Talk:Jack Kirby/Archive 1

Kurtzberg or Kurtzburg?
Sorry! Is his real name Kurtzberg or Kurtzburg ? Britannica says Kurtzberg.80.184.128.98 17:24, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'm a German
 * Men of Tomorrow concurs with "Kurtzberg".

Fixed link
Fixed the Jack FAQ link. --Kross 21:22, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Citation needed
Mark Evanier is indeed a fine and important historian and witness whom I cite often myself. But we can't just say "Mark Evanier revealed..." WHERE did he reveal it? Can you link to a column? Can you say where you read it? This needs to be cited -- that's just the way Wikipedia or any encyclopedia is; sources have to be given. Someone outside comics using this an an encyclopedia has no idea who Mark is. --Tenebrae 15:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Mark revealed this fact to the comic book community after learning about it from contacts at Marvel. An open letter containing this fact was distributed during the 1985 San Diego Comicon. Roz Kirby showed me a copy. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Kirbyesque?
Well... so what is anything that is "kirbyesque"? I mean, what defines its style? --euyyn 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. There needs to be a section on what makes is style unique. For me, it's the classic foreshortened outstretched hand with sqaure fingertips. He also drew incredibly complex hi-tech weapons and gadgets. --68.103.154.140 04:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the trademark "Kirby machines" that practically covered the interior of Kirby's Baxter Building layouts, and went to greater heights in his New Gods works. Does anyone know of a citeable source for the catchphrase "Kirby machine"?  I wanted to add it to the article, perhaps under Legacy or in the same paragraph that mentions Kirby dots--I've heard many comics fans use that term for Kirby's stylized technology--but I can't find any site online that uses the term. -- Pennyforth 18:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Historians and observers of the art have been using this phrase for decades to describe everything from the dots to the foreshortened action frames. But the focus has always been on the machines and certain character designs. This is the way I described it in my book "The Art of Jack Kirby" (Blue Rose Press, 1992): "In the later half of his tenure at Marvel, Kirby's art shifted into what is considered his "pseudo-techno" period. He started the trend by simplifying gadgets invented by Mr. Fantastic. The visual complexities of dials, gauges and switches were imitated in a way that maintained the feeling of complexity without inventing believable function. Eventually, the act of simplification generated new shapes and designs that complemented both the story line and the overall visual effect of the art. Later, as Kirby became more comfortable with the style, machines and even characters took on odd shapes and forms while the backgrounds and props became increasingly more complex. "My machines, no matter how unimportant they were, had to be so unusual that you couldn't figure out what you were looking at. I didn't want anybody looking at my machines thinking that they'd seen it someplace before." The new style was so unusual that artists had difficulty designating a name for it, so they called it Kirbyesque." Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's silly notion of "fair usage" makes something like this hard to do, but if anyone happens to have images available, these would be needed for a section such as "Kirbyesque", or "graphic influence on later illustrators". Certainly, when it comes to art or music, concepts are harder, if not impossible to explain with words, especially if trying to be NPOV.  But contributions to any future work here should include early Steranko, early Barry Smith, swipes by Rich Buckler, the hybrid Kirby/Toth of Steve Rude, Keith Giffen and Keith Pollard from their "Kirbyesque" phases, "homages" by John Byrne, Tim Corrigan samples from his "Tim Corrigan's Super-Hero Comics" mid-70's fanzine, and I'm sure there's a lot more than I'm not thinking of off the top of my head (the use of "Kirby-dots" by George Perez and Walt Simonson).  This might even make for a good entry in and of itself, The Influence Of Jack Kirby on Design and Graphics in Comic Art". 71.125.238.223 (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been reading over these entries - good stuff here that was never executed. As the entry in 2006, there's quite a range of stylistic considerations for what historians and artists know as "Kirbyesque" - much of this has been explored and reexplored in TJKC. Maybe it is time to do something? Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

List of his characters
There should be a list of all the characters Jack Kirby created -Unsigned
 * I would be happy to provide a complete list from "The Art of Jack Kirby" Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no-one else has replied: Please do, yes. Perhaps at List of characters (co-)created by Jack Kirby..? Or is that a little clumsy? ntnon (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe I shall. I think five years is long enough... XD Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 14:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Discrepancy
I pose to you a conundrum. If Jack Kirby died in 1994, how did he address the 1998 San Diego ComicCon? One of those dates is incorrect, howver, i'm not sure which, if somone could verify and edit it would make us all a little happier. CodyM 09:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I figured it out, misread on my part. CM

