Talk:Stan Lee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
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. Please explain the rating here.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article on a Web Animation Author is within the scope of the Web Animation WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Web Animation. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.


Contents

[edit] Talk

This article seems to ignore the many controversies surrounding Lee's career (e.g., his relationship with Jack Kirby; allegations of financial improprieties, etc). Pervious edits acknowledging these things seem to have disappeared. Do others feel it is overly sanitized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.214.186 (talk) 05:33, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


Hmm... the bio seems a bit wrong. It says that Lee got his start because his uncle Robbie Solomon, the brother-in-law of Martin Goodman. Then it says that Lee's cousin Jean was married to Goodman. Should it be that Solomon is the father-in-law of Goodman?


This is way out of my league, but didn't Mr. Lee have a big lawsuit against Marvel? Shoud that be in here?Me mi mo 10:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already there.--Tenebrae 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should put up a more recent picture of Mr. Lee. I would, but I haven't had much luck with figuring out the image uploading policy. Komodo 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does everyone always want a newer picture? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a picture of him when he was most notable (i.e., the early 1960s)? Anyway, see below. —Chowbok 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Because he looks grotesque in the current picture?--CyberGhostface 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
You are missing the point. I'm not talking about the quality of the current picture. I'm just saying that if we're wishing for an ideal picture, why do we want a new one? —Chowbok 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Why wouldn't we???--CyberGhostface 01:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This is more a general Wikipedia discussion at this point. Moving to your talk page (and mine, presumably). —Chowbok 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That picture should definetley be changed! if not to a newer one than at least to one in wich doesn't look so weird--DaGrob 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any truth to the rumor that Stan Lee is the dad of actor Jason Lee? jengod 18:24, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it. I don't recall any mention of Jason Lee when I read Stan Lee's biography and autobiography. For what it's worth, Stan was born Stanley Lieber. Gamaliel 21:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category: comics writer should really be Category: Comic book writers, and if you're going to put in a new +cat, you should create it. khaosworks 15:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


How can there be a encyclopedia page about Stan Lee without mentioning that he really wasn't the driving force behind Marvel but capitalized on his status as Editor, which he got because his uncle owned the company?

  • Easy: we stick to the verifiable facts, and leave the opinions and speculation out of it. The article mentions his relationship to Goodman, for example; it's up to the reader to conclude whether that's the reason he got the job. It also mentions that there is disagreement about how much of Marvel's success was due to Lee vs. other creators. Tverbeek 21:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Also, if you go to this wikilink, you'll see different quotes from books by both Lee and Joe Simon that refutes the nepotism charge. Also, Martin Goodman wasn't Lee's uncle, but his cousin by marriage. And it was Simon, according to Simon, who did the hiring. 24.199.120.207 01:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The page mentions Striperella, but not the lawsuit against Lee Regarding the creation of Striperella. It doesn't mention the facts that artists such as Ditko and Kirby dispute his claims of sole creation of these characters either. This is smelling like a whitewash to me. History has to record ALL the facts, including ones that makes the people you see as heroes look like villians. unsigned comment from 66.190.70.147

  • If we have made omissions in this article, please feel free to add information. I doubt anyone here is interested in a whitewash. All articles here are a work in progess and it's most likely something that no one has gotten around to adding yet. Also, you can sign your comments with four tildes (~). Gamaliel 01:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't assume that Lee is my (or anyone else's) hero, just because we don't describe him here as a villain. As a matter of fact, the article does mention the disputes regarding Kirby and Ditko's role in creating those characters. (See the paragraph that begins, "Because of this system...") It's pretty brief, probably because the more you say, the more opportunity there is to say something that violates neutrality. Instead it simply reports what "some observers argue". Maybe more detail is needed. If there are facts missing, then please add them; that's how a wiki works. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, so anything that smells like a witchhunt (like some of your judgmental edits to Spider-Man) is going to get edited to tone it down, just the same as anything that smells like a whitewash should be. (P.S. It helps if you register before making edits, so people can see that you're here as a positive contributor and not just an anonymous troublemaker.) Tverbeek 02:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Silver Surfer not created by Stan Lee?

