Talk:Daredevil (Marvel Comics character)/Archive 1

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

Special Skills and Abilities: Daredevil is a master of martial arts and other fighting systems. As Matt Murdock, he is an accomplished lawyer who is feared by the criminal underworld. He is also very skilled in the area of private investigations. Daredevil has, perhaps, the most accutely developed alfactory sense of all the characters in the Marvel Universe. Though blind, he can see with the use of his super human hearing or "radar sense". This sense is superior to human sight and makes it impossible for villains to sneak up on Daredevil. Matt Murdock is a gifted athlete.
 * Name: Matthew Murdock
 * Occupation: Lawyer, Crimefighter
 * Height: 6 ft.
 * Weight: 200 lbs.
 * Eyes: Blue
 * Hair: Red
 * Intelligence Level: Gifted
 * Strength Level- Athlete
 * Agility Level- Enhanced Human (as the inner-ear, a sense organ, is the source of equilibrium and balance, Daredevil would posses those attributes to an extent hieghtened beyond what is humanly possible)
 * Stamina- Peak Human
 * Reflexes- Peak Human
 * Durability Level- Peak Human
 * Speed Level- Peak Human
 * Special Weapons: Daredevil carries a unique billy club with a myriad of special properties and offensive capabilities, which are variable. Some clubs house chemicals, others elongate into larger weapons or can become grappling hooks.
 * Origin of Superhuman Powers: Accident with radio-active chemicals.

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

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

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


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

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

GodzillaWax 21:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

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


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

Non-encyclopedic tone
The History section is filled with non-NPOV statements such as "...others have thankfully washed by the way-side with other ill-begotten creations (Stilt-Man)", as well as such purple-prose, non-encyc writing as
 * the introduction by Wood of the now classic red costume.


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

(→Powers - he can only hear heart rate, not other evidence")
No one said "hear". The phrase was "determine". He smells sweat, can hear very shallow breathing, etc. I'm fixing this as well. -- Tenebrae 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Flirted with cancellation"
I deleted this phrase (grammar sic), from the first sentence of paragraph 2 in the intro:
 * has twice in its history been flirted with cancellation, and

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

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

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

Reversion
Since you asked for no blind reverts, I am telling you why I did it: If you have qualms with how this is setup, please discuss it here before making wholesale revisions. Cheers GodzillaWax 22:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Origin and Powers are both general info meant as an introduction, and need to remain near the top
 * Love Interests/Recurring Characters/Enemies and Other Daredevils are all short lists of characters and are grouped together as such
 * Awards belongs with Bibliography. Additionally, seperating bibliography in two especially doesnt work if you have nothing to add in the second section.  An Essential Reading section has already been removed as it is subjective and not fitting for an encyclopedia
 * Notable Creators is not fitting with the theme of Publication History, which serves as a general guide through the characters past. It is also a significant enough list to warrant its own section
 * Analysis is a distinct enough entity to remain on its own
 * It seems to me that you haven't even read the exemplars, which are found here. Using this, I shall put my criticisms of your structure:
 * All the introduction needed is ''A is a superhero from B Company created by X+Y. He debuted in A#1 (D 19EF). The rest fits into the various sections.
 * Lists of Love Interests/Recurring Characters/Enemies aren't generally used in many articles, since they should be referenced in the main sections. Other Daredevils should be renamed Other versions of Daredevil and be put in the fictional biography section.
 * I didn't really know where to put the Awards section and I think you are right in the placement. However 'List of significant stories' can be a vital referencing tool.
 * Again, Notable creators doesn't exist in many articles. Publication history should only give the real-world history of the character, while fictional biography should be a look at the history of the character within the comics.
 * Analysis constitutes original research, banned on Wikipedia. If a creator has said these things, then credit should be given and it should be spread around the Publication history section.
 * Thanks for reading, --Jamdav86 18:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Reversion and inappropriate comments
This is a Daredevil Talk-Page copy of posting to User:GodzillaWax

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Its people like you that proves the faults of wikipedia

GodzillaWax 19:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

You're correct in that Wikipedia encourages stylistic writing that is not dry. You claim to be a writer -- then you must know there is a middle ground between dryness, listy prose and an itneresting encyclopedic tone. I would say -- as someone else did who removed what they call your unencyclopedic phrase below -- that we have an area of disagreement. The parenthetical phrase below is what 152.23.98.33 removed:
 * Though Elektra would later become a ninja-trained assassin (don't they all), it should be noted...

