Talk:Spider-Man

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Spider-Man article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Good article Spider-Man was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
To-do list for Spider-Man: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Copyedit: Write fictional information in present tense.
  • Verify: Cite the comics. The first Spider-Man film's DVD is a good issue resource.
  • Expand: Leads to subpages.
Archive
Archives

Contents

[edit] Please edit, for some reason it doesn't show up in the edit boxes.

There's a whole bunch of junk from a fanatic who put in obviously fake and irritating information. Cursing is also there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.225.125 (talk) So please don't curse.....It Just Shows Your Immaturity..

[edit] Somebody that knows exactly what happened...

Should post up the fate of Aunt May after getting shot in "Amazing" recently. Hell of a cliffhanger for J Mike to give us, and then my comic shop decided not to buy the next issue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.231.40 (talk)

Not until the sub-article intros are expanded. WikiNew 18:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I need the help of a dork!

Can someone tell me... whether any comic has ever explained this... why, if Spider-Man has so many rich and powerful close personal friends, did they never help out his pitiful financial situation? I mean, Human Torch helped him make a car, but it seems like Reed Richards and Tony Stark have enough spare cash lying around to sponsor his hero-ing a little... so he and Mary Jane don't have to sell their blood to get by... (Modern era notwithstanding, that's something else entirely.. what with the shiny gold and red suit.. and .. betrayal..) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 02:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

No dorks here, only contributors in my appraisal. In answer to your question 75.72.21.221, since he's not a supporting character in another character's comicbook, he would have no unnecessary attachments to those whom you had mentioned. Now a question: How is this relevant toward this particular article?Mister Fax 18:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
How would an explanation of why Parker often struggles for money, despite having wealthy friends & being a fairly inventive genius, not be relevant to the article? --Dr Archeville 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like any analysis would be original research unless there's something in-universe we can site, like "Parker has refused financial help from his wealthy friends [footnote here]."
And I don't know about you, but in big cities especially it's not surprising for struggling people, especially in journalism and the arts, to have wealthy friends. You don't ask them for money because that can ruin a friendship. And wealthy friends don't offer because that's demeaning and insulting to the struggling friend. That's such a prosaic part of real life. What I'd like to know is how a supposed supermodel like M.J. (as opposed to a regular, non-famous working model) just disappears and there's no agent, no publicist, no personal assistant, no business manager, no agency head, etc. in the picture. --Tenebrae 17:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
That's why I asked if anyone can give me an explanation from the comics. I wouldn't put something so unsupported in the article without that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

My uncle and I love Spider man comics and I asked him that same question! He said that they never said anything about that. Hope that helped! Spider-freak 17 6/4/7:28

just to point out.... none of the rich "friends" pete has know he is peter parker.they only know him as spidey. and just to tell you how would it sound if spidey asked for money? think about it........ artha14 —Preceding comment was added at 23:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] minor edits for someone to fix:

"...in the upcoming fidouchenal issue..." (emphasis added)

"He has also used an invention of Ben Reilly's, a clone of Peter Parker, called "impact webbing": a pellet that explodes on impact into a wrap-around net of webbing." Sounds like the clone of Peter Parker is called "impact webbing." 71.198.100.237 17:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the impact webbing bit.--Tempest115 17:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hyphen

The hyphen is very important, unique, and often omitted. This should be mentioned in the article, as I think it really irks a lot of us web-heads. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC).


I Agree, this should be put in. I can't find a source though, but I remember reading that it was because Stan Lee didn't want Spidey confused with Superman. Thus the hyphen. If anyone can fine a good source for the reason, please add it. I hate when people spell it without the hyphen, maybe I'm ocd? 8<. Also, sign your comments so people know who you are. Use four tildes. Bryse 20:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

He (Stan) said that in his book Excelsior! Anakinjmt 20:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I also agree. In the trailer for the Spectacular Spider-Man cartoon, Peter Parker says he can sum up his summer vacation with "one hyphenated word, Spider-Man!" --CommanderWiki35 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I also hate it when people don't capitalize the 'm.' I have had to fix that in so many minor edits I could probably have a full profile just for that. Freak104 14:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

ya it seruisly urks use true belivers. why dont they fix that? its so anouying artha14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artha14 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite semi-protection