Query
Kirby is popularly acknowledged by comics creators and fans as one of the greatest and most influential artists in the history of comics. Surely that should be "english speaking comics" - I don't see much evidence of his influence in BDs and the like? --Charlesknight 09:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea what you mean by "BD" but international appreciation of Jack's work is well-documented. Ask any European or Asian comic book collector and they'll cite Jack Kirby as a key influencer who helped popularize the art form. Citations: FUCHS and REITBERGER in Comics - Anatomie eines Massenmediums (1973); DRECHSEL, FUNHOFF and HOFFMANN in Massenzeichenware: Die gesellschaftliche und ideologische Funktion der Comics (1975); and RAINER CLODIUS in Comixene #17 (1978). Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "BD" means bande dessinée", the uniquely French brand of comics, such as the Asterix, Lucky Luke, Tintin, Spirou et Fantasio series and the likes. I concur with Charlesknight: while Kirby may have been very influential in Anglo-Saxon comic culture, I doubt that his specific art form has influenced the French and German scene. Vargher (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think Kirby is highly admired among many French comics fans, although I have to agree he might not have had much direct impact on that particular evolution. As a side note, you could check out the last image from this presentation of Andreas: http://lambiek.net/artists/a/andreas.htm 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This might not be thought of as such a good analogy, but the French BD scene is highly auteur-based, and from a French viewpoint, I think Kirby would be considered an auteur of comics, somewhat similar to how Jerry Lewis was considered an auteur - i.e. a French artist might not necessarily attempt to draw like Kirby, but respect him for maintaining a personal vision in a commercial medium. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Found a picture
OK I found a pic off this website, just not sure what I put for licensing, if any one couldgo in there and add something that would be great, thanks.Phoenix741 03:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That photo belongs to "The Art of Jack Kirby" - published by Blue Rose Press in 1992. I'm the author, researcher, and publisher of the book. BTW... there are many errors and I noticed bad citations. I can make many of these corrections AND provide you a verified list of characters. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 23:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ben 10
I have added a link to both the Kirby and the Kirby dots entries from the article on Ben 10, a superhero cartoon which seems highly derivitive of his style. This has been removed, and while I'm prepared to let the general style comparison find its own level there I think adding the reference to Kirby dots adds to the article. I'd like to see this link from all such heavy uses of his style but don't think mentioning it in the Kirby biography itself is appropriate, what do others think? MartinSFSA 21:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Kirby article states: "Kirby continued to expand the medium's boundaries, devising photo-collage covers and interiors, developing new drawing techniques such as the method for depicting energy fields now known as 'Kirby Dots', and other experiments." I'm not sure I see anything inaccurate there, or any reason not to mention Kirby Dots, a.k.a. Kirby Krackles. I don't know anything about the Ben 10 article, but I can tell you that whoever removed the references to Kirby and Kirby Dots did so because saying that the cartoon "seems highly derivative" is an opinion. --Tenebrae 03:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that's not the statement I'm talking about. It ran "The style is reminiscent of Jack Kirby, particularly the alien and technology designs and use of Kirby dots." and was placed next to an image of the show title which uses the dots. I don't mind the first part being removed, but do wish to see Kirby credited with the invention of the dots in any such piece which uses them so heavily. Is what I'm asking for advice on. MartinSFSA 05:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, anything regarding the Ben 10 article should go on the Ben 10 talk page. I did check out the logo there, and while it may look to you or to me like Kirby dots, and while the alien and technology designs (which I haven't seen) might look to some people as reminiscent of Kirby, we really can't say that in the article since it's just our opinion. If an authoritative comics-art critic or animation expert were to say this, we could cite it; likewise if the series' producer or head animator said so. Otherwise, it's against Wikipedia guidelines. --Tenebrae 06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have been asking there, and one editor was good enough to point out they didn't know much about Kriby. Until such time as we get such a statement from a co-creator or expert I'm going to continue to seek someone who knows both Kriby and Ben 10. MartinSFSA 07:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is no secret to anybody who has studied this subject that Jack Kirby's work has tremendous influence on nearly all forms of visual entertainment (whether the artist is aware of the influence or not). Even filmmakers like George Lucas and Steven Spielberg have admitted as much in past interviews. This fact is well-documented in a great many books on the subject. I wish I had the time to cite all of them for you. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 02:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Homages/Trivia
The "Homages" section was actually titled "Trivia until this edit. Changing the section name doesn't change the content. This is still a trivia section: It has the same sort of items that other articles' trivia sections contain. And changing the section name really does seem like an end-run around policy. --Tenebrae 06:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want, but trivia is derogatory as it is an excuse for including unrelated and often irrelevant items while a homage list is not the same thing. In other words naming that list of homages as Trivia was a lazy and inaccurate title. --Leocomix 14:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take a crack in a little while at writing an homage section in prose. Wikipedia generally prefers prose treatment to lists where we can. --Tenebrae 14:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Would be good to mention that Michael Chabon, author of "the amazing adventures of Kavalier and Clay", dedicates his novel ( and all others ) to "the work of the late Jack Kirby, the king of comics". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.218.88 (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * done. that really is one of his greatest honors. it establishes his credentials among the intelligentsia. of course, he'd probably think this was overdoing it. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Kirby vs. Marvel
Why was it labelled POV, and why was it removed, please? ntnon (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Near as I can tell from the history, it had been flagged for some time with a "neutrality-disputed" tag. I went back to read it, and it did seem a bit much (both in length and in tone), though certainly an NPOV section on Kirby vs. Marvel would seem needed. I guess I can take a crack at it unless someone else what's to give it a start. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure about neutrality (I thought the tag was POV?) but it can't have been flagged for that long - I only put most of the information in on the 16th of March! (There were a couple of lines prior to that intimating at the disagreement, which was unsourced, so I wrote and sourced considerably more.) This was then labeled POV (clearly erroneously) on the 17th of April. Perhaps it was overly harsh, but really... he was ill treated by Marvel who (according to several individuals) then tried to cover it up. I suppose the Comics Journal isn't always noted for being a bastion of politeness and even-handedness, but still...
 * I'll give it another look over when I'm a little less annoyed that: A) Substantiated and sourced facts were cavalierly labelled "point of view" and B) The whole section was deleted on the strength of that very-recent allegation without discussion... ntnon (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Gotta agree with you -- the article certainly needs a section on "Kirby vs. Marvel" (and try as I may so far, I can't come up with another subhead for it, which I think we need since that phrase suggests a lawsuit). Why don't we (and, obviously, whoever else wants to pitch in) start with something simple, then build it up? The Comics Journal' is a perfectly fine and respected source. We probably ought to stick to the straight reportage articles rather than the petition and the op-eds, but TCJ is real journalism, as opposed to some press-releasey, rah-rah glossies I could name...!