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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

Tenebrae, Im Not Asking You Again
Knock it off with the personal attacks. I saw you badmouthing me again on the WikiProject Comics Page. Be a man and do it to my face or dont do it all. But this cowardly running around dropping insults stops now. GodzillaWax 18:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

GodzillaWax, don't threaten me
Take stock of yourself and of the comments you make to people. We've all seen the insults you throw on the History page, fulminating about the "Virgin Brigade" and the "awesomeification" of your edits. Seriously, I'm asking respectfully and calmly for two answers, and I'm hoping, to use your own phrase, you're man enough to give them. The two questions are: Why do you think you have the right to insult people and call them names, or to characterize your attempts at editing with such self-aggrandiing and non-informative descriptions? -- Tenebrae 19:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Question re: Iron Fist
I've been trying to figure out exactly how long Iron Fist masqueraded as Daredevil, and whether or not he is still doing so. I can't figure this out from either this article or from the Iron Fist article. At the end of the Bendis run, Murdock was in federal prison awaiting trial. How did that storyline resolve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.154.2.20 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Powers
Doesn't anyone do research? DD doesn't have super agility or strength. Here's proof.

http://www.manwithoutfear.com/ddORIGIN.shtml http://www.marvel.com/comics/Daredevil http://www.marveldirectory.com/individuals/d/daredevil.htm


 * I'd say they have researched those pages, most of the text in the Powers section is copied from the marvel.com site. DrHacky 14:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case Marvel are rewriting the past which should also be recorded in the article. In his first book about Marvel comics Stan Lee himself states quite clearly that Daredevil was supposed to be the complete antithesis of Spiderman.  He has no super powers, his 'real self' is actually a persona he created to please his father, Daredevil is his 'real real self', both his strength and his agility are entirely his own, and his one "Super ability" is in fact a "Super disability".  Now to me that last bit's a little contentious, but my opinion is original research and there's no doubting what Lee's intentions were.

Isn't his location sense more like radar than sonar? In the handful of DD comics I've read, they specifically called it "radar-sense" and I never saw him have a need for sound in order to see (like in the movie). I'm not as familiar with DD as I am with other Marvel characters, though, so I could be wrong. JDspeeder1 01:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you aren't wrong. This is from Marvel's online encyclopedia: "Along with the enhancement of Daredevil’s normal senses, he has gained another sense which he calls his Radar Sense. According to one theory, this sense reacts to an emission of electromagnetic energy a mutation in his brain has caused, reading the reverberations of this energy as a 360º, 3-D map of objects. This “sight” is not perfect, and can only give Daredevil an impression of the exact physical shape of objects, not a literal one. Closely overlapping objects can also confuse this sense." His radar sense has been deliberately undertheorised - but there's no question, it ain't sonar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.95.165 (talk) 02:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See talk below under Radar--DrHacky 06:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries
Before this gets any farther out of hand, please, as regular editors, read the WP:COMIC consensus on plot summary, Wikipedia policy on plot summary (#7), and Wikipedia's styleguide to fictional articles. Summaries should be kept to a minimum, per Wikipedia policy, and only used to help readers understand the real-world aspects of the character or work. Primary sources (like the comics) should be used sparingly. This article has possibilities, as much of the article is kept to out-of-universe discussions of the character (at least relative to articles like Magneto (comics) or Wolverine (comics)), and I'd like to see this article someday become featured, but if we start summarizing arc by arc, it's not going to happen. I know this may come off as possessive or pretentious, but plot summaries with no secondary analysis are against Wikipedia policy. This is why I'm posting here before trying to make any drastic edits or cut out anything that may just get reverted.

If you want to write about Daredevil as if he is a real person, this is not the place to do it. It infringes on copyright and gives no basis for understanding the character to an uninformed reader. --Newt ΨΦ 15:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Boy, this article has too much detail. For example, a story like Daredevil: The Man Without Fear which has its own Wikipedia entry should have little or no detail here. Doczilla 16:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Doczilla. The Bendis/Maleev portion is way out of hand. It needs to be a much shorter, summary-style section suitable for lay people seeking information about the character in an encyclopedia. Fannish-level detail is inappropriate, and best suited to the many terrific fan sites out there. I can cite the same chapter and verse on the Comics Project examplar page, etc., as Newt ΨΦ does above, or can we save the time and reinsert an older, more streamlined version of this section.


