Talk:Daredevil (Marvel Comics character)/Archive 2

message: I think this is a good section, with a lot of insight therein with the characterisation of Daredevil. However, as I have stated in my yet-to-be-discussed-exemplarifycation above, I am tempted to blank the whole thing. Why? Because it constitutes as original research. If you can put the text into quotes from the creators (I know that at least some of it could have been got from the Frank Miller interview on the Daredevil DVD), and move it to the character biography section or publication history section (mainly biography) then the text can stay, but the section in itself has to go. Thoughts? --Jamdav86 20:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree. The basic content, with some exceptions as noted above, seems fine. Some of the parts that are speculation/opinion/original research can probably be bolstered with appropriate factual quotes (rather than solipsistic quotes: "Writer XYZ's run was the best. Footnote -> Writer XYZ: 'My Daredevil was the best'"). This was done very effectively by GodzillaWax — I'm serious here — with his Jim Shooter footnote in the intro, for instance. Maybe Daredevil ought to be nominated for a featured-article jam? — Tenebrae 21:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh, definitely incorporate the factual part of the information with the pertinent material and descriptions above, and delete the opnion/speculation. Sorry for the incomplete response earlier. Yeah, of course, a layman's analysis isn't encyclopedic. The only way an analysis section could be justified under Wiki standards is with a description of analyses by authorities, as is done with some of the Philosophy and Religion articles. Short answer: Yep, I agree your approach is dead-on. -- Tenebrae 21:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool, but the earliest I can look at it is tomorrow. After sleep. --Jamdav86 21:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a small start, making the Bendis/Maleev Sammy Silke section much shorter and more encyclopedic. The Daredevil entry is such an overlong article that streamlining it and making it more NPOV is likely to be a bits-and-pieces process. --Tenebrae 08:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did some streamlining of the section "Volume 2: 1998 - Present", to make it as NPOV and just-the-fact as I could. -- Tenebrae 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Analysis 

message: There's no sources for any of the analysis.  So delete it if you must.
But then whats the point of this site, honestly?  Just to say X did Y at Z?  Everything good about this page is slowly being eroded.  Why now?  The page was mostly dormant until I came along.  I had given up on it as a lost cause years ago.  I come back to add some worthwhile information and all of a sudden theres an explosion of 'wiki cant do this' or 'wiki shouldnt do that'
The difference with the 'No Original Research' jazz and the Analysis section is that we all have access to the same source material.  It is purely drawing inferences from a common pool of knowledge (ie the dd comics).  Comics are unique in this respect.  Serialized fiction with so many creators is unheard of in any other medium.  Part of the fun of these characters is taking unrelated storylines 30 years apart and saying 'ohh the character's actions at Point B are directly related to him having passed Point A 100 issues ago'.
This isnt real life, this is not like adding original content to the Revolution article, which could have come from god knows where.  The entirety of everything about this character is in one source that we all have access to. To me thats a pretty big difference, and reason why it should stay.
But whatever, do as you will
GodzillaWax 17:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This is What Drives Me Crazy

message: I hid what I thought was POV. How does the section read now, and is this worth putting in the character biography? --Jamdav86 10:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed content

message: Most of what made the analysis section has been removed as being POV.  I suggest it be removed and the main issues be incorporated into a Character Biography. GodzillaWax 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete Analysis

message: I dont know how to do that.  Can we get rid of a lot of the stuff above?  Theres a lot of discussion to be had in the near future, I think, about how this site should be structured.
Feel free to delete this comment also.
GodzillaWax 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - I'll put a bit more in that archve in a month or so, when a few issues are resolved. --Jamdav86 17:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can We Archive A Lot of This? 

message: ::::::You say: "if Kobe Bryant wins league MVP, does that make the Lakers 'award winning'?"  Movies and Broadway shows, to give two examples, are routinely referred to as "winning five Oscars" or "winning five Tonys" when some of those awards when to, say, the sound designer, or the makeup person. I could give hundreds of examples, but here's one from Amazon.com "Ben-Hur scooped an unprecedented 11 Academy Awards® in 1959..." These include Franklin Milton for Best Sound and Robert Surtees for Best Cinematography, Color.
::::::You say: "But even this, you are making the jump from a discrete quantity of time - 4 1/4 years - to a relative quantity of time - long. Which begs the question, relative to what?" I have already answered that: Relative to the preceding year of five or six different writers and pencilers each.
::::::You removed my reference that reference to a long, stable run.  First, please understand that Merriam-Webster's #1 definition for the adjective "stable" is "1 a : firmly established : FIXED, STEADFAST b : not changing or fluctuating". So please don't remove "stable" again. It means whaqt the dictionary says it means -- not, with all due respect, what you say it means.
::::::Many times you have left alone the phrase that someone else wrote, that "Ann Nocenti was put in charge of the title and remained on there for several years" to which you yourself added "with one of the book's longest runs" (Revision as of 11:09, 7 January 2006 GodzillaWax).  Leaving someone else's and your own phrase  "several years with one of the book's longest runs" and removing my  shorter word "stable" certainly appears like personal harrassment of my edits. 
::::::I look forward to working this out with a third party. -- Tenebrae 21:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CC of response to above, from GodzillaWax page