I've semi-protected the article. Scanning over the history, I see very few contributions from anonymous editors that were not quickly reverted. I suspect that this page is a magnet for abuse, and unless the regular contributors to this page enjoy reverting bad edits, I don't see much point in unprotecting it. However, if anyone has an objection to the semi-protection, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll remove it. -- Samuel Wantman 21:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I object.... I do like reverting pointless vandalism, it gives me a good laugh 8-P. Nah i am kidding, hey um mabey you can look at the other popular marvel char pages to see if they need to be protected.Phoenix741 21:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Leave a list on my talk page. I'm not a comics person. I have no idea who popular marvel chars. are. -- Samuel Wantman 17:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Powers & Fighting Style

I have long felt that Spider-Man's unique and extremely effective fighting style is rooted in his paricular combination of powers. This might be stating the obvious, but I mean in a very specific way. Many super heroes and villians have superhuman strength (usually interpreted as also facilitating superhuman leaping) and agility. What makes Spidey different is wall-crawling and especially Spider-sense. Spidey's style is among the most mobile and non-linear, always leaping and swinging at high speeds in rapidly changing directions. Wall crawling means Spidey can and does leap from all directions even straight down, raining blows from all directions while avoiding trouble. Spider-man's strength, agility and speed are all integrated in a special manner by his Spider-sense which defines his unique combination of the choatic and precision is both attack and defence. Spidey fights like no other, throwing himself through danger not knowing in advance what will happen but protected by split seconds and millimetres through his intuiting. I think this is a vital aspect of Spider-Man may not have been brought immediately and that some writers and artists portray better than others. Mark Bagley's Amazing Spider-Man is among the best. The (seperate) occasions when Spidey knocked out the Hulk and Firelord are good examples. A great battle was the full issue fight with Black Tarantula (drawn by Joe Casey?). Spidey despaired of victory, fearing Black Tarantula was like a 'super-charged version of myself'- Spidey lacked his usual 'edge' against characters of such strength.

I think this a brief word on this should be included.. actually it already is- I just re-read it. Sorry.

Spider-Man KO'd the Hulk, which issue was this and which issue was the Black Tarantula, and Spidey rocks.

[edit] Spidey Diapers

Spider-Man is the mascot for Pampers diapers. I think that should be mentioned somewhere, but I don't know where. Coop41 08:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This may be what you're thinking of. -- Jayunderscorezero 21:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Wow this is new, yea if there are sources, it would make sense to put it inPhoenix741 00:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No Images Without the Mask?

There should be at least one picture of Peter Parker as himself and not his websliging alter-ego. --Panelmyth107 06:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Tempest115 13:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Look at Fictional history of Spider-Man --(RossF18 16:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC))
meh, I think there should be one on the main page also.Phoenix741 16:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

your right. only people who read the comics actually know what he looks like in the comic. artha14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artha14 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User:Moshikal

Despite my attempts to dialog with him, this editor continues, without ever providing a rationale, to remove the only art in this article by Spider-Man co-creator Steve Ditko. It would be unencyclopedic to not have a single piece of artwork by the character's co-creator.

In addition to his silence and his refusal (see his [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moshikal Contributions page) to give edit summaries, User:Moshikal is not editing in good faith nor acting responsibily --Tenebrae 21:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed, but I moved them around so the pic of the green goblin is closer to the enemies section, seems to make sense to put it there.Phoenix741 22:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] About Spidey and The Fly

I recall reading an interview (from the Steve Ditko Collector, I think) wherein Ditko brought to Stan's attention that the early Kirby Spider-Man did indeed resemble The Fly, both in costume and concept. Ditko was supposed to ink it which is how he saw the work. According to Ditko, Lee recommended that Steve only retain the name "Spider-Man" and that he start from scratch. I know it maybe splitting hairs but the key is that the final product is the result of Ditko,Lee and Kirby's efforts. In the same interview,Ditko mentioned that Peter Parker, Aunt May and Uncle Ben "...were already there." I think this makes Kirby a "co-creator". If Jerry Robinson can be considered the "creator" of the Joker, even though his version wasn't used, then isn't Kirby elegible for the same consideration regarding Spidey? Just wondering. The Batmaniac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernard ferrell (talk • contribs) 17:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Top Ten most intelligent fictional characters

According to BusinessWeek, Peter Parker is listed as one of the top ten most intelligent fictional characters in American comics. Smartest Superheroes Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 10:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page needs to be semi-protected again.

