Talk:Nick Fury

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is this necessary?[edit]

is it really necessary for this article to be this long? do i need to know about every make-believe move that nick fury has made? the back story of minor comic book characters is so convoluted that it's impossible to follow. wouldn't a brief description be MUCH better than what is here? he live, he died, he switched sides, he wasn't dead, he appeared in this issue of that comic and that issue of this comic...ad nauseum. how about a brief description and a mention that he has appeared in almost every marvel comic ever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wellcraft11 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Sky Captain[edit]

Franky Cook in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow also utilizes a flying base, much like the S.H.I.E.L.D. helicarrier(s). You might want to add that as a similarity to Nick Fury... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.37.19 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 31 August 2005

Gay?[edit]

What exactly did Stan Lee say in the citation below? That's an awfully big claim, and it's necessary to know Lee isn't being misconstrued.

He was replaced by Private Percival "Pinky" Pinkerton, a gay British soldier. (Stan Lee in Marvel Masterworks Sgt. Fury page vi)

--Tenebrae 21:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to the question about What did Stan Lee say, the exact quote is "This was probably the first series to feature an Irishman, a Southerner, A Jew, and Italian and a black, not to mention, later on, a new comer who might have been gay."

Let me question a rumor that is printed here. It had been said that Stan Lee had a bet with the publisher that he can choose a comic with a bad name and make it sell. He has NEVER supported that. Even in his interviews he says they would never do anything like that, why would they, they wanted the book to sell. This came out at the time that they were limited to only 16 titles. Why would they court failure. This really should be removed from the site.

Lefisc Barry Pearl

That's fine, and the "might" part is an important qualifier. But where did he say it? In that Marvel Masterworks edition you cite? With those typos and misspellngs? Or somewhere else. (Also, please Wikistyle to indent and to sign off. The former requires one or more colons before each paragraph. The latter requires you to type four tildes — the "~" symbol. Thanks --Tenebrae 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First you have to forgive my typing, the original was spelled correctly. Stan Lee says this in the Introduction of the "Marvel Masterworks Sgt Fury #1." It is on page vi.

Can you please tell me where you heard Lee state the information about picking a bad sounding name? I have never heard him agree with that. It was Lee who said that they would never do anything not in the best interests of sales.

Lefisc

Please use the four tildes in order to time-stamp your comments according to Wiki policy and guidelines.
I've created a separate Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos article, which quotes from a book about the rise of Marvel Comics regarding Lee's and John Severin's memories regarding the creation of Sgt. Fury.
Please feel free to add the exact quote and properly cited reference, probably as a footnote by Pinkerton's name, at the Sgt. Fury article. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. Thanks. -- Tenebrae 21:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have just finished my book on Marvel Comics, I did have some infomation to add to many articles. But I really don't have the time, and frankly the inclination, to figure out how to add new copy and change incorrect information using wikipedia complex and lenghty directions.

Not a problem. When the book comes out, Wiki contributors will likely go through it and add things to the varioius articles. Good luck with the book; I don't know anything about an upcoming Marvel book, but you can bet I'll buy it!--Tenebrae 17:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tenebrae:

Can I work with you on adding a comment to the Nick Fury article? I had written a larger paragraph that was taken out, but the jest of it I think was very important.

Marvel truly ended is “atlas” era when SHIELD was introduced. First, gone were the traditional mad scientist villain. But more than that, gone were the era where so many of their villains were communists, often from countries with made up names. With the Introduction of Hydra (then AIM, THEM and the Secret Empire) villains became part of technological international conspiracy that treaded its way throughout all their books. It was a major change in the series (Nick Fury) but it really changed Marvel.

I really would like to see a sentence or two about this in the article. Thanks again!

Barry

We have a mutual love of the old series, so no one appreciates your sentiment more than I, but I'm afraid the above graf goes against WP:OR and WP:POV, which prohibits such analysis — WIki doesn't allow what it calls "original research" or the type of scholarly conclusion-drawing of academic research. All that's allowed are concrete facts — which does allow for opinions bu authorities and experts. For example, a piece on Picasso might say, "Joe Smith, chief art critic of the Madrid Herald, called Picasso's early Cubist work crude [footnote here], but Jane Doe, curator of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, wrote that it transcended Impressionism and carved a new category of non-representational art" [footnote here], or whatever. Hope this helps! -- Tenebrae 17:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining your position so well. You are doing a really good job. Barry

That's very kind of you to say; I really appreciate it. I hope you stay with Wiki and contribute edits. If you go to Wikipedia:Five pillars, it's a real eye-opener. -- Tenebrae 18:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I don’t think many people know or appreciated the amount of time and research that goes into articles like these. Perhaps because they may, incorrectly, see the subject matter (comics) as less important or maybe they feel that “experts” in any field just have this information at hand and instantly can produce a fully documented article. Your articles are thoroughly documented and thoroughly interesting.