I dispute that the Silver Surfer wasnt co-created by Stan Lee. I remember him having dialogue in issue #48 of 'The Fantastic Four' his first appearence, so would have to of been scripted by Stan Lee. Additionally he is officially credited to this day as the Co-Creator with Kirby. Additionally his whole history, where he come from and who he is as a character I suspect would of come from Stans Lees writing. But if what you say is true (which it could be), The Silver Surfer page will require some changes too. - The guy who made the change (sorry forgot I wasnt logged in) --UnlimitedAccess

"Many are familiar with the often-repeated story of how Lee was presented with the penciled pages to FF #48, only to be surprised by the new character in the story." I googled this up quickly from http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/23notes.html. Not sure of the source of the story (Origins of Marvel Comics?), but it's a very common and famous one. Gamaliel 00:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
It troubles me that still to this day that the character is officially credited by Marvel as a Lee/Kirby creation, I think its worth noting. Okay, then how about this. "Lee is credited for officially creating the Incredible Hulk, the Silver Surfer, Iron Man, the Mighty Thor and the X-Men with Kirby; Daredevil with Bill Everett; and Doctor Strange and Marvel's most successful character, Spider-Man with Steve Ditko." The Silver Surfer page goes into sufficient detail about this anyway. But the Silver Surfer page could have one alteration, where it says at the top "Created by Jack Kirby and Stan Lee" could read something like "Officially created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby". I know its a bit semantical, but as an encylodpedia it's worth including. What do you think? UnlimitedAccess
Perhaps we should just leave SS off that list entirely and just deal with the indepth discussion for the Silver Surfer Article. To say he's "credited officially" with creating all those characters may lead the reader to suspect that he played a role in none of them, while in reality SS is probably the only one where he played no role at all. (And if you really want to get into it, you could say SL is a creator since he fleshed out the character and adopted SS as a pet project.) Gamaliel 17:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Well okay, I just felt that if someone is researching Stan Lee the article should at least point to this dispute of SL/JK creating Silver Surfer, particarly because of the "official" status that still stands and because of the final point you made in your last post. -UnlimitedAccess

This whole debacule with people saying “OH STAN SHOULDN’T GET A CO/CREATOR CREDIT” is very upsetting to me. Let us take the case of Silver Surfer then, If Lee was infact caught completely off guard by the apprence of the character, he would still have a hand in its creation, as he wrote the diologe and one can easily say that the diologe of a character is its personaility in a comic serireis, BUT you maintaim that because Kerby desinged the look should recive full credit. While Lee activly worked with Marvel he had his hands in almost everything that was going on, so therefore one could say he was co-creator of just about everything marvel put out during those years. I belive that Lee should be credited as co-creator, but if it is that important to some out there, perhaps his name should come first, as the Last name in a Co-creator credit is usually the more noticed -----Iorek Brynson

Your right, his look is only 50% of his character, but your forgetting Jack Kirby in SS first apperance wrote and scripted his dialogue as well, thus giving him his personality. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby after then both worked on SS for the next several years giving flesh to the character, and because of that Stan Lee is officially credited as a co-creator. But technically, SS was exclusively created by Kirby. I still stand by initial statement though, that it is worth including on this page of his involvement with the character. - UnlimitedAccess 04:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Kirby wrote and scripted ? Can you give support for that ? -- Beardo 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that Kirby wrote the dialog for any issue of Fantastic Four, and the style of Kirby's scripting for his Fourth World titles and elsewhere is wildly different from anything in FF.
Lee himself has stated in many interviews that Kirby came up with the concept of the Surfer and deserves full credit for that. But just as Spider-Man, say, is credited as a co-Lee/Ditko creation, since the concept, the visuals, and the characterization all play a part, the converse seems true here — that the Surfer is a co-Lee/Kirby creation. -- Tenebrae 11:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe I remember reading somewhere or other that Kirby's version of the Surfer's origin was totally different, and that Kirby's idea was for him to be an energy being created by Galactus out of nothing. Anyone have an idea where that's from 65.92.154.5 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cameos

This needs fix: Lee's cameos are listed twice.