Once the protection was let off, vandalism on this page went up ALOT, we need to fix this.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 00:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spider-Man IS A NINJA

Seriously, stop taking Category:Fictional ninjas out of it.

He's more of a ninja than half the other people on that goddamn list, so stop removing it.

can you give some sort of source??-- Phoenix741(Talk Page) 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Manga-Verse spider-man is a ninja, not to mention the way he dodges, and alot of his moves are based of ninjitsu. Not to mention that most of his alternates have a ninja attachment in some way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.74.45 (talk) 00:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will give you the fact that mangaverse spidy is a ninja, but this article is NOT about mangaverse spidey, it is about 616 spidey, and since 616 is NOT a ninja, that does not belong here. Also saying that his moves make him a ninja is point of view.-- Phoenix741(Talk Page) 01:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It's also point of view to label a character as being something just because you personally feel it applies to the character. The mangaverse Spider-Man is just another Spider-Man from an alternate reality. The mangaverse Spider-Man could be given three heads and eight arms and it'd have no influence or bearing over the Earth-616 version of Spider-Man whatsoever. Also, watch the language and keep the discussion civil. Otherwise, take it to a fan forum. The internet's loaded with them.Odin's Beard (talk) 01:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, just jumping in here. It's noteworthy, that we're not comparing Spider-man to an actual Ninja. Rather, a fictional ninja, which does take the legend and move it around a bit. Now that that's out there: His costume, is similar to a ninjas, and how he demonstrates fictional ninja ability. Also note worthy, Spider-man has shown more ninja-like prowress compared to alot of the characters on the list, and even has the look of a ninja alot more. Moving away from visuals, however: Although for a tiny tiny few frames, he has run on water for a small bit, not very far, but enough to be mentionable. Ninjas also are known for climbing walls, with their hands, or a rope(web), as well as Spider-mans foot area bearing resembelance to the ninja footing. 99.228.56.169 (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing him as a ninja based on your own interpretation violates WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:V. Doczilla (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
The bottom line is that Marvel Comics doesn't, never has, nor likely ever will consider him to be or categorize him as a ninja. I'm no expert on the subject, but isn't the common perception of ninjas as being trained martial artists that were typically used as assassains, thieves, and spies? Strictly speaking, Spider-Man doesn't really fall under any of those categories. As for the black costume, I can dress in black, climb up a wall using a rope, and strike a martial arts pose but those things don't make me a ninja. Odin's Beard (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
While realizing that the majority of this article deals with the 616 Spidey, isn't it about all Spideys? Not sure that would qualify the category (in fact, I'm pretty sure it doesn't), I'm just throwing that out there. Anakinjmt (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It is about 616 Spider-man, with a section on Spidys from other worlds, but when it comes to catagories, we only deal with 616 spider-man.-- Phoenix741(Talk Page) 16:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Categories are pretty much devoted only to the mainstream universe's depiction of characters. No reason to turn that all upside down just over alternate versions, most of which only make one or two appearances tops. There's a small section on the Mangaverse version in the Alternate versions of Spider-Man article. Granted, it's not much more than a blurb, but I don't personally know anyone that was a fan of the Mangaverse. I know next to nothing about the Mangaverse version, don't really care to either I suppose. Evidently, there aren't many editors that have much info on that particular version, otherwise I'd figure that there'd be more information on him.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Spidey is NOT a ninja. How do I know? My spider sense says so.