 * We've all had this debate before, and the consensus of both the editors and Wiki mediators is to use the shorter version. -- Tenebrae 04:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why hasn't anyone taken up my pleas for help by removing all the character bio stuff from Pub History into Fictional Biography? Plot descriptions have no place in Publication History!  It should only be information salient to the book as a real world object - creators, publishing timeline, etc. GodzillaWax 09:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with GodzillaWax. The pub-hist section should focus on the creative teams, give map directions to the numbering scheme, awards, etc., and only noting plot events that, for instance, temporarily change the cover-title. The tricky part, then, is to take the other information currently there and integrate it with char-bio without including too much unwieldly detail and minutiae. -- Tenebrae 17:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Marvel Ultimate Alliance
Daredevil is a playable character in Marvel Ultimate Alliance. He is pictured in the Team Builder section of the Marvel Ultimate Alliance website. It is rumored that he must be unlocked before he is playable according to Marvel Ultimate Alliance. Bondswalterppk 23:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Fictional
I notice the title of a sub-section has been changed to "Fictional character biography" from "character biography" - why? surely people understand what the word "character" means? --Charlesknight 21:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See WikiProject Comics/exemplars, which is a one-stop must-see for all of his WikiProject Comics folk! --Tenebrae 00:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul
This page has been stagnant for a long time, even though as far back as 6 months ago big changes were agreed upon. So I've started the butchering to get everything together. Changes:
 * Fixed some tense issues in Origin, and rewrote some things ( I first wrote that stuff probably 8 months ago and it needed to be tweaked ).
 * The creator list was big and strangely incomplete -- e.g. listing 'no regular writer, 1985-1986', that kind of thing -- so I've condensed it down to just links to categories. There's no need to be redundant with creator listings ( especially an incomplete one ) when a category takes care of it for you.
 * Moving character history stuff out of publication history and into the fiction biography. This is definitely NOT COMPLETE. A LOT of work has to be done here.  Publication history should only be notable developments with regards to creative teams, the status of the book ( cancelled?  renumbered? ), and issues of that nature.  Character biography should be the closest thing to plot summaries this page has.

I'd appreciate any help in getting this all under control. Like I said, I've started the moving around process, but now things need to be fleshed out. Cheers GodzillaWax 20:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed a lot of the excess headers. Many of the sections were only one paragraph long, and it cluttered up the TOC. CovenantD 20:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a rather new and inexperienced wiki user. Can someone with more skills proved references for the addition I just made regarding Daredevil as a guest character in the Incredible Hulk franchise? The information should be readily available in both the wiki page of the the TV movie as well as the appropriate entries at IMDB. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.218.208.35 (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Past Tense / Reverts
Wiki-newbie, please do not just blindly revert the origin section anymore. You may have been trying to change the tense of what I wrote, but you also wiped out a lot of sentence changes and updating.

Additionally, your assertion that there is no past tense in fiction is flawed. Suggestions high school English teachers give for making creative writing essays more readable does not translate into how one should recount the details of a fictional characters life. The section heading is 'fictional character biography'. What biography have you ever read that was written in the present tense? The whole point is that what is being retold happened once already. GodzillaWax 22:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I hope I don't create any bad feelings, the tense to be used for fictional character biographies actually gets addressed as an editorial guideline at WikiProject Comics here. --Tenebrae 15:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sexual Frustration
It is a valid theory that Daredevil is sexually frustrated and cannot win the affections of the Punisher. The theory has been brought to light many times; can't it be included in the article? What style is appropriate for such an insertion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.71.162 (talk • contribs)


 * Your comments would be taken more authoritatively if you would follow the rules of Wikipedia. This includes, at the most basic, reading directions on the edit page that explain how to sign your posts.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you were discussing string theory, for example, you would have to cite an authoritative source that references an authoritative theorist, such as (hypothetically), "Dr. John Smith of Harvard published a theory in 1995 that posited a multi-dimensional universal principle called 'string theory' that scientists Dr. Jane Doe and John Roe further postulated in 1998 explained the existence of 'dark matter'...", with proper footnotes. If it's your own, theory, however, that's disallowed under the guideline "No Original Research". --Tenebrae 16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not my own theory. It was suggested by a comic book enthusiast with a master's degree in psychology. Procedure means nothing to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.71.162 (talk • contribs)


 * Obviously. Why don't you go vandalize a phone book or something? CovenantD 20:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comments are unappreciated and unnecessary. Why don't you take a typing course or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.28.71.162 (talk • contribs)