Its highly likely that Stan Lee will make a cameo in "Iron Man", due for release in May 2008, and also in "The Incredible Hulk", also due out in 2008, as he helped to create both those characters

[edit] Age / Clinton

According to this article, Lee began writing filler in 1941, when he'd have been 18 or 19, then graduated from this eventually become editor when he was 17. How did that work, exactly?

    • Go to this wikilink for the answers. Lee was born 12/28/22, and got his assistant job in mid-to-late 1939 at what he says was 16 1/2, after having graduated high school early (per his autobiography and other sources). Editor Joe Simon left Marvel sometime in 1942, so Lee would have been about 19 1/2. 24.199.120.207 01:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, is this bit true: "a conspiracy by Bill Clinton to divert Paul's Japanese partner's multimillion dollar investment from Stan Lee Media to a new Clinton company".

I have commented-out the Clinton paragraph, without erasing it, and ask for objective citations for it. It contains non-NPOV statements, and claims that don't appear to be supported by the References or External Links. What is the "Hillary Clinton Accountability Project"? Iis it a non-partisan, academic, historical project or something else? There are inflammatory statements here, and also some that would seem to require verification, such as "the largest fundraising event for Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign." Is there an objective, news-media statement giving facts and figures to support this? Tenebrae 01:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
The Clinton paragraph came back, this time with an unlinked reference citing WorldNetDaily.com. That Web site is a right-wing blog, not an accredited, journalistic news source. If the alleged information about Lee and Clinton is real and accurate, then the editor posting it should have no problem citing and quoting established, credible news sources and not have to rely on such a clearly biased and thus non-journalistic site. -- Tenebrae 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
The Clinton paragraph was deceptively written to imply that Lee had a prominent role in a Clinton finance scandal. There is no evidence to support this whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.242.118.162 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Web award?

In the part about Stan Lee Media (in "Later career"), I removed the POV statement "and produced the best flash animation on the internet". I also removed "winning the 2000 Web Award as the best entertainment portal on the world wide web, Stanlee.net" because I can't find anything about such an award on the Web. Can someone find what this was supposed to refer to? ←Hob 21:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC) It might mean the Webby. --Chris Griswold 18:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Net Worth?

So, what is ole Stan worth these days with all the movies and stuff?

More than you. I also don't believe any of that "tyrant" bullshit. I mean, Steve Ditko created THE CREEPER! That means Stan Lee created Spider-Man entirely by himself. Because the creeper sucks donkey balls. Oh, and don't even remind about those awful and completely forgettable Charlton comics characters. Steve Ditko doesn't have the creativity to have done all he says he has done. 168.243.218.2
  • That would be 'opinion,' not 'fact.' Dr Archeville 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stan Lee and Ringo Starr

Stan was collaborating with Ringo Starr to produce a super Ringo character..eg. magic rings, etc. Has anyone heard any further details on this?

[edit] Stan Lee's religion

I would like to know the religion of Stan Lee. I see him eulogizing a Christian manga: “….a clean, inspiring Christian comic done in a hip, contemporary way. I think you’ve really got a winner.” [1].

Stan Lee, was born into a jewish family, (originally named Stanley Lieber) but I don't know if he practices or not.

[edit] Balance between periods

It seems odd that the period since 1991 gets more space than 1960-1990 - surely the 1960s are his most influential period and should get most coverage ? -- Beardo 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, one reason was that some PR type inserted entire paragraphs from a hype-filled POW! press release. I've boiled the information down to the facts, but there's still an awful lot of unencyclopedia language and crystal balling. -- Tenebrae 11:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
It could also be argued that some of that ground is covered in the article on Marvel Comics as well as those of the characters Lee co-created. -- Pennyforth 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stan Lee's Appearance in the "Minus 1" Stories

I couldn't find a page on this company-wide event, where all the books came out with a number -1 and had an impish version of Lee narrating the story. At least, I think it was Lee. 66.217.130.147 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That was the "Flashback" event of July 1997. I put a paragraph about the impish "Ringmaster Stan" in the Fictional Portrayals section. -- Pennyforth 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I belive this Article needs a re write

I'm sorry to say that this article is a poor excuse for a biography, I really think someone like Stan Lee deserves a better article, 1) It needs a picture of him, 2) History of his works in comic books, 3) A Section of his pre- comic book years. 4) Other works 5) Current status.