Matthew Laffert (talk) 09:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Since he has never been depicted AS a Ninja, nor have we ever been informed he was a ninja, or recieved training in the arts of the ninja, then we can't say he was a ninja. Heck, it would be like saying some little kids are ninjas because they have black pajamas and like to act like the powerrangers after watching some of their episodes early in the morning on the weekend! Corrupt one (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man hides in the shadows. he is like a super spy. in one issue of ultimate spider-man he tracked Nick Fury for hours without him knowing. he wheres a mask. spidey IS a ninja artha14 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artha14 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man is not a ninja. He hates ninjas. This was stated multiple times in New Avengers. If he was a ninja, he would hate himself. Rau's Speak Page 00:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rau J. If you can provide the issues numbers, we can finally end this nonsense. Unless someone can state that WAS depicted AS a ninja, and not just LIKE a ninja, we can't claim he is one. Also, as far as I know, he has never studied ninjistu (or however you spell it), the art of the ninja. Claiming he IS a ninja just because he resembles one to SOME peoples imagination is OR.

For those people who are insisting he IS one, here is a challenge for you: show us any issue, episode, or storyline where he is depicted AS a ninja. THAT is your only hope of getting it included in the article. Otherwise, let this matter rest. Corrupt one (talk) 23:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the exact issue, but I found a later reference to his hating ninjas. In New Avengers issue #27 page 21:

Spider-Man: Yay! Ninjas! I love Ninjas!
Wolverine: You said you hated ninjas.
Spider-Man: Ah, Logan, that was before the House of M and our little Civil War. In retrospect, I kinda like fighting Ninjas.

The full quote goes on to how Luke and Peter like the matching outfits and how if they could have matching outfits, he wants to have Doctor Strange's. Rau's Speak Page 00:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brand New Day

According to this picture I found, Spider-Man still unmasked during Civil War, but no one remembers who was under the mask.

http://www.marvel.com/i/content/2068125867_full9733597.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenedisoverthere (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Abilities

The web shooter should be removed from the Abilities list, or put as "He posses a man-made web shooter capable of shooting out synthetic webs made by himself." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.14.91 (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i think because of BND, he doesnt have those anymore. Even though that doesnt make sense. Rau J16 00:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Who ever said they are man- made? Don't mess with me, the Great Matt Laffert!

Matthew Laffert (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that pete made the web shooters is proof of that. Rau J16 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
What about the stingers that he has and the jacked up physical strength? Are they gone as well?Odin's Beard (talk) 03:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong! no, no no. Peter never made the web shooters!!! Where did you get your facts from?

Matthew Laffert (talk) 10:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Pete made his web shooters, this is stated multiple times through out the comics history, as for his new abilities, according to sources i cannot remember(that means they are not reliable) he "forgot" them, they are still there he jsut cant use them. which doesnt make sense, how is MJ needed for him to die. Rau J16 11:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Spider-Man's homemade webshooters are among the most well known gadets and gizmoes in comic book history. The biological webshooters were first seen in the first Spider-Man movie in 2002 and Marvel decided to incorporate that idea into the comics and give the comic version biological webbing as well. Odin's Beard (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The webs. In the comics it was the result of the webshooters he made. In the MOVIE it came from his hands. I have no idea how that works, but it is in the movie. One of its many flaws. You can put down that the webs he shoots are most commonly the result of the webshooters he made, however in the spiderman movie, the web strands came from him as one of his mutant abilities. Corrupt one (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the movie, he develops spinnerets that work the same way that a real spiders web spinner works. It was not a mutant ability, seeing as Peter Parker is not a mutant. Also, the biological web shooters in the movie are not a flaw, it was just to make the transformation more apparent, and it was more scientifically accurate than the ones in the comic (although to be exact, the webs would come from his mouth, under the tongue). Also, i dont think the biological web shooters need to be mentioned, seeing as they dont exist at all anymore. Rau J16 00:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No. They SHOULD be mentioned, as they WERE part of his abilities. This section SHOULD list all of his abilities. He also was a mutant in that he had undergone a mutation which gave him his powers in the first place. How can you say he was NOT a mutant, or that the biological webshooters did not count as a power? Corrupt one (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically, they were never part of his abilities, seeing as history has been rewritten. And if the section listed them all, it would be too long. And he is defined by marvel as a mutate, not a mutant, mutants are born that way, mutates are people like Steve Rogers, Tony Stark, Peter Parker, Matt Murdock. they are humans with superhuman abilities. As for whether or not they should be mentioned at all, i propose a section be added to the article dedicated to his powers, something like "Pre-One More Day Powers". But i do not feel that they should be mentioned here. This article deals with Spider-Man, and currently, to say he has biological web-shooters is false. Rau J16 23:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

So, they were a mutate ability he had. I do not follow Spiderman well, but since they WERE his powers at a time, and were part of the widely seen movie, they should be mentioned. Also, I think it would be a good idea to explain where the webs come from. I do not know what you mean by "Pre-One More Day" so I can't talk about that.

