Talk:Daredevil (Marvel Comics)/Archive 01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Removed Stats 2 Needs Work 3 Origin updated 4 Needs Better Analysis 5 First disability superhero 6 Non-encyclopedic tone 7 Movie section 8 Garbled phrase 9 (→Powers - he can only hear heart rate, not other evidence") 10 "Flirted with cancellation" 10.1 Cancellation Proof 11 Reversion 11.1 I Disagree 12 Collected GodzillaWax/Tenebrae war 12.1 Reversion and inappropriate comments 12.2 Kirby 12.3 Kirby is Not a Creator of Daredevil 12.4 Please stop your attacks 12.4.1 Isnt it Odd 12.5 Tenebrae, Im Not Asking You Again 12.6 GodzillaWax, don't threaten me 12.7 Comments 12.8 Put On Your Knickers, Sallys 12.9 Is there something we can do about GodzillaWax? 13 Non-NPOV

Removed Stats

I removed the following from the article because I don't think RPG stats belong in Wikipedia. Since large numbers of these "vital stats" sections have been added to various articles, I'm using Talk:Strength level (comics) to discuss this in general. Bryan 08:11, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Name: Matthew Murdock
• Occupation: Lawyer, Crimefighter
• Height: 6 ft.
• Weight: 200 lbs.
• Eyes: Blue
• Hair: Red
  • Intelligence Level: Gifted
  • Strength Level- Athlete
  • Agility Level- Enhanced Human (as the inner-ear, a sense organ, is the source of equilibrium and balance, Daredevil would posses those attributes to an extent hieghtened beyond what is humanly possible)
  • Stamina- Peak Human
  • Reflexes- Peak Human
  • Durability Level- Peak Human
  • Speed Level- Peak Human

Special Skills and Abilities: Daredevil is a master of martial arts and other fighting systems. As Matt Murdock, he is an accomplished lawyer who is feared by the criminal underworld. He is also very skilled in the area of private investigations. Daredevil has, perhaps, the most accutely developed alfactory sense of all the characters in the Marvel Universe. Though blind, he can see with the use of his super human hearing or "radar sense". This sense is superior to human sight and makes it impossible for villains to sneak up on Daredevil. Matt Murdock is a gifted athlete.

• Special Weapons: Daredevil carries a unique billy club with a myriad of special properties and offensive capabilities, which are variable. Some clubs house chemicals, others elongate into larger weapons or can become grappling hooks.
• Origin of Superhuman Powers: Accident with radio-active chemicals.

Needs Work

This article needs a lot of work to correct grammar, replace colloquialisms with formal English, regularize tenses and generally clean it up

(comment made on article page by User:Lee M, 22 August 2003)

Origin updated

Fixed the origin and the intro, but the rest of the article needs a lot of work.

A small point: The origin section (which is otherwise well-written) mentions that Daredevil's original costume is yellow and black, but a glance at the splash-page of issue #1 (vol. 1) would seem to indicate that it's actually dark-red and black. My expertise in this area is too limited to know whether the splash-page is showing up funny in the scan or whether the article itself is simply wrong about this, but somebody should take care of the problem. Buck 19:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Needs Better Analysis

Massively changed the entry. Think its significantly better than what it was. A lot of work still can be done on the analysis portion though - most of the thoughts there arent too well thought out

GodzillaWax 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

First disability superhero

Though a revolutionary creation by Lee and Everett as the first superhero with a disability, Daredevil was not an overly popular or influential Marvel hero until the late 1970s, when writer/illustrator Frank Miller made him a much darker character. But isn't the DC hero Doctor Mid-Nite older?

Yes, on Doctor Mid-Nite, a Golden Age hero. Also, the Golden Age Daredevil started off mute - Tenebrae 21:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic tone

The History section is filled with non-NPOV statements such as "...others have thankfully washed by the way-side with other ill-begotten creations (Stilt-Man)", as well as such purple-prose, non-encyc writing as

the introduction by Wood of the now classic red costume.