As for me, I do understand the extend of the research and the effort to me correct the first time. More than that, my work and effort covers Marvel from 1961-76. The articles here cover, in detail, more than that era, it takes us to the present. So when I wonder “whatever happened to…. Or with…..I can find out.

I also learned a new word: “reconned.” It has been fascinating so see what elements of a character stays and what elements change and what has been reconned, for better or worse.

It is great to see people treat this information so seriously. I will when I have the time, learn how to do annotate items correctly! I promise.(I probably though, won't be able to type better!) Thanks again! Barry.

True Lies[edit]

There's a character in True Lies played by Charlton Heston that resembles Nick Fury. He's named Spencer Trilby and is the director of the "Omega Sector," and displays the characteristic eye patch. Could this be a play a Nick Fury? Yutgoyun 04:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the facts themselves could be listed in the "parodies" section; we couldn't draw a conclusion, since it may have just been coincidence, but the facts are the facts. -- Tenebrae 13:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Have a Question[edit]

So the extortion for te infinity formula ended, what happened to the formula? Does he have all he wants now?--Mullon 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon 7 from Birdman?[edit]

Wouldn't Falcon 7 from Birdman be another character inspired from Fury? It's also a leader/director of sorts of an organization against international terrorism and a mediator/boss of a superhero. Vicco Lizcano 15:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)[reply]

Reed Richards[edit]

Which issue of Howling Commando was this from? I am pretty sure this is invalidated now with a recotn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.172.27 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 9 June 2007

Getting kicked out of SHIELD?[edit]

I have been reading the tpbs from civil war (yeah, I know I am behind) and I still don't understand why Nick Fury is working against SHIELD. When did he get kicked out and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.33.170 (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read up on the Secret War mini, which also kind of acts as a prequel to the title New Avengers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notthegoatseguy (talk • contribs) 16:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hulk[edit]

I recently fixed up the Red Hulk section of Nick Fury's biography; editing it slightly to make it more coherent. However I can't seem to find any confirmation that Nick Fury actually is the new Red Hulk. Does anyone have any references to this? Cyclonius (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation I have discovered that the contributer who added that section has had some of his edits reverted because they were deemed to be vandalism. Cyclonius (talk) 09:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man Photo[edit]

Not sure if anyone is interested, and I would, but my PC is acting up, but here is a photo of Nick Fury in Iron Man, if you want to add it to the Film section of the media...

soo.... the link. http://en.marveldatabase.com/Image:Nicholas_Fury_%28Earth-20080502%29.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.78.247.72 (talk) 05:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current Imagery[edit]

The current main photo hurts my eyeballs. Food for thought. Lots42 (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Howling Commandos[edit]

I think they should be noted, if not already. I would add some details, but I didn't pick up the avengers issue were he goes recruiting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doeswhateveraspidercan666 (talk • contribs) 06:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African American version of Nick Fury[edit]

Which was the first African American version of Nick Fury? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.172.217 (talk) 00:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity formula[edit]

Where was this introduced ? Wasn't it in a one-off (?) by Howard Chaykin - perhaps late 1970s ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already in the article: Marvel Spotlight #31 (Dec. 1976). --Tenebrae (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate nick fury[edit]

Does the list of films in which samuel l jackson appears as nick fury need to appear in the section on ultimate nick fury? There is more detail there than in the actual ultimate nick fury article. Wouldn't it be better to leave just say that ultimate nick fury is based on him in the ultimate nick fury section, then mention it again in the appearance in other media section and say which films he appears in there.Asaspades (talk) 02:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel L Jacksons[edit]

in the article, it says that sam has a nine picture deal, and that five of those nine have been done, but only four have been done. he appeared in Iron Man, but didnt want to return because of financial problems, so they offered him a nine picture deal. whether or not Thor counts cus that was uncredited(i think) and shot by joss whedon and possibly a scene from the avengers. so, his films in that deal, so far, are: Iron Man 2, Thor?, Captain America, (Avengers), (Iron Man 3?), and (Thor 2?) user:NTC TNT 174.253.212.92 (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may be completely out to lunch, but...[edit]