 * One other point, now that I think of it &mdash; POV can come out of even a well-footnoted section, if the citations are selective and the tone carries any sense of outrage. I certainly lean toward thinking Marvel behaved very, very badly, but we have to keep such feelings out of it and try to give both sides of the issue. Nobody said it was gonna be easy! Let's do this thing....--Tenebrae (talk) 11:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I favour "Kirby vs. Marvel," but something like "Artwork disagreement," "Marvel disagreement," "Kirby's problems".. maybe something like that would be better? I also prefer to do a fair bit of writing and then pile it in at once, rather than build things up, but...!
 * I understand your point about potential POV (and outrage), and I think it a great idea to put forward all sides. Now, if only Marvel had a stance/side to put forward...! ntnon (talk) 18:13, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Reading over what I wrote (and the sources from which I wrote it), I wonder if the POV challenge doesn't come from the (fairly unequivocal) facts that, while this dispute between Kirby and Marvel was on-going, DC was pioneering the return of artwork. Clearly the other companies - including Marvel, who began to return work to other artists, just not Kirby - followed suit soon thereafter (partially shamed into it, but partly awakening to the moral and legal responsibility) returning work, but I wonder if some partisan fans might not view such a description as being Pro-DC and Anti-Marvel...? I'll see what I can do with trying to keep the facts, but excise the Marvel/DC angle. I'll see if I can put something together and then stick it up and link it from here to see what some people think about a revised iteration of this important piece of Kirby history. ntnon (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's an exciting project. This is a significant aspect of Kirby's life, and I applaud your first draft at [User:Ntnon/Kirby]]. I'll comment there, and urge other members of WPC to take a look and lend a hand! --Tenebrae (talk) 05:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Jack"
The Comics Journal Library: Jack Kirby prints a copy of a letter from Mr Kirby to his wife, written during WWII. He writes as "Jack Kirby," but signs it "Jackson". Should this be clarified, since it quite clearly seems to demonstrate that he changed his name not simply to "Jack Kirby," but to "Jackson Kirby" - and then used the short-form "Jack." Anyone contest that or object to it being included? ntnon (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe in a footnote, though I'd like to see other editors' take on it since "Jackson" in this context may have been jocular. Men of Tomorrow. p. 197, notes that he'd changed his name legally, so the definitive answer would be in the public record as to whether he'd changed it to Jack Kirby or Jackson Kirby. I imagine the upcoming Evanier bio will specify, so it might be simpler to just for that. BTW, any movement on the Kirby v. Marvel section? I'd made some editorial comments at your suggestion. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. :o) On the "Kirby vs. Marvel" front, your comments were very helpful, thanks. I counter-commented (broadly speaking, most of your concerns about neutral or unsubstantiated phrases - exposé, hostage, legal opinions - were used in the original articles I referred to) and mentioned it elsewhere for comment, and... that's all so far. I've been away for a few days, so I've not worked it any more yet, either. ntnon (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I like that emoticon. I actually don't think I've seen that particular one before. It's cute. I've just come back, too, after Memorial Day, and made a suggestion on the work page. Let me know what you think, buddy.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Place of death
Per the Social Security Death Index, the dates, last residence, last benefit and SSN of Jack Kirby: JACK KIRBY        28 Aug 1917	       06 Feb 1994         91362 (Thousand Oaks, Ventura, CA)        (none specified)        083-05-7551