message: :::::::Using your example of movies, no one would say "The award winning team of director Spielberg, sound mixer Jimmy Johnson and grip Sally Sue..." unless the award was for best picture.  If the award was for best director, it would not make sense to group the other two with Spielberg because it implies the other two had a hand in the Directing.  Likewise, the award was for inking, which is not something Nocenti and Romita had anything to do with.  It was Williamson's award, which is why the award was given to him and not the comic as a whole.
:::::::As Ive tried to express to you innumerable times, I agree with you.  Lets get rid of POV statements.  Ive made an effort to try and work with you on this premise.  So saying "I edited this" but "didnt edit that" has no bearing on anything.  Its not an attack.  If anything it is an admission that Im trying to work with you.  Yet you are continually obstinate about the matter, which makes one wonder if you really are striving to make something NPOV or just striving to put your words above all others.
:::::::Lastly, saying a run was one of the books longest is factually verifiable.  Saying something is stable is not.  Whether you realize it or not, you are implying all sorts of things about the condition of the book by saying it is stable.  Which is where my analogy of Chuck Austen came in.  He had longevity, but I dont think anyone would say he had a stable run anywhere (and if you really want to find a source for what Im saying of fan's reactions to Austen, go ask the question on any comic site board.  Honestly, try this, and tell me what the responses are).  Longevity does not equate with stability.  If your point is just that it was a long run on the book, simply say so.  A key to good writing is analyzing word choices - youve already said it was a long run of 4.25 years, what more does stable add?  I am not disputing it was a long run.  What do you think you gain by continually adding it?
:::::::Additionally, I do not appreciate the personal insult that I am somehow interpreting a word according to my whimsy.  Nor do I appreciate you asking a fellow collaborator not to make a change.  It is certainly not your place to do such a thing given the open source nature of wikipedia.
:::::::Likewise, I look forward to a third party arbiter to finally put an end to your attacks on me and the childish nature of your argument. GodzillaWax 21:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll arrange it. Please stop using insulting terms such as "childish", "obstinate", etc.  I've held my tongue about your apparent age and about most of your other verbal behaviors. As for interpreting a word according to your whimsy, I cited a dictionary definition; you cite your own definition. — Tenebrae 22:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop passive aggressive attacks like "held my tongue about your apparent age". GodzillaWax 23:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Response

message: Just wondering if anyone else thought that having 6 of the 10 comic drawings in this article all done by Maleev is overkill considering all of the telented artists that have teken part in this characters history?  It just seems odd to me that Miller has one panel here and Maleev has 6. Opinions? AriGold 20:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good point. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and maybe speaking out of turn, but it seems to me there's one editor who loves the work of Brian Michael Bendis and Alex Maleev out of proportion to the whole 42-year-history of Daredevil. I've just realized -- there isn't a single piece of Gene Colan art here! -- Herculaneum 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think all Maleev work needs to go, I think having some is important, just as important as the other artists.  I just didn't know if anyone else thought that diversifying would be a good idea. I changed the Eelktra pic, per your suggestion.  I was not a fan of that rendition, in particular, either. AriGold 22:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Frank Miller Daredevil #181 picture works because it depicts both Elektra and Bullseye, two important series figures, in poses that show them and their costumes very clearly. It is also an important issue historically. Since there are at least of couple of important, unrepresented Daredevil artists, particularly Gene Colan and John Romita Jr., of whom I will try to find a picture from their entries or somewhere, I'm wondering if maybe the Frank Miller Daredevil #171 picture may be one Miller too many, since no Colan or Romita Jr. are in the DD entry presently? - Herculaneum 14:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally see where you're coming from.  The reason I put that issue there was because I wanted to add a comic that had a prominent enemy on the cover (since it's in the "Enemies" section).  I thought Bullseye or Kingpin would be the two best candidates for the section, and figured since Bullseye is in the 181 picture (which should not be taken down for the very reasons you stated), I'd use one with Kingpin, and 171 just happened to be the one I found.  Not attached to it by any means, that's just why I did it. AriGold 14:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I did not put up that picture, so I say this without any personal feeling. This is the same comment I would make to anyone who wrote the above: I don't understand what "my tastes" has to do with whether or not it's a clear full-on shot that displays the character. I also don't understand your need to make a homophobic reference to Horn and Land. You've been insulting to people before, but this is a new low. — Tenebrae 22:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without reading the entire talk page, I'm noy sure where the homophobic thing is coming from, but I'd agree whole-heartedly that Greg Horn's stuff looks like ass.  Without published porn and/or celebrity magazines, he'd be doing greeting cards...poorly air-brushed greeting cards...ka1iban 23:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What other interpretation would you give for saying a man is "one woman's-magazine subscription away from" something? — Tenebrae 01:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure he's referring to Horn's propensity to use published photos of women to directly source his art...the aforementioned "tracing"...I can't count the times I've seen Horn's work and thought "that looks EXACTLY like Josie Maran in the latest Maybelline ad" or some such.  A lot of artists use photos for inspiration, but he's literally copying women into his "art" ka1iban 03:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As ka1iban pointed out, there was nothing homophobic about what I was saying, as I was referring to Land's propensity for swiping character models from fashion magazines.  I think an apology is not out of order considering I was just labelled homophobic, insulting and at "a new low". GodzillaWax 16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If GodzillaWax really believes his comment doesn't sound homophobic to any of the 99.99% of the people in this world who aren't following the intricacies of what or whom some comic-book artist is basing a drawing on, then I am flabbergasted by the insular nature on display.— Tenebrae 22:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is that if someone who has no knowledge of who I am talking about comes along, sees an Elle magazine subscription mentioned next to a man's name and comes to the wrong conclusion, that I am somehow homophobic?  Actually there is quite a bit of reverse bigotry at display here: I hardly think its fair that you immediately associate homosexuality with a man reading Elle magazine.  You are perpetuating an innacurate portrayal of the gay man as one who obsesses over womens fashion and the like.  You may be surprised to hear, given your insular disposition, that many gay men don't talk with a lisp or wear high heels.  In fact, many gay men look just like straight men, much to the horror of many south of the Mason Dixon line or in the White House.  GodzillaWax 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've read it can be hard to pick up on the subtleties of intent online...e.g. http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-6039074.html ka1iban 22:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Since no one can really agree with either Maleev or Horn, I decided to opt for Frank Miller in the mean time which hopefully no one has a problem with.--CyberGhostface 04:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers.  GodzillaWax 16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alex Maleev 

message: Can we get a better pic of Elektra that isnt Maleev and isnt Horn?  Horn's just seems a little too traced for my tastes.  He's one Elle magazine subscription away from being Gred Land.  Anyone agree? GodzillaWax 22:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not put up that picture, so I say this without any personal feeling. This is the same comment I would make to anyone who wrote the above: I don't understand what "my tastes" has to do with whether or not it's a clear full-on shot that displays the character. I also don't understand your need to make a homophobic reference to Horn and Land. You've been insulting to people before, but this is a new low. — Tenebrae 22:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without reading the entire talk page, I'm noy sure where the homophobic thing is coming from, but I'd agree whole-heartedly that Greg Horn's stuff looks like ass.  Without published porn and/or celebrity magazines, he'd be doing greeting cards...poorly air-brushed greeting cards...ka1iban 23:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What other interpretation would you give for saying a man is "one woman's-magazine subscription away from" something? — Tenebrae 01:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure he's referring to Horn's propensity to use published photos of women to directly source his art...the aforementioned "tracing"...I can't count the times I've seen Horn's work and thought "that looks EXACTLY like Josie Maran in the latest Maybelline ad" or some such.  A lot of artists use photos for inspiration, but he's literally copying women into his "art" ka1iban 03:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As ka1iban pointed out, there was nothing homophobic about what I was saying, as I was referring to Land's propensity for swiping character models from fashion magazines.  I think an apology is not out of order considering I was just labelled homophobic, insulting and at "a new low". GodzillaWax 16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: If GodzillaWax really believes his comment doesn't sound homophobic to any of the 99.99% of the people in this world who aren't following the intricacies of what or whom some comic-book artist is basing a drawing on, then I am flabbergasted by the insular nature on display.— Tenebrae 22:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument is that if someone who has no knowledge of who I am talking about comes along, sees an Elle magazine subscription mentioned next to a man's name and comes to the wrong conclusion, that I am somehow homophobic?  Actually there is quite a bit of reverse bigotry at display here: I hardly think its fair that you immediately associate homosexuality with a man reading Elle magazine.  You are perpetuating an innacurate portrayal of the gay man as one who obsesses over womens fashion and the like.  You may be surprised to hear, given your insular disposition, that many gay men don't talk with a lisp or wear high heels.  In fact, many gay men look just like straight men, much to the horror of many south of the Mason Dixon line or in the White House.  GodzillaWax 09:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've read it can be hard to pick up on the subtleties of intent online...e.g. http://news.com.com/2061-11199_3-6039074.html ka1iban 22:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Since no one can really agree with either Maleev or Horn, I decided to opt for Frank Miller in the mean time which hopefully no one has a problem with.--CyberGhostface 04:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers.  GodzillaWax 16:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Greg Horn

message: I was pretty shocked to hear you say that somehow my language has been crass or whatnot.  I mean, Tenebrae doesn't like me much but I think even he'd have a hard time saying I speak like a sailor.  And so I went back and read the archive of the Talk page here, and noticed you freaked out over the phrase "Put Your Knickers On, Sally".  You seem to think this implies oral sex or somesuch, to which I would respond to you that that is so far outside the realm of meaning of what we were talking about that Im puzzled how you came to that conclusion.  As a tip for a new user of Wikipedia, if you feel something isn't right, you should probably ask that person what is meant by it, instead of attacking them in a variety of ways over a misunderstanding.
The worst of my verbal transgressions, it would appear, is having called Tenebrae pepe (which is about as non-insulting a non-insult can get, but I never used it again, did I Tenebrae?), and that I said something about a virgin brigade.  Which was funny, come on people.  If anything, I've been the voice of reason around here lately, doing my best to spark discussion and working to make the entry better.
And what do I get for my troubles?  Tenebrae thinking I'm harassing him because I disagree with an edit, and you throwing just about every generic insult you've got my way.  That I'm 14 years old?  That I need a girlfriend?  Christ.  Those stock comic-book reader insults never get tired do they?
Anyway, long story short, you're completely off the mark re:the interpretation of my "knickers" comments.  And certainly, I would have welcomed you to ask me what I meant by them if you interpreted them so differently.  I would have been happy to explain why I saw them as innocuous.  Hell I would even have changed them for you.
And really again, you sell yourself short by saying "as a woman...".  Being a woman is not a handicap!  Be proud!  We're all equal here.
Lastly, though, I am grotesquely offended by your actions, and so I am taking this to the admins.  When I've followed through on this, Ill be sure to post a note on your Talk page to inform you.
Cheers!
GodzillaWax 16:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Being a woman is not a handicap!"  Could be the funniest thing I have read in a while, just kind of caught me out of nowhere. AriGold 16:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscommunication

message: This is a notification, per Wikipedia policy, that a request has been made by User:Tenebrae, with the consent of User:GodzillaWax, for mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. — Tenebrae 23:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Mediation has been filed 

message: Some suggestions for splitting Pub Hist into Pub Hist and Character Biography (or whatever it is called)
:Publication History - for talking about changes in direction / creative teams / etc
::Early Years (Stan Lee, early artists up through Colan)
::Gene Colan
::Frank Miller 1st and 2nd runs
::Nocenti and change in focus of book to societal issues, etc
::Man Without Fear
::Nineties - new costume, change in art style (McDaniel was real rough back then)
::Kelly and Lighter tone - return to a swashbuckler
::Relaunch at Marvel Knights - includes out-the-industry talent like Kevin Smith, Bob Gale, as well as indy talent Mack and Bendis
:Fictional Biography
::...dont know how to break this up... Should be a timeline of a character.  I would think here inferences from Analysis could be placed.
(forgot to sign this earlier)
GodzillaWax 17:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations 

message: A start to Publication History / Character Biography.  Shouldn't character history be higher than Characters?  Its a good start.  I think now analysis and all should morph into a character biography with the character element of Publication History moving into it as well.  So in effect Publication History will shrink dramatically and CB will grow.  Agreed?  Thoughts?
GodzillaWax 20:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character History