 * the simple answer is no we are not adding that - until or unless it appears in a marvel comic book or similar source. "some bloke said" is not a source. --Charlesknight 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would preferably appear in a reliable secondary source, comic articles rely too much on primary sources as it is. --Psyphics Ψ  Φ  20:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * true true but I suspect if Daredevil 99 had the line "oh Frank, how I long for your big hard cock" that such a discussion would be moot. --Charlesknight 21:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * people people please we all know dare devil is not gay he loves elektra and it's been proven and 66.28.71.162 YOU'RE STUPID understand your masters degree is more than likely fake you probably faked it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackjohnson15 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I'm glad that the topic of so-called "sexual frustration" comes up about Daredevil. It would seem absurd, given that comic book heroes (and heroines) are all virtually troubled sexually. It's actually a religous staple in comicdom. Lets's start with classic Superman and go straight to the dynsfunctional families in Marlve's roster: The Sue and Ben Richards clan, the Pyms; Thor's rage at Big Daddy Odin refusal to let him sow his godly "wild oats" with any comely mortal woman. (Or was the All-Father really afraid of his son engaging in office sexual harrassment, for which all of Asgaard could be sued?)Then there are my favorites: Luke Cage pining for the ghost of his dead girl-friend, and that "Benighted Fool" Prince Namor, and his self-continuous riunation every time he gets obsessed with a blond (which gets us back to Sue and Reed Richards). Steve Rogers, for example, should really calm down and simply assume a bullet-proof secret identity, get married and spit-out a couple of little American super-soldier aryans! On Matt Murdock more narrowly, I take umbridge at at the "unsigned"'s thinly-veiled suggestion that DD is a closet fag. The Carnaughvan formulic reaction has no place here. A more rational explaination of why Murdock is attracted to femme fatals is-obviously-they are mostly sent by his enemies to kill him until he able to assuage the lies told to them. Then the womwn get all hot and sweaty with him after all that intense battling. But more telling is that the personage of Matthew Murdock, molded by the twin tragedies of his mysteriously disappeared mother and murdered father could be suffering from a form of-for lack of a better term-"BATTERED WOMAN'S SYNDROME"!!! That's right; you heard me. Y'all are familiar with this. Traumatized woman (and yes, sometimes males) are attracted to, or fall into impulsive, and-to-themselves-inexplicable laisons with people they can't stand and\or they know to be dangerous (like Tony Soprano's "cummahs". Except, in his case, he drives the troubled women he meets to farther extremes). So, this is not unusual at all. It's not that Matt can't respond amorously to "nice" girls and get to "third-base, home and a cigarette" with them; he has all these interferrances in his life (women with knives and guns, and other exotic super-weaponry coming after him, who are not wound too tight in the first place, that is if they believe lies coming from freaks like The Kingpin). And, of course the old mantra of putting a love interst in harm's way. It should be explored further that this is, in fact DD's real problem, the "battered" syndrome, I mean. It would be novel if Matt and Tony Stark clandestinely shared the same psychologist, analyzing and trying to remedy their emotional problems. In fact, their should be a group therapy session with Namor included, cautiously chained to a chair, of couse, could possibly though reluctantly participate in. Hey, wouldn't such a plot be reason enough to revive Marvels' lampoon comic. which for the moment I forget the title? 75.193.126.41 (talk) 05:34, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Veryverser
 * LOL. Absolutely right. (I suspect Subby likes being chained up. ;p) Of course, you have to be a bit disturbed to put on the spandex to begin with...  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  02:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Only a bit disturbed? Maybe. But, hey: Many of us wear spandex in our daily indulges. Exercise freaks who are in love with the fantasized image of themselves; WWE World wrestlers; certain ice-skaters and dancers. They all draw massive crowds, don't they? So, the "super-hero" is chimera reflexive of our some of our over-the-top endeavors, and might I say uniquely American. 65.88.88.40 (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Veryverser

Genius
Has anyone every got any conversation out of the 172.XXX editor who keeps trying to add in that Daredevil is a genius? --Charlesknight 10:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * None here. The guy's an obsessive and clearly doesn't play well with others.--Tenebrae 15:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Link to "Unproduced Screenplay"
I'm deleting the link to an unproduced spec script - there are surely lots of these out there, and more notable. Why include this one and no others? --Chancemichaels 16:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

"Good people come in all colors shapes and sizes"
I just wondering. I'm Roman Catholic. I was talking with so ppl who think Daredevil is a bad character because his name had the word "devil" in it, but other say that it don't matter because he's a hero who fights for what's right. I think it doesn't matter what your name is or how you dress, it matter what you fight for and weather you're a good person or not. What do you guys think?