................. Yes I know some of what i mentioned is already their, but needs to be clarified. I don't know how to site an article yet, but I know this really needs a re write.--Gakhandal 06:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Upcoming Sci Fi Pictures original film Stan Lee's involved with.

I've recently got around to creating the article on The Harpy, so if anyone wants to contribute thereto: please feel free to do so. DrWho42 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vandalism

Removed "your mother" from list of references.Thus Spaketh Dave? 17:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stan Lee in NBC's HEROES

I added the following text:

Stan Lee is set to make a cameo in chapter 16 of NBC's TV Show Heroes.

But I'm at work, and can't access the link at Comic Book Resources with the interview to the writers of the show where they discuss this and even show pictures of Lee and Masi Oka (Hiro). Could someone please add the reference so it won't get deleted by someone asking for references? Thanks in advance. Vicco Lizcano 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)

[edit] Net assets

Given the size of the settlement over the Spiderman lawsuit and the size of his other holdings, one would assume this man's net assets would be over $50 million dollars. Given his roots, that'd be noteworthy. Anyone got a source w/some reasonably sound speculation on the subject? 00:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voice-Over Work

Stan Lee narrated Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends seasons two and three. I don't know if voice-over work should be listed under appearances or not so I'm not including it (sue me, I'm not being bold), but it's referenced on that page. --otherlleft 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that some of dumbest crap in Wikipedia either begins or develops from WP:BOLD and WP:IAR; it leaves newbies and arrogant knuckleheads feeling they are empowered to push an agenda that would get them throttled anywhere else. So, it's cool with me that you didn't go all bold. :)
Why not create a new section called "Voice-over work" a lot of people have it - check out mark Hamill's article; he doesn't list it that way, but the thing he is famous for after the Skywalker thing is being the voice of the Joker. No one does the cackle like him. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nationality

if both of stan lee's parents were romainian shouldent he be classd as a romanian-american —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.62.36 (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference subheads