...and the early years also featured Mike Murdock - Matt's other alter-ego and alleged "true" identity of Daredevil. But mostly people don't talk about those stories anymore...

Also, "wayside" is misspelled, but there's lots more work than copy-editing needed. - Tenebrae 21:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no wayside is not misspelled. GodzillaWax 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Movie section

Here are the reasons for deleting this section's unencyclopedic final paragraph:

As of late, [Do not use temporal phrases such as that, "currently" or "recently" -- give a date] Marvel Studios' [title?] Avi Arad has mentioned that he would make a second Daredevil 2 "in a second" once the rights revert back to them from 20th Century Fox. [Avi Arad cannot greenlight ("make") a film. Does this unsourced quote with no citation mean he would allow another studio to make a sequel? What exeuctive wouldn't? This is just PR speak, hype] Ben Affleck has stated that he would be interested in returning as long as negotiations were made to tell some of the darker storylines that the character is known for. [Similar to Arad sentence: Unsourced paraphrase of an actor saying he'd be interested in starring in a major movie. Not encyclopedic].

This doesn't address the grammatical and similar errors - Tenebrae 02:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Garbled phrase

Together with secretary Karen Page and best friend and partner Franklin "Foggy" Nelson, Murdock became the lawyer he promised his dad he would one day become.

This is saying, "Together with secretary Karen and friend/partner Foggy, Murdock became [a] lawyer." That doesn't follow. I'll fix the syntax. -- Tenebrae 23:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

(→Powers - he can only hear heart rate, not other evidence")

No one said "hear". The phrase was "determine". He smells sweat, can hear very shallow breathing, etc. I'm fixing this as well. -- Tenebrae 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Flirted with cancellation"

I deleted this phrase (grammar sic), from the first sentence of paragraph 2 in the intro:

has twice in its history been flirted with cancellation, and

because it is an unproveable supposition; it may have been considered for cancellation at any of several points, particularly in its early run when there was no regular creative team. Or it may never have been seriously considered for cancellation at all. ("Flirted with" is a vague phrase, btw). Is there a quote that can be cited from someone in a position to know? Without sales figures, a knowledge of cancellation thresholds, etc., or a properly cited quote, where did the information for this statement come from? The context is also suspect: Many, many, many comics have been considered for cancellation at one time or another. Is this fact -- if even confirmable -- of such encyclopedic weight that it should be the lead of the second paragraph of an article?

Before I'm accused of anything, please note I've left alone something else in that sentence, the fact DD was not overly popular or influential. That has history on its side (statements by Stan Lee, DD's non-inclusion in 1960s animation efforts, lack of major Marvel characters or concepts sprung from it, lack of public catchphrases such as Hulk stomp or Your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, the frequent references to DD as a second- or sometimes third-string Marvel character when the 2003 movie debuted, etc.), and does seem important, given the series' very public, much-discussed creative revival. - Tenebrae 21:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cancellation Proof

Added interview with Jim Shooter on the matter as a footnote for proof.

Reversion

Since you asked for no blind reverts, I am telling you why I did it:

• Origin and Powers are both general info meant as an introduction, and need to remain near the top
• Love Interests/Recurring Characters/Enemies and Other Daredevils are all short lists of characters and are grouped together as such
• Awards belongs with Bibliography. Additionally, seperating bibliography in two especially doesnt work if you have nothing to add in the second section. An Essential Reading section has already been removed as it is subjective and not fitting for an encyclopedia
• Notable Creators is not fitting with the theme of Publication History, which serves as a general guide through the characters past. It is also a significant enough list to warrant its own section
• Analysis is a distinct enough entity to remain on its own

If you have qualms with how this is setup, please discuss it here before making wholesale revisions. Cheers GodzillaWax 22:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you haven't even read the exemplars, which are found here. Using this, I shall put my criticisms of your structure:

• All the introduction needed is A is a superhero from B Company created by X+Y. He debuted in A#1 (D 19EF). The rest fits into the various sections.
• Lists of Love Interests/Recurring Characters/Enemies aren't generally used in many articles, since they should be referenced in the main sections. Other Daredevils should be renamed Other versions of Daredevil and be put in the fictional biography section.
• I didn't really know where to put the Awards section and I think you are right in the placement. However 'List of significant stories' can be a vital referencing tool.
• Again, Notable creators doesn't exist in many articles. Publication history should only give the real-world history of the character, while fictional biography should be a look at the history of the character within the comics.
• Analysis constitutes original research, banned on Wikipedia. If a creator has said these things, then credit should be given and it should be spread around the Publication history section.

Thanks for reading, --Jamdav86 18:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I Disagree

Youre talking like the exemplars are some standarized Wiki rule on comic character articles. Theyre not. Theyre something made a few months ago (something that Daredevil predates by years, I should add) by a collection of nerds (not a pejorative, im a nerd). This isnt like you saying I need to conform to a wiki standard, this is you saying 'this needs to be this way because other people say so'. Well fine, but I dont agree. GodzillaWax 17:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Collected GodzillaWax/Tenebrae war

Reversion and inappropriate comments

This is a Daredevil Talk-Page copy of posting to User:GodzillaWax

Your incendiary comments (Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks) on the Daredevil History page are in violation of Wikistandards, as are your reversions of edits made in good faith. I'm not sure why you call me "pepe", but it's inappropriate regardless. You ask, "Inappropriate tone? Are you serious? What do you do for a living, write algebra textbooks?" I'm surprised that writing for a living should be a matter of denigration in your view. Factual material does not have to be dry; please read any of the articles I've created and see for yourself. Factual material does, however, have to be accurate, objective, written in a neutral point of view (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), a.k.a. NPOV, and in any encyclopedia's case and specifically in Wikipedia's, not use such words such as "currently" or "recently" (Wikipedia:Avoid_statements_that_will_date_quickly). Additionally, the writing should be direct and to the point.

We are also not supposed to remove tag templates; this is not your personal article, but all of ours.

I am reporting your behavior to the admin. As a final note, and I understand you may scoff, there's just no downside to being courteous to others. - Tenebrae 21:13, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Kirby

Marvel doesn't give Kirby credit for a lot of things. Everett said Kirby contributed -- including coming up with the idea of the billy club, and the record shows Kirby helped designe the costume, a highly integral part of any character's creation.

I footnoted the source in the first graf. I understand you may have missed seeing it. Here's the quoted source, from someone who spoke personally with both Kirby and Everett:

Comics historian and former Kirby assistant Mark Evanier, investigating claims of Kirby's involvement in the creation of both Iron Man and Daredevil, interviewed Kirby and Everett on the subject, years before their deaths, and concluded [1] that, "in both cases, Jack had already drawn the covers of those issues and done some amount of design work. He ... seems to have participated in the design of Daredevil's first costume. ... Everett did tell me that Jack had come up with the idea of Daredevil's billy club. ... Jack, in effect, drew the first page of that first Daredevil story. In the rush to get that seriously late book to press, there wasn't time to complete Page One, so Stan had Sol Brodsky slap together a paste-up that employed Kirby's cover drawing. ... Everett volunteered to me that Jack had "helped him" though he wouldn't — or more likely, couldn't — elaborate on that. He just plain didn't remember it well, and in later years apparently gave others who asked a wide range of answers".

I can see you've been a faithful contributor to the Daredevil entry, going back months. That's a good thing. Sometimes that can make it difficult to accept others edits, even when well-sourced and factual. That's OK. People of all different ages and temperaments work on Wiki, and by and large they make it work. As long as we're all courteous and can back up what we say.

