocked if the bashing resumes...

Considering his notoriety in the comic book fandom, that "reasonably cleaned-up, non-bashing page" will probably never happen.

Then it will stay locked until it gets deleted (and probably permanently red-linked) for being a bashing page. Y'all's choice.

I still have the same problem with Running the Asylum. It's basically "bash creators 2.0".

edited 9th Feb '11 12:54:11 PM by KingZeal

Well there's a reason that page is YMMV-bannered. I might consider taking it even further.

Truth of the matter is, Joe Quesada has stirred up a lot of shit from the Marvel fandom, and for good reason. The article as is explains pretty thoroughly what he's done as EIC and why it's done such damage. The only thing I see that is maybe biased is potholing his picture to Smug Snake.

Doesn't matter. CWC is a hate magnet for the webcomic community. Uwe Boll is a hate magnet for films. We don't allow hatedoms to write articles on TV Tropes. If you can't say anything that's even neutral about him, the page is unnecessary and will get locked and cut.

If someone is famous for being horrendously bad, what's wrong with their article explaining how and why?

There's a fine line between pointing out failures/controversies and bashing. It's fine to note that Quesada has gotten a lot of heat for some of his decisions, but calling him a Smug Snake with a douche smile is going too far.

Also, the negativity isn't part of the works themselves; it's all Audience Reactions, which are supposed to be segregated from tropes that appear in the actual works.

I think you can pretty objectively call things like having a character go entirely against their whole modus operandi, re: power and responsibility, that has defined them for forty years a negative thing.

Actually, it's not. It's a thing, period. It's only negative because you say it is.

"Character acts differently" is objective. "Character acts differently, and that's bad" is not. We don't care if 99% of everybody who ever reads comics ever thinks "One More Day" is a travesty of writing. It's still an opinion.

edited 10th Feb '11 8:37:24 AM by Fighteer

You know what, if you wanna split hairs like that, why not make two pages? The current page can go on YMMV, and the new, non-bashing page can go where sugarcoating things should go, on Sugar Wiki.

How about we follow the rules of the wiki, which says to put the objective tropes on the Main article and the subjective stuff on YMMV? We have in the past made Darth Wiki pages for particularly reviled works/individuals, but that practice has fallen out of favor because we are not SA or ED; that's not our mission.

If he is objectively bad, reading objective tropes about objective facts will show that. Write down things that aren't opinions, and bashing. That isn't needed when the facts alone will show what's wrong. Example:

• Canon Discontinuity: He was the driving force behind One More Day. A story line that erased decades of Spider-Man canon thanks to a Deal with the Devil. In order to save his aunt from dying, Spider-Man gave up his marriage to Mary Jane.

See, completely objective. Still gets the point across.

Then we should add Character Derailment, while just using the facts to why that applies.