WP:CITE and WP:SOURCE specify use of subhead "References" when there is a section called either "Notes" OR "Footnotes", which are not BOTH used. "Notes" or "Footnotes" contain, well, footnotes. "References" are additional general sources used to support the article, and "External links", used correctly here, are "for further reading" links. Some tweaking on this article's overall refs may still be necessary, but not wholesale changes contrary to Wiki guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. To my knowledge, I was following accepted formatting conventions per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions. I did not use BOTH "Notes" and "Footnotes" sections; there was a "References" section and a "Notes" section, where "explanations or comments on any part of the main text" can be placed. I was being bold, trying to improve what is in my opinion a very messy eyesore, and decided that a combined "Notes and references" section was not desirable in the case of this article. (Nowhere can I find support for the "Footnotes" section naming you reverted to.) Several featured articles use the convention I followed.
It seems to me that your description of a distinction between "Footnotes" and "References" corresponds to what are referred to as "Citations" and "References" in WP:CITE#Short footnote citations with full references. I did not feel that it was necessary to resort to separate "Citations" and "References" sections, as article size is not a major issue, and the referencing isn't so complex as to merit it.
As it was, most of the material listed under references did not seem to correspond to any in-text citations in such a way that indicated that the references were actually being used as sources for article information, so I either used them in new in-text citations, moved them to the external links section, or simply removed them. I left in a few orphaned listings with the understanding that they may have been used as sources, and just lacked corresponding citations. If they weren't, they don't belong; the "References" section is not for indiscriminate listing of "Further reading" material.
The extended commentary footnote mentioned that Joe Simon's autobiography The Comic Book Makers was cited in the References section; it wasn't. I corrected that. The link in one of the citations was dead. I fixed that, too. I honestly don't see how my edits were inappropriate. Dancter (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the detailed rationale. It's always good to be able to respond to specifics.
I think we may be stuck on a nomenclature thing. What you changed to call "References" were footnotes, so there were both "Notes" and "Footnotes".
And, yes, I hear you and sympathize: The various overlapping and occasionally changing policies and guidelines at WP:CITE, WP:SOURCE, WP:FOOT and WP:GTL, among other pages is labyrinthine and confusing and occasionally contradictory. From longtime reading of these pages and of their talk pages, here are a couple of points that, as you say, can be hard to find:
WP:Cite#Footnote_referencing: "A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a page of a document to comment on a part of the main text, or to provide a reference for it, or both. The connection between the relevant text and its footnote is indicated by a number or symbol which appears both after the relevant text and before the footnote reference."
WP:GTL: " 'Notes'" is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text)."
Comic-book databases are listed under "References" since any referenced comic-book title/issue # can be looked up; it's not necessary to clutter the page with a footnote for every single issue mentioned. Likewise, a book that provides a general history is often used as support material for footnoted citations; this is preferable to having two citations for the same thing, over and over throughout the page. Because you yourself -- or, rather, any editor oneself -- may not see how a particular source under References is relevant doesn't mean that it's not. If you question a source, please ask about it on the talk page. I can't speak for other editors, but anything I've put under References was used in my portions of writing the article.
Many of us longtime editors have found that folks tend to bring out Be Bold as a catch-all rationale. It's a more complex and subtle guideline.
One editor to another, thank you for fixing the missing Simon intro and the dead link.
I hope this provides good background and addresses your points. I'm certainly open to discussing this more if you'd like, and to any response. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
While I appreciate your civil tone, to be honest, I'm still feeling a bit patronized, here.
I agree that there is some issue with nomenclature. Yes, what I split off into "References" were footnotes; and as described by the guidelines, what put I put under "Notes" were footnotes, too. That doesn't mean that either are synonymous with "Footnotes", which would encompass both. Although I did miss one "Note" that had still remained in the "References" section, I otherwise made sure the sections were properly distinguished. As I mentioned in my last post, I could not find anything in the guidelines on using "Footnotes" for a heading title; "Notes and references" seems to be the accepted convention for a combined section.
Regardless, my main point was that the combined section doesn't work well for this article. Some of the footnotes have their own citations, and since Cite.php references cannot be embedded in other Cite.php references, it forces an inconsistent citation style. I also happen to think it looks ugly, especially when one particularly long footnote wraps into a second column.
While it is not necessary to have a separate citation for every item in a list (my style preferences do not favor lists in encyclopedia articles except in rare cases, anyway), simply listing works in a references section is normally not enough. Broad reliance on particular sources does not obviate citing them in-text; specific citations are especially important when referencing intensive works such as books, that would benefit from details like page numbers. Readers should not be forced to search through entire works just to verify a particular fact in the article. It's true that a source isn't irrelevant just because an editor may not see how it's relevant, but one thing that does help illustrate the relevance of a reference is corresponding in-text citations. If redundancy in citation is the issue here; then a separate "Citations" section may indeed be warranted; with specific, abbreviated, footnoted citations to complement full general references in a "References" section.
Granted, this approach cannot be applied so readily for a source such as the UHBMCC, and the content it is probably being used for; but if extensive reliance on a database is necessary for sourcing portions of article content, it does call into question the salience of that content in what is supposed to be a cohesive and contextualized overview of the subject. The concept of "significant coverage" is usually referenced in discussing the notability of an article subject, but I feel it also applies to the salience of content within an article. If a fact is worth mentioning in an article about the subject, it stand to reason that a reliable secondary reference would be available to point out its significance.
This was not my reasoning for changing the UHBMCC link, but even if I may have misunderstood the purpose of that link, I'm still not convinced of its appropriateness as it was. I don't want to dwell too much on that, because it wasn't the main purpose of my edits. In my experience, it's actually quite common for items to be added to a "References" section that aren't being used for verifying article content; the section can be almost as much of a spam magnet as the "External links" section. With the POW! Entertainment and Stan Lee Web links, I can't think of a good reason to resort to generalized "References" listings rather than specific citations, which shouldn't be that complicated.
You're implying that I have somehow misunderstood the principle of "be bold". Could you point out how I violated it here? I feel that I was acting according to both the letter and the spirit of the guideline. My edits were actually fairly conservative; looking back at my changes, there was only thing in the article that I deleted straight out, which was the fan site link. Everything else was left in, one way or another, and aside from the aforementioned footnotes and links, the actual text of the article was not altered at all. As far as I could tell, the formatting was not subject to any heavy controversy, collaboration, or discussion such that I was being carelessly disruptive. I was bold, you reverted (presumably without any difficulty), and now we're discussing. I truly did not expect this much resistance to my changes, and certainly not on the basis that I don't understand Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Dancter (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
You describe a genuine issue with both posts such as these and with e-mail, which is that because one can't convey tone of voice, politesse can be taken, by certain people, as being patronizing. What can one say to a charge like that, other than it doesn't imply a good-faith reading. Why not consider that maybe I am just trying to speak politely.
Regarding "be bold": There is a difference between being bold, in terms of actual action, and saying, "I was just being bold" as a catch-all rationale.
Where do we do go from here? Short of double- or triple-footnoting points with specific pages of the books now listed under "Reference" — said books supporting and confirming the more easily looked-up online citations — I think we're actually agreed that putting all those footnotes and all those reference books (and official sites, etc.) mashed together in a "Notes and References" section is ungainly and impractical.
I think in general that if something falls within guidelines (and I did provide links and quotes from those links, so I'm certainly showing good-faith effort) and there's no talk-page clamor for changing it, I'm not sure there's any urgent need to. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Intro