While that is last residence and may not reflect, for example, a hospital in a nearby town, the Los Gatos claim needs citation. Reverting uncited claim by anon IP with no edit summary.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm looking for a direct link that we can use. Most don't seem to have them but I got this and this, anyone got anything better? Anyone got a preference? The latter seems cleaner and the URL is quite easy to manipulate (just change the recid to the SSDI). (Emperor (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC))


 * And FYI the search page for the latter is . (Emperor (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC))
 * I think the SSDI page only gives the residence location at the time of birth and death, not the actual location where the events occured. BOZ (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 16:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ticks everything for that. Bar possibly #2 (Marvel artwork) which is in the works. ntnon (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a number of statements (often about motivation and contracts but also one quote) which do need sourcing. Overall the article is good enough to push on to an A (and beyond) once those issues are sourced. To help I've flagged the ones I think need references for - address those (which should probably be straightforward) and, as far as I'm concerned, you've ticked the box and can bump it back to B. (Emperor (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC))


 * OK the main statements have been addressed and I've taken a run at sourcing all the awards and everything is looking pretty solid so I've bumped it up to a B. It is looking pretty solid, a bit of a polish (a few more references, copy editing and getting sources consistent) and it should be looking solid for a GA nomination (and the coverage looks pretty complete, although there is perhaps room for more on the whole creator-ownership angle, so an A-class assessment should be straightforward). (Emperor (talk) 02:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC))


 * I'd definitely like to see this one at GA, and beyond. :) BOZ (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Birthdate
So far I've found books with two different birthdates for Kirby. One is August 18th (Gerard Jones' book) and August 25th (Ronin Ro's book). Neither of these match what is listed in this article. I need to double check Mark Evanier's book, but until them, can someone clarify this? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Wesley. See section "Place of Death", just above. It gives the federal Social Security information. -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Split

 * Split but to List of works by Jack Kirby (under Category:Bibliographies by author and Category:Lists of comics by creator). Also consider starting Category:Comics by Jack Kirby (under Category:Comics by author). (Emperor (talk) 17:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC))


 * Anyone else got an opinion? I also started that category. (Emperor (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC))


 * It seems like a fair way to go... and it would allow the bibliography to expand. - J Greb (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Hiding T 09:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Righto I'll get this done later. (Emperor (talk) 15:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC))


 * And by later I meant now. Done. (Emperor (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC))

Broken link
The "audio -- 'Marvel Marching Society'" link returns a 404 error.