I'm looking forward to more of your work on Daredevil, and I know the more you do, the more interested you'll get in digging into sources. - Tenebrae 18:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Kirby is Not a Creator of Daredevil

Marvel owns Daredevil. Marvel says DD is created by Lee and Everett. An article about how an alcoholic Everett may or may not recall Kirby doing anything more than a sketch of the splash page does not constitute the kind of evidence that overcomes that.

So in your own parlance, that is not encyclopedia worthy.

My problem with you is that you are omitting a great deal of facts, replacing things that are relevant to the character with inane trivia, and in general making this whole entry unreadable. Nice work with the images by the way.

You talk about being corteous: investigate whether or not something is true before you delete it. Additionally an article not meeting your own personal style guidelines does not mean it has an "inappropriate tone".

Christ man I put a lot of effort into making this entry something that was actually worth reading and informational. You have spent your time taking it apart piece by piece.

Explain to me how saying "wisacre banter" is not in an inappropriate tone?

Its people like you that proves the faults of wikipedia

GodzillaWax 19:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your attacks

I didn't say a word opposing your deletion of "wisacre banter"; if you don't feel the tone is a proper description, fine. It's all about give and take. I've had phrases of mine changed and I've changed others. You know what? The change is usually better. Since "banter" has a built-in element of being wisecracky, my adjective wasn't needed. Since I didn't say a word about it, and in fact agree with it, I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.

Watch out for phrases like "people like you" -- that sounds to me like a group condemnation of ... well, I'm not sure exactly. Who are people like me?

Please understand that what you consider "actually worth reading" is subjective. That's right. Others might find it less-than-professional quality fan-writing. Your implication is that your writing is better than that of all the writers who came before, and others like myself who've afterwardl. I'm not sure that's in the spirit of collaboration.

You're correct in that Wikipedia encourages stylistic writing that is not dry. You claim to be a writer -- then you must know there is a middle ground between dryness, listy prose and an itneresting encyclopedic tone. I would say -- as someone else did who removed what they call your unencyclopedic phrase below -- that we have an area of disagreement. The parenthetical phrase below is what 152.23.98.33 removed:

Though Elektra would later become a ninja-trained assassin (don't they all), it should be noted...

BTW, "it should be noted" is in the passive voice. The active voice in most cases makes for better, more attributable writing.

I'm not sure specifically what facts I'm removing -- I know I've added several -- but just because something is a fact doesn't make it relevant. Mr. Bendis gives a statement about how he created a "legacy" (a word that really requires careful use) of change in the series. First, that's a self-aggrandizing; second, it's not weighty. Many, many comics have a legacy of change. The Avengers was doing that in the 1960s. Other comics did it in other eras. Peter David's the Hulk, all the various, ever-changing X-Men books, etc. It's not a big deal, and to quote an interested party saying, "I did this and it's a big deal" is not good research.

I don't know how old your are, and I hope you don't dismiss all this out of hand. I wish you'd believe I'm trying to reach compromise and consensus here. If that "proves the faults of wikipedia," whatever they are, then: Guilty as charged. -Tenebrae 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Isnt it Odd

...that a number of people on your discussion page accuse you of unreasonable edits? GodzillaWax 13:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

That's not odd at all. Some criticisms (they're not accusations) are valid, some aren't. The point is resolving it amicably. That's the nature of editing: cooperation/collaboration. What I find odd is people throwing temper tantrums in print. You never see Admins do that. I'd only note, since you seem to be going out of your way to snipe, that the criticism of you by the likes of User:Captain_Disdain and User:Jamdav86 on the History page and here seem serious.

Look, I'll extend a hand here. We both respect the creative work going on in Daredevil. I think we got off on the wrong foot. [So maybe I should be extending a foot? :-) ] I can tell you honestly that the tone of your History changes ("Would the balls of the Virgin Brigade please drop?", "What are you, drunk?") might be construed as unnecessary, even hostile. At the very least, it goes against Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

What do you think? We don't have to communicate unless necessary, and when we do, we'll make an sincere effort to reach compromise with the other person, because the truth so very, very often lies smack in the middle.