The intro and the SHB perforce cannot be comprehensive. They're only meant to give a brief overview, with a handful of typical examples. For the non-comics, general-audience reader to which Wikipedia is aimed, this essentially means the characters widely known outside of comic books — which in a practical sense means the characters on which major studio movies were based. Also, I deleted the Silver Surfer per the long-settled debate above on this page, as that character is not a clear and unambiguous example among the countless examples available. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image matters

[edit] Picture

Could we get something a little more recent? Most people's image of Stan Lee comes from his appearances on QVC, his awkward cameos in the Marvel film, and Who Wants to be a Superhero. I'm not sure a picture of him from the 70s with a painted-on mustache is representative.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a more representative photo of him that is freely-licensed, feel free to put it in. —Chowbok 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

i was just about to mention this.

Yep...the rules are, even if the picture is beyond horrible and outdated, if its free it stays in favor of better, more recent pictures.--CyberGhostface 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is correct. Just like how even if an article is poorly-written, we don't replace it with copyrighted text. —Chowbok 23:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Your comparision is flawed, to say in the least. Anyone with a decent writing ability can easily improve a poor article without resorting to plagurism. Finding a decent free image thats more recent than thirty years old of a celebrity is much harder.--CyberGhostface 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely a far cry from the grandfather-ly image we've had burned into our minds, but this, uh.. swarthy photo of Lee is great. LEAVE IT BE. Es-won 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Not for long. I found this pic, which is needless to say, much better.--CyberGhostface 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He's right. I say let him use it. I'm sure there's way to have it freely licensed, or any others for that matter. Nathen

[edit] New Picture

Finally found a photo that wasn't older than I am. Anyway, if anyone wants to change it, the following photos have also been granted permission. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Stan%20Lee&w=51035562155%40N01 --CyberGhostface 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image date

Y'know, when you go to the image page and see the picture blown up, it actually does say " '75 " in the signature. Maybe the uploader typo'd or misremembered when he wrote 1973? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this myself. If it is a truly autographed photo then the caption under it is incorrect and needs to be changed. --Bentonia School (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
What if the picture was taken in 1973 and autographed on 75? I don't know... just guessing. ViccoLizcano (NotLoggedIn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.23.91.242 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CaptAmerica3.jpg

Image:CaptAmerica3.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo attrib

Unless someone can exhibit a WP policy that we ever have a legal obligation to attribute a photo in its caption, the identity of the photographer must add something to the coverage of the topic to be included: e.g. being more or comparably notable compared to the topic. I did find (Google translation) "talk-show radio Cantonese man of San Francisco Edward Liu" in it:Harry Wu, and "The author is Edward Liu, former xcin is one of the developers." in zh:Gcin, and combined with those, the Google results

100 for radio "San Francisco" "Edward Liu"

and

83 for "photo by" OR photographer "Edward Liu"

suggest there is no encyc'ly notable photog by that name.
I have removed the attribution to this one: it's only justification is to support either vanity or commercial spam.
--Jerzy•t 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)