Basesurge (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

GA?
OK I'd like to keep things moving here and shoot for GA. Content-wise it seems to provide solid and balanced coverage (the only addition that I see might be needed is an extra paragraph or so on creator rights as that is only lightly touched on). I'll go through the article with a fine-tooth comb in the next few days and flag anything that might need a source and see if the wording is fine. Remember there are sources above that could prove useful. If you spot anything or have any other thoughts then drop a note in here and we'll see what we can do. (Emperor (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC))


 * The legacy section needs expanding, I'll see what I can do there, and I'd like to get a section on his art worked up too. Not sure when though. Let me try and absorb what I have on Kirby. What do you want on creator rights, I've got all the relevant TCJ stuff right here. Hiding T 23:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I had started work on this article a few months ago but took a break. I have plenty of sources available, although I think GA can wait, because I'd need to read through them all over again. I've worked on several biographical articles and in my experience biography articles are some of the hardest to work on, and they require some extra care. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, frankly most of the fair use images are decorative and need to go. Only post an image of his artwork if there is commentary on its composition or aesthetics. Look at some painter FAs for examples. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone know what this is doing here: Jack Kirby? Seems a bit isolated and I wonder what it is adding. (Emperor (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Looks kind of fishy under fair use. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahhhhh - my question was more general but looking at it in more detail I see it isn't part of the Internet Archive media (which is public domain) and is actually just cached there. So I've removed it . (Emperor (talk) 05:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC))

Having a skim now and then a read-through later. The sourcing looks adequate in most places; could probably use a few more in the "Marvel Comics in the Silver Age" section, and a few other thin spots, but I think the sourcing is good enough overall. We'll see how picky a reviewer is. ;) Might it not help to approach the MILHIST project, which helped out with Alex Raymond? BOZ (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of sourcing and rewriting still needed. I honestly only got done with Kirby's birth through the early 50s when I was originally citing and revising the article. Everything below that needs to be extensively redone. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Rewriting perhaps, but the sourcing seems fine, far more complete than not in fact. You're right that the sourcing is less dense after that point though (as I noted above), but on the whole the article doesn't seem too bad with citations all the same. BOZ (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, many items are unsourced, and might be inaccurate. There's also lots of unprofessional wording. Having worked on lots of biography articles, I have to say it's honestly not even close to ready for a GA nom. As I said, I'll like to help out and I have several high-quality sources at my disposal, but it probably won't be right away. We can do a collective push for GA sometime in the near future. There's no rush anyway. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So let's get to work? :) BOZ (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I have one major project on my hands already. That's why it would be best to wait. My goal is to finish my current project before the end of April. How's that? WesleyDodds (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure enough... in the meantime, I'll see what little bits and bobs I can do here and there. BOZ (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does this need a complete rewrite to pass GA? It may be what we'd need to get it to FA but the coverage is solid and a polish and some more references might be enough to get it within GA shooting distance. (Emperor (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Well, that is what I was thinking. Get the sources in here for now, then nominate, then work on it as you go. I've only seen one nomination that passed without additional work, but I've only seen two (out of the 12-15 or so that I've been involved in) which did not pass as GA after some work to correct the reviewer's concerns. BOZ (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to give it a shot. I think we can get any issues fixed as we go, and if not then we'll have a better idea of exactly what we need for the next time. BOZ (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Kirby Kollage
I was pondering this area as I ran across a few example in the FF which got me thinking on this. Coincidentally, it came up on the comics scholar mailing list (where I lurk filtering everything for juicy morsels) but resources seem thin - there is a good overview here and Rick Veitch did a homage to it. Checking the article this angle gets mentioned but the source for the sentence is really for the Kirby Krackle and I'm wondering if there is any more on this? The emails suggest it gets a mention in Evanier's book - I don't have i and I was wondering what it said and if anyone knows any more about this. (Emperor (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC))