Without evil, there can be no good. The devil ain't so bad after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.242.232 (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Infobox text.
The caption for the infobox picture reads: Totally gay promotional art by Alex Maleev for cover of Daredevil vol. 2, #41 (March 2003) Am I correct in assuming that the phrase 'totally gay' doesn't belong? I'm taking it out. Valencerian 19:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Early life.
The graphic novel Yellow by Jeph Loeb would seem to be in stark contrast to the origin presented in The Man Without Fear by Frank Miller. Yellow presents his classic Silver Age origin, while The Man Without Fear brings it into the 80s. Which one is the proper version? I know Marvel doesn't use multiple origins and versions like DC, so one must be wrong. Feb 07 MH
 * Neither is wrong, largely due to the fact that these are fictional stories. They're all right. There are lots of small variations in the retellings of the origins, and Marvel has even put out its Mythos line of books, which combine comic book and movie origin details and add more. It will only matter the next time it's written about in the comics. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 09:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Worth nominating for GA status?
...This article's now been graded as "A", so is considered one of the best articles within WP:CMC - which means that it probably has a decent shot at getting Good article status, if a couple of things (such as the citation requests on the fictional biographyand a redlink or two) can be resolved first. Even if it doesn't make GA status, there should be some useful feedback. Opinions? --Mrph 18:35, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Right then. Nobody's screamed stop, and although the article's not perfect it's looking pretty good. Let's see what we get back... --Mrph 21:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Quickfail
I see five categories at the bottom just screaming at me: Check these sort of things before nominating guys.--SeizureDog 21:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles lacking sources from February 2007
 * All articles lacking sources
 * Comics articles needing issue citations
 * Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007
 * All articles with unsourced statements

Needs Cleanup
Most of publication history and fictional character biography still need work. I harp about this every few months without actually contributing much, so apologies, but it still needs work before it should be considered a model of anything. GodzillaWax 16:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources For Biography?
How can anyone put a "needs to cite its references" on the fictional character biography? That's fairly asinine. There's 40 years worth of comics that are being summarized in a few paragraphs - theres no way individual issue citations could or should be added. GodzillaWax 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Daredevil's identity known
How many people actually know Daredevil's secret identity? Is Spider-Man among those who know? if so, when Did he find out and do they both know each other's secret identities? - RVDDP2501 00:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Daredevil recognised Spiderman's heartbeat when he met Peter Parker. At some point Spidey must have found out about DD's ID because he knew that getting a message to Matt Murdock was getting a message to Daredevil.  Since I never saw how he found out it may have actually been a writer's blip... Deke42 (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Daredevil told Spider-Man at the end of the storyline where he learned Spider-Man's identity,. the Sin-Eater story by Peter David (The Death of Jean DeWolff). I've clarified the article, tho the description I wrote is wooden and needs someone to edit. Salamurai (talk) 02:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bendis?
Why is it that Brubaker and Lark have their own section, but Bendis and Maleev don't? Furthermore, why does it stop chronicling Bendis's run after Milla left and suddenly skip over to Brubaker's with only a minute mention of how Bendis's ended?--CyberGhostface 00:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Becuase the article needs massive amounts of work. GodzillaWax 18:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest that for consistency the subhead be changed to reflect not any particular writer/artist but the fact that the title went from a special imprint back to the mainstream line. Just suggesting. --Tenebrae 15:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree, as articles on works of fiction are supposed to be written from an out-of-universe perspective, and one of the best ways to do that (in my opinion) is to have the subheads split by writer so the article can talk about how each writer handled the character. H. Carver 11:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That's a valid point, but it's also an out-of-universe perspective to discuss it in terms of mature-reader imprint vs. mainstream imprint. --Tenebrae 14:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

marvel knights
WTF is Marvel's grittier heroes should it be greater or what? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackjohnson15 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

This strikes me as bogus
In the publication section there is the following

"The team specifically addressed societal issues, with Murdock, now running a non-profit urban legal center, confronting sexism, communism, racism, dwarfism, spoonerism, and nuclear proliferation while fighting supervillains. Nocenti introduced the popular antagonist Typhoid Mary in issue #254."

I'm not a Daredevil expert, so I'm not sure what part of this is true and what is false. But I'm pretty sure dwarfism and spoonerism don't need to be there. I defer to the Daredevil fans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avatar of Justice (talk • contribs) 17:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC).


 * It was 99% about fighting against poverty and for people who couldn't afford legal representation. I don't recall any dwarfves or communists and spoonerisms is obviously just vandalism. --66.58.211.104 02:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I tracked it down. It was vandalized by User:66.28.71.162 on April 18. I've reverted it and put a warning on his page.--Tenebrae 03:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the part about racism, sexism, and nuclear proliferation (the hell?) and it seems to have been reverted. It was part of some vandalism, why would it be reinstated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.58.211.104 (talk) 07:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC).

Origin
Daredevil's origin is usually explained as "radioactive waste" spilling from a barrel on to Matt's eyes, but in Daredevil 164 Matt describes it as a small radioactive canister that looks more like a plutonium rod, colliding into his face to produce a blinding explosion. Why is the "radioactive liquid waste" origin more prolific than the "radioactive canister" explanation?
 * The cannister smacking him across the eyes is the only explanation from the comic books, the getting drenched in goo thing was from the movie --66.58.211.104 17:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually I know that at times it was shown in the comics as being splashed with the radioactive goo. That is typical of comics though to change the origin flashbacks depending on who was writing/drawing at the time. The commonly accepted one (at the moment anyway) is usually the cannister. 24.255.251.174 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC).

Fictional character bio
I removed the material in this section about writers and artists because my WikiComics Project guidelines and exemplar, "Fictional character biography" is an in-universe section, and all the real-world writer/artist background belongs under "Publication history". Virtually all of the inappropriate material was also redundant with the PH. This additionally solves the problem of the "Brubaker/Lark" subhead, since the FCB should never have had a real-world, out-of-universe subhead in the first place. --Tenebrae 18:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Origin of the name
I've come across an instance of the name "Matthew Murdock" in comics before the publication of Daredevil #1- specifically, as a murdered man in the July 19 1942 issue of Michael Eisner's 'The Spirit', "M-U-R-D-E-R". It would seem to be a stretch to assume that the two writers came up with the name independently, especially given the extent Eisner's work influenced later comics. Is this solid enough to include, or do I need more? -Toptomcat 07:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What's so funny about the name M-U-R-D-O-C-K? After all, many english surnames have ominus origins to their dark, barbaric past. For instance, names such as TODD (I suppose from the original German toth, or tot(death); or, Mortimer (more civilly) stylized from M-O-R-T (obviously). And then there are the myriad of Scandavian surnames (Bjorke e.g. "berserker", or Scarvid, Hacker, Shriver, etc.) Just as those two clever, runny-nosed kids 'christised' their mild-mannered reporter with a prosaic name of "Clark" (Clerk in German) K-E-N-T (humble-to-nobel implication. Or Bruce Wayne; not only invoking old, inherited blood, but the name B-R-U-C-E (black,or "dark one" I think in Gaelic). So, as the prosodic monickers for superheroes such as the character Mr. Murdock is not only in keeping with comic book tradtion, but consider what the creators were thinking: That the civilian "secret identity"'s moniker could be just as compelling and r-e-v-e-a-l-i-n-g as their alternate, "action" tags. And lest some smart-ass gets a dim-bulb of an idea: Yes, Doc Savage, The second "Superman" of the pulps's name was borrowed by Shuster and Seigel for their titular four-eyed protagonist, as the former revealved in a mid-90slive forum! 75.193.126.41 (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Veryverser

Radar
This has been mentioned a couple of times in the talk archives, but the current version of the page says his "radar sense" is based on his hearing.

''...he can "see" by means of his "radar sense", in which Daredevil is able to listen to any sound (even that well below the normal human range of hearing), and use it to "see" a three-dimensional construct of his surroundings. However, unlike sonar, Daredevil does not have to make a sound in order to see, and is able to use the ambient sounds of his surroundings to the same effect.''

As far as I remember from the comics, his radar is a separate power and it was only linked to his hearing, as sonar, in the movie.

The marvel.com site (http://www.marvel.com/universe/Daredevil_%28Matthew_Murdock%29) supports this-

''Along with the enhancement of Daredevil’s normal senses, he has gained another sense which he calls his Radar Sense. According to one theory, this sense reacts to an emission of electromagnetic energy a mutation in his brain has caused, reading the reverberations of this energy as a 360º, 3-D map of objects.''

I don't recall any explicit explanation of this in recent issues, and have never seen anything about a brain mutation, but the sound-based radar is IMO wrong. Can anyone quote an issue to support this? DrHacky 14:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Daredevil v1 174- the Miller run, during the first encounter with the Hand- Daredevil loses his radar-sense, but retains his hearing. That's enough evidence that they're separate senses for me. -Toptomcat 01:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I've undone Cthulhu1254's replacement of the traditional description of Daredevil's powers as Radar Sense based on what I perceive to be the general consensus on this talk page as to the general feeling of what his power is called AND how his power is described in the books published by and webpage of Marvel Comics. I've been reading Daredevil for years and don't recall his mutated radar sense ever having been described as based on sonar (although its an interesting theory).  I won't get into an edit war over it.  If my revert is reverted, I will leave it to others to hash it out, but I think the unilateral change to calling it a sonar sense when the books and web-page and fans all call it radar sense is just POV rather than encyclopedic information. --Markisgreen 06:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone should just agree to call it a "radar sense" and leave it at that. --Jmscstl

I was wondering about this, actually, as I read through the article. If what's written under "powers" is accurate, that DD can dodge bullets by "sensing" them or the shot firing them, then that ability can't be hearing based. Sound travels roughly 1100fps. Modern firearms can nearly triple that speed. You hear the shot after it passes. Either the setting has tweaked the speed of sound or something else is behind the ability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.50.102.179 (talk • contribs)

There is a reason to that. Murdock doesnt hear the bullet, he hears the firing mechanism. That is why in "The Murdock Papers" The sniper who was 5km away was able to shoot him, as he did not pick up its location until the bullet was to close to dodge. It would take about a second to get a good sniper reload right. That not only gives murdock awareness to the bullet, but it gives him time to move, as the bullet can take up to a second to reach him. marcwagz

Yeah, the radar is its own sense. As for quoting the Bendis run generally, here's what I'd like to add. Bendis wrote great Daredevil, no doubt about it. However, the way Daredevil's senses were protrayed during his run deviated quite substantially from the norm for the character in a number of ways. The radar suddenly became a combination of DD's other senses. I personally would have been okay with this if it weren't for the ways in which DD's other senses were stretched to very ridiculous extremes (they broke the laws of physics ten times over in ways that - lo and behold - his senses have rarely done in the post-Miller era). I had WTF moments with regard to DD's senses in almost every Bendis issue in ways that I've rarely felt with other writers. The Bendis run was great, but should not be used as a reference for determining what DD can and cannot sense. Brubaker's take on the character is not only more realistic, but quite closer to the historical norm for the character as well. This is just a general recommendation. - Christine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.73.193 (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is another aspect of Daredevil's powers that the writers incredulously missed. And that is his other tacitile sense of HEAT registration!!! We all can sense slight and subtle fluctuations in heat and temperatures in different environments (in-doors or out); and commensurate with subtle airflow and pressure (same thing). With our hero here, it's obvious that he can map an entire environment with receptors of his skin (face and fingertips, entire epidermus, even his tongue, like a snake). Also, perspiration and odor from people, and heat-generated objects, and revealatively 'cooled' objects as well. So it is that instead of a "radar sense" (which, when I first read the premiere issues of DD way back in the Kennedy\MLK era, I was fascinated that Matt Murdock had these rather bat-like attributes,) our hero actually has a more elegant I-N-F-R-A-R-E-D senses, never used and I bet never even mentioned! I got the idea from a suggestion from that bomb of a Ben Affleck movie (actually, it should be called a Jenny Garner flick, since she is fast becoming the new girl-in-the-refigerator of failed movies). Matt uses a bathtube full of water to mute all the instrusive sensory onslaught in his down-time when he needs to sleep, otherwise he would go insane. Very novel, although I assume that like most blind ppl. who learn to block out extraneuous noises even while they sleep, we also can be lulled to sleep with noisey crickets, rainfall, some low-frequency, monotonous droning, or our favorite soft music (Mine are Mozart's serenades, Roberta Flack, Dionne Warwick, and Karen Carpenter!) This is not just simple cult speculation. More and more scientist are developing exploratory instruments using higher bands of EM, or electro-magnetic field (ultraviolet, gamma,etc.) using infrared as a visual 'canvas'in astronomy, medicine, and increasingly in terrestrial meteorology and surveying. Like the more serious DC writers and artist(like Gardner Fox in the Silver age of comics,) writers then used to cut their teeth studying the latest popular scientific break-throughs and incorporated them into their characters' abilities(The Flash, Atom, Green Latern, Adam Strange,"Strange Sports Stories") to give them more believability. This unfortunately was never developed at Marvel as they never sweated over the usage of a semblance of science rationality (with the exception of Jack Kirby while he tenured there). I suppose that's it's too late at this stage for a "reboot" of Daredevil's abilities. There could have been a way to use DD's powers to have him traispe into the Supernatural, like the 70s Batman. Matt Murdock would then be a more natural ally to Doc Strange than Spiderman, whom the latter is Marvel's true "Angel of Death" Oh yes, I almost forgot: Since DD has these tactile senses, he probably could 'read' electro-musclular spasms, so he can anticipate and dodge the fast movements of any bruiser, just like Spiderman oughta. Come to think of it, if Murdock wanted a second career and identity, he would be great as a forensic medic as a day job. A better crime-fighting investigative capability, for sure 75.193.126.41 (talk) 04:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Veryverser

Reading over this articcle... Is embarassing...
This article embarasses me as a daredevil fan? What mental defunct said that Matt has human echolocation? Probably some joke who has only seen the movie, as his radar, in the comics, is unrelated to his sense of hearing... I mean come on people...

MarcWagzMarcWagz

Although I have no dog in this hunt, in the latest issue of Daredevil (vol. 3, #12), his power is referred to as "echolocation." Perhaps Mark Waid is mentally defunct?Rcarter555 (talk) 05:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Frank Miller Quote
In too much of a rush to add this in myself properly; I believe it is indicative of the 'more realistic turn' many feel Frank Miller brought to DD (also brings up the character's Catholicism, which I didn't see mentioned in the article but is linked in the categories and is simply an awesome quote):

"I figured Daredevil had to be a Catholic, because only a Catholic could be a vigilante and an attorney at the same time."

– Frank Miller, History Channel; Comic Book Superheroes Unmasked: Comic Book Superheroes Unmasked.

Richard Paez Richardpaez 13:37, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Women In Refrigirators
Unless someone big/noteable specifically referenced the whole 'Women in Fridges' debate re: Daredevil's love interests, then I think the whole reference should be deleted. Random gripings by some blogger, which could be well-written, is not Wikipedia-worthy, IMHO. Lots42 13:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Daredevil100.jpg
Image:Daredevil100.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 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Whoever changed it to say daredevil has echolocation knows nothing about the charachter... Ugg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.111.181 (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Matt Murdock image
I think it would be good if we could get an image of Matt Murdock without the costume here. WDavis1911 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That makes enormous sense. As well, the SHB image I believe goes against MOS, which dictates as clear a straightforward front image as possible without background elements. Certainly, an image by Gene Colan or Frank Miller, his two signature artists, wouldn't be inappropriate. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Daredevil poster.JPG
The image Image:Daredevil poster.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --20:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Heather Glen
Why isn't Heather Glen listed as a love interest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boop-oop-a-doop (talk • contribs) 10:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Echolocation?
So Matt Murdock has echolocation does he?

It has become apparent to me that you guys have never read a dd comic in your lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.38.188.195 (talk) 09:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Separate biography section
Should this article split the increasingly long 'publication history' to a 'publication history' section and 'fictional character biography' section? I feel it should... but as it is a huge, drastic edit, I'd like to point this out on the talk page first. I'm using the Spider-Man article as my idol. -- A talk / contribs 22:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you know where I stand on that... there has also been some discussion on WT:CMC that seems to indicate an FCB would be just fine if done properly. :) BOZ (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah, yes. I made this post right before I made the one in the project discussion page. -- A talk / contribs 20:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the replies, though? BOZ (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Why yes I have. My apologies; I have a tendency to read the replies people give me and seem to skim over to another page rather than give an actual response. I've been meaning to give a response for a while. -- A talk / contribs 12:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thing is the PH doesn't seem that long and, as I've said on WT:CMC a FCB is unwise (and against WP:WAF). If the concern is the length of the page then "other media" could be split off (this might be a good idea anyway). I'd also not use Spider-Man as an example as it has only recently made GA and as articles progress towards FA they tend to shed the in-universe material (so the way Spider-Man is now is not the way it will be when it hits FA and is not something to aim for). Better to look towards Superman, Batman and Captain Marvel (DC Comics) (although, as some were promoted years ago I wouldn't use them as a strict template. There is room for the creation of a section looking at the characterisation of the character, for example but somehow splitting the PH to create a FCB is a step backwards from the general trend of article improvement - such changes would have to be reversed as the article moved further up the quality scale. (Emperor (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I exaggerate. I meant it had a lot random in-universe information just inserted for lack of better place. The characterisation section is a definate; a sort of 'character attributes' section that includes 'characterisation' and the 'powers and abilities' section should be okay. The 'love interests' section, however, really bugs me. It's not significant at all, and at least two or three of those characters are significant enough to be added to a 'supporting characters' section, probably describing how they impact the series/Daredevil. -- A talk / contribs 20:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)