As you mentioned, history had been rewritten, but they mechanicle webslingers are part of the spiderman mythos, and thus SHOULD be included. The biological ones in the movie should be mentioned to help explain confusion. We need to make this article understandable to most people with as little confusion as possible. Both mechanicle and biological webslingers are mentioned in the article at the moment. Corrupt one (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a problem mentioning abilities that he currently has and abilities that he once had. Marvel, I suppose, is attempting to restore a more "classic" version of Spider-Man with all of his classic powers and abilities at the levels that they've been at for the bulk of his existence. I feel that the article should emphasize the powers he currently has (superhuman strength, speed, stamina, agility, reflexes, spider-sense, and the artificial webshooters) over powers that he had prior to OMD (biological webbing and webshooters, retractable stingers, and notable increased to existing powers of superhuman strength, reflexes, and spider-sense). Those former powers could be listed as powers he once had but lost as a result of the events of One More Day. Any reference to the Spider-Man films, however, in the powers and abilities section really shouldn't be there. The films have their own article. This article is about the mainstream Marvel Universe (Earth-616) version of the comic book character first and foremost.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, and the recent powers are no longer part of the 616 Spider-Man. I am for a mentioning of them in the Spider-Man's powers and equipment article. That way they get a mentioning, but not in the article about the current version of Peter Parker. Rau J16 02:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

spider-man resently gained the ability to shoot webs without the shooters. they are his powers now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artha14 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are gone. Read OMD. Rau's Speak Page 00:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some tibits I found

I was reading a book, Superman on the couch by Danny fingeroth, and it mentioned Spiderman's influence. I was thinking it should be mentioned. Here are some bits from the book, you lot can dicide how to incorperate these bits of referance material. I am no expert on him. Still, you SHOULD be able to have something about him being an Antihero, his influence of the genre, and being an Archtype.

It took Spider-Man to break the mold of the teen hero, in ways both subtle and obvious. The mythos of the character has become so much a part of pop culture that it's easy to forget just how different he was. So many characters have built upon and outright swiped from Spider-Man, that his shifting paradigm of what defines a superhero - teenage or otherwise - is taken for granted, which is the mark of a sea-change character. It is hard to imagine a time before the Spider-Man "type" became ascendant. What made him so different? A lead character who was a teenager? He was the first. A character with doubts? There was the FF, but they had each other to commiserate with and complain to. Spider-man had . . . Spider-man. A hero whoes first thought was to cash in on his powers, not to use them to help people? A hero who, even after he decided to become a hero, still had to earn money to support his family? A hero who the public thought was menace and/ or a jerk? A hero who didn't fit in with other heroes? If Spidy wasn't the first in all these, he certainly did it better than anyone else did. Spider-Man was truly the "regular guy superhero," yet he did it without trivializing the genre. he could, and did, lampoon it - and that, too, was part of his appeal - but not to the point of of destroying it. He wasn't rich or suave. he was selfless, but had a healthy dose of selfishness, too. Spider-Man can be seen as the apex of the superhero genre. Unlike the heroes before him, he is not perfect. Unlike many of the current heroes, he's not part of the movement to "deconstruct" the superhero.

Superman on the Couch by Danny Fingeroth 145- 146


How he feels is how we would feel. Not eternally chipper like Superman, not obsessed to the point of having no enjoyment of like like batman, but human in the truest sense of the word. After Spider-Man, there was really, in many ways, nowhere for the superhero to go.