Thanks, - Tenebrae 19:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC) NOTE: This comment entered after the ones below.

Tenebrae, Im Not Asking You Again

Knock it off with the personal attacks. I saw you badmouthing me again on the WikiProject Comics Page. Be a man and do it to my face or dont do it all. But this cowardly running around dropping insults stops now. GodzillaWax 18:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

GodzillaWax, don't threaten me

Take stock of yourself and of the comments you make to people. We've all seen the insults you throw on the History page, fulminating about the "Virgin Brigade" and the "awesomeification" of your edits. Seriously, I'm asking respectfully and calmly for two answers, and I'm hoping, to use your own phrase, you're man enough to give them. The two questions are: Why do you think you have the right to insult people and call them names, or to characterize your attempts at editing with such self-aggrandiing and non-informative descriptions? -- Tenebrae 19:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Cut it out, the pair of you. This is not the forum for personal attacks, it is a talk page for the improvement of the Daredevil article. Comments related to users specifically should be left on their talk pages. However, talk pages aren't the forum for pesonal attacks eithe. If you have a problem with a user specifically, you should leave a polite note on their talkpage. Now I hope that you two will take note of this, and stop polluting this talk page with your domestics, instead of just flaming me/reverting this edit. Thank you for reading, --Jamdav86 16:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to second Jamdav86's comments, above. While it's sometimes mildly amusing to read an exchange like this when it's published in the gossipier pages of some popular magazine (the "readings" section of Harper's used to contain this sort of thing sometimes), the Talk page of an open-source encyclopedia is really not the place for it. If either one of you really cares about the quality of the article, and I think you both do, then you'll rise above this nonsense and find a way to work together. Seriously, guys, this is just silly. Buck 19:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

You're both right. Please see my olive branch under "Isnt it Odd" (couple of subheads above)- Tenebrae 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Put On Your Knickers, Sallys

If everyone would take the time to actually look at how things on the page have been going lately, you'd notice that I have worked hard on collaborating with Tenebrae on his changes. The only thing I've mentioned is that he needs to knock off the behind-the-back namecalling. I haven't been blind reverting his stuff or anything, I've been working on making his stuff better. Honestly, everyone, cool out. GodzillaWax 17:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Is there something we can do about GodzillaWax?

I'm new here, but I've been reading a lot about Wikipedia and have been looking at Dardevil, and before I start spending time on this, is there anything I or anyone can do about people like this person? "Put On Your Knickers, Sallys" is an oral-sex reference being used in a degrading, insulting and sophomoric way. Should we go to Jim Wales and recommend that people use a credit=card number to sign up, so that minors and teenagers like GodzillaWax stop acting like Beavis and Butthead? I like the idea of a free, global encyclopedia, but I don't think people like that belong here. -- Herculaneum 04:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Non-NPOV

I've commented-out these two sentences in the "Bendis Comes Out" section for being opinion rather than NPOV. I give one example of my reasoning for each. These sentences also appear hyperbolic. Requesting comments from disinterested parties.

Bendis has from his very first issue crafted a story not seen in comics much in the same way both Stan Lee and Frank Miller had decades before.

Non-NPOV. A lot of people would say the same of Nocenti's run, for example, and that's just in Daredevil. The term "not seen in comics since" is also both vague and, given the multitude of stories told in comics from Marvel, DC, Vertigo, etc., hyperbolic.

And it certainly hasn’t hurt that Bendis’ writing has been accompanied by the finest art Daredevil has ever seen, thanks to Alex Maleev.

Also, non-NPOV opinion and hyperbolic. Many people believe Gene Colan produced "the finest art Daredevil has ever seen". Others believe Wally Wood did, etc. The point is, it's opinion. -- Tenebrae 20:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's POV, no doubt. Delete it all! However, as seen below, I have a more sweeping and contreversial change to bring to the article. --Jamdav86 20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)