Hi:

I seem to recall that when the character was refreshed, they remodelled his face after Kirby left on the actor Burt Lancaster. I would have read that in the back of an issue somewhere, probably on the Bullpen pages. Naturally, a citation should be cited before inclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.173.162 (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Reportedly"[edit]

Using the word "reportedly" is a backdoor way of introducing rumors and things of which there is reasonable suspicion may be false. That's why "reportedly" is a weasel word. "Reportedly, Justin Bieber kicked a dog." No. Yes, a newspaper reported it, and it's The New York Times quoting eyewitness and showing a picture of the kicked dog. All that makes it an RS and so: "Justin Bieber kicked a dog." Now if a tabloid reports it quoting an unnamed, unattributed "source" whose veracity and agenda we cannot tell, We could say, "Reportedly, Justin Bieber kicked a dog" — and it'd be wrong for an encyclopedia to do so. If we have any doubts or if we don't trust the source, we don't spread rumors. "Reportedly" is not an excuse to spread rumors or add things that may not be true. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, encyclopedias routinely report information that may not be true when solid factual information on the matter is not available. This is especially apparent when you peruse decades-old encyclopedia volumes, as you can find claims that are now universally considered bogus. But, more to the point, if the above is your genuine opinion on what information should be included on Wikipedia, then why have you not removed the statement in question, and instead have changed the wording to assert as verified fact what is only rumor?
I'm going to go ahead and boldly remove the statement. It's not significant enough information for me to spend time debating on, and in fact is trivial enough that I wonder if I wasn't simply being add-happy by putting it in there the first place.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't interested in what is or isn't true. Wikipedia is interested in verifiability. See WP:NOTTRUTH. Reportedly is not a weasel word if it was, in fact, reported by a reliable source. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point: If something was reported by a reliable source, we just say what the reliable source said. Otherwise, we'd be putting "reportedly" in every sentence. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not really the point you're making. You're saying we can't use use the phrase reportedly because it implies it's a rumor. If the line you're referring to indeed has a reliable source reporting such an event, using the word is just a matter of word choice, but it's still decidedly neutral. Look at WP:WEASEL again, and note that words to avoid are words that assert something, but subtly imply something else. Reportedly doesn't imply anything other than it was reported by someone. Now if there were no references, then that could be a problem.
With that said, (looking more closely at the article) the line you seem to be pointing to is referring to a report within a fictional universe. That section is written in an in-universe style to begin with, and that would be the larger problem with the article, rather than any use of one word. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tenebrae, reportedly, can refer either reports or rumors, depending on the usage. When referring to rumors, it is an expression of doubt and thus a word to watch. When referring to reports it is a bit unnecessary, as most things on Wikipedia stem from some kind of report.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and very well put. If "reportedly" is being used in the context of 'here's this uncertain thing or rumor that someone said," as it often is in the press, it's WP:WEASEL. If we're citing reporting from a reliable source, then we don't need to say "reportedly" at all. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But, again, if you look at the only instance of 'reported' in the article, it's part of a section that's currently tagged for being written in a primarily in-universe style. And that would be the larger problem with that section. In context, it's trivial when you consider that this whole section needs to be rewritten/reformatted. The 'reported' in question is an in-universe report, anyway. (Though I don't see a reference exactly to that.) That's what needs to be addressed. ——Digital Jedi Master (talk) 05:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are right on. There had been a real-life rather than in-universe "reportedly" earlier, and so it took me a while to realize there was a second one in-universe. And, yes, since in-universe stuff is all made-up anyway, then if what literature calls the "omnipotent viewpoint" of the fictional canon says he shot down the Red Baron, then in the Marvel Universe he shot down the Red Baron — no "reportedly" needed. If the comics themselves show Grandpa Fury telling this as a story to his grandkids, that would be different and we would say, "Grandpa Fury claimed he shot down the Red Baron." --Tenebrae (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Fury Collected Editions[edit]

The mini-series Nick Fury vs. SHIELD #1-6 and Steranko's run on Strange Tales #150-168 collected as Nick Fury Agent of SHIELD (the cover of which is the main photo featured for this article) should be included.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Nick Fury. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ultimate Nick Fury which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion nomination(s)[edit]

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 28. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Formula[edit]

Nick Fury was taking the Infinity Formula so long that he no longer needs regular doses. It has permanently altered his biochemistry to the point that even his son has inherited the Infinity Formula's effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.181.108 (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nick_Fury&oldid=1209367535"