Superman on the Couch by Danny Fingeroth 146-147


The young, flawed, and brooding antihero [Spider-Man] became the most widely imitated archtype in the superhero genre since the appearance of superman. Bradford W. Wright, Comic Book Nation: The transformation of Youth Culture in America 212

Superman on the Couch by Danny Fingeroth 151

I'm not sure how best to put these bits into the article, so I figured I would put them up here, and let you lot sort it out Corrupt one (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool! RC-0722 communicator/kills 22:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
What needs to happen is to create a Reception section, but it is going to require more than one novel to make that work. Perhaps this can be achieved with the material already in the article? Rau J16 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

spiderman is so cool!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.176.178.4 (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Publication history

I'm not sure why the apparent anti-Ditko/pro-Kirby bias has been recently introduced, but I can't really see any justication removing the only Steve Ditko image in the article, given that he's the artist co-creator (and this particular image does double duty by depicting Spider-man's archnemesis), nor for removing a first-person, eyewitness quote from Ditko, who was there, in favor of theorizing by a Kirby partisan and biographer who was not.

As well, for the umpteenth time, basic graphic design dictates that images aren't to look off the page. You can certainly break the rules for avant garde design and the like, but this is an encyclopedia, and the basic rules of graphic design are there to ensure clarity, aesthetics and eye-flow. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wehn you reverted, Ten, you also cut out everything I had added to the page... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we could work on this together. That way we could address each other's concerns. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how I was introducing 'anti-Ditko' bias. The current creation section reads entirely as "this is what Ditko thought". I was trying to explain Lee's motivations in designing the character, Kirby's objections to "Lee taking all the credit", the rebuttals therein, and the possible reason Ditko might have been given the task of making Spider-Man, rather than Kirby. As for the image, we must have a compelling reason to put it in per NFCC; what exactly does this do except add a Ditko cover? It's not really being discussed in the body. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking along the lines that Ditko was a direct eyewitness and participant, as were Lee and, to a lesser extent, Kirby and Simon — each of whom is quoted and contributes to the multifaceted picture. The inclusion of Evanier's theories is, as the justifiably well-regarded Evanier himself admits, just guesswork. In the absence of a multitude of eyewitness accounts, one may have to fall back on best-guess, reconstructive theories. But here, we've got four direct participants — one of whom, Kirby's valued partner and friend Joe Simon, directly contradicts Kirby. That's not Lee doing it, but a disinterested third party.
As to the encyclopedic value of including a Ditko image of Spider-Man, I'm surprised that could be considered controversial. He was the artist co-creator, which is very much discussed in the article. We certainly don't have to use that particular cover — I included it since it was not only a Ditko Spider-Man image with the character in typical action, but does double-duty by depicting Spider-Man's archnemesis ... which Ditko also co-created. We could use a different cover, though generally speaking it should offer some quantifiable informative element missing from the current one, rather than be simply a different aesthetic choice. What alternative cover would you suggest? Annual #1, perhaps, which includes several villains? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The cover is secondary to the content, in my mind. As far as I know I did not remove the content about Simon, I was simply adding Evanier's hypothesis; seeing as he was Kirby's biography, it seems justifiable to add. You also reverted citations to Lee's approval for developing the character. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that making huge unilateral changes, including to the entire article's footnoting in a way inconsistent with the remainder of WikiProject Comics, is not in the collaborative spirit for which we strive.
We're really supposed to discuss things and come to agreement or compromise in cases like this. May we please do that here, and collaborate, before having to go through more formal channels like an RfC? I'd really rather work together with you. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I tend to prefer David's version, although I think there's some more work needed on Kirby's claims. They aren't treated as seriously as the presentation in this article may suggest, but I haven't got anything to hand at present. Historians tend to rate Kirby's part in the character as below Lee's and Ditko's. I've got some good quotes about Ditko I'll try and add at some point, too. Hiding T 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Cool — direct eyewitness quotes are the best. I'm hesitant to add third-party speculation when we've got so much material from the participants themselves, especially when it's coming from a Kirby fan/friend. No disrespect to the excellent Evanier, who in Daredevil (Marvel Comics) is quoted as a historian reporting what Kirby and Everett told him directly and for which they hadn't been quoted or reported about at length elsewhere. Which is different from the speculation here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
It is speculation, but it is being reported by a reliable source, and it's hardly likely that there's a conflict of interest here- Evanier is saying that Kirby's Spider-Man may have been too similar to the Fly, which neither Kirby or Lee have ever stated; it seems noteworthy to point out how both of their statements don't exactly mesh with the truth. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)