Today's edits
An anon IP made a large number of edits scattered throughout the piece, far too many to pick through individually. While a number of them seemed good, all were uncited, many had issues of WP:TONE, POV and unsupported assumptions/conclusions, and there were a number of spelling/grammatical errors and one completely unattached, isolated phrase floating in there. I'll go in and see if I can reinsert some of the work where it looks like new relevant information, but none of it was footnoted, so it'll take some doing. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Masters of American Comics" initial run
The initial run of that show was split between the Jewish Museum in NYC and Newark NJ http://www.thejewishmuseum.org/exhibitions/Comics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.118.242 (talk) 18:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of a short film
At 22:55, 19 March 2010, anon IP 95.18.95.43 added to the article's "Legacy" section a 20-minute amateur fiction film with jack Kirby as a character. It was evidently shown at a couple of Spanish film festivals but is basically distributed on YouTube and on this Facebook page. The Kirby Museum mentions it in a December blog post], saying "As of yet there are no plans for a DVD or Internet release of the film."

The anon IP who added this has no other edits except a similar edit at Ed Wood, who also appears as a character in it. After I removed this as tangential and evidently self-promotional, it was reinserted by a new user DaneWhitman, who also has no other edits.

Aside from the triviality of an amateur movie, it's not even a documentary but a piece of fiction. These edits appear to be promotional in nature, and while a Google search reveals 64,000 hits, it's clear from the first 15 pages that, aside from the filmmakers' sites, most of these hits are Wikipedia mirror sites picking up the mention in the Kirby article.

Before this single-purpose account reinserts the item for what seems promotional purposes, can we get some other editors' views on its appropriateness? --Tenebrae (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thoughts:
 * Using the fan film as a source for inclusion here isn't good.
 * The Kirby Museum ref, if ever cited in the article, is a blog and not reliable.
 * IMDB is definitely not considered reliable.
 * Is thereanything other than those sources?
 * Right now it is trivial, and given the nature of the "film", does stink of a WP:COI vio and self promotion.
 * - J Greb (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Tenebrae: This discusion is innecesary, IMDB no reference amateur films try you send to they one. This short film was proyected in comics conventions in Europe  and in international film festivals. This adition is´nt promotional, basically because the only benefict is that people knows the existence of a fantasy short film with Jack Kirby like a fictional character. What is the problem? Wikipedia born to let the people share his small part of information. That is the diference between wikipedia and a standard encyclopedia. Anyway, I delete the director reference and youtube link in order that you do not think that it is promotional. But please, you don´t delete the reference to short film existence. Is real information, interesting information and little known information, I think is perfect to Wikipedia. J Greb: TK&TW isn`t a fan film, is short film distribuited to film festivals. If you think that the first reference to Jack Kirby like a fictional character is trivial information I understand anything. This aditions isn`t self promtion basically because I don`t konw the film maker, I only discover this short film and I want share his existence. Repeat: I delete the director reference and youtube link in order that you do not think that it is promotional. But please, you don´t delete the reference to short film existence. DaneWithman —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaneWithman (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your enthusiasm for the film, I don't think noting its existence in this article tells us anything more about Jack and his impact. (I'd say that goes for individual TV episodes "dedicated" to Jack.) If Jack were a more obscure figure, references to him might have more relevance. (It is not the first use of Kirby as a fictional character, if memory serves - I think he appeared in one or more Fantastic Four Annual interacting with the characters.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * With IMDB - as far as Wikipedia is concerned it is not considered a reliable source. Are there any other sources that would be considered reliable by Wikipedia that have presented any coverage of the film?
 * Lacking that it really is a trivial item for inclusion either here or in Ed Wood.
 * And on that note... To chide other editors with "Ed Wood would want this adition and you know it." is appallingly bad. Such considerations really have zero bearing on how Wikipedia articles are developed. - J Greb (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And on that note... To chide other editors with "Ed Wood would want this adition and you know it." is appallingly bad. Such considerations really have zero bearing on how Wikipedia articles are developed. - J Greb (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

NatGertler: Of course, Jack Kirby is a fictional character in marvel comics a lot of times (and in anothers comics, like Supreme of Alan Moore) evidently I would say "fictional character in a film." (More important, in a fantasy film) J Greb: My comentary "Ed Wood would want this adition and you know it." but real, is absurd in this area. But I think the same about this discusion. Anyway, other sources: Premiere in biggest Comics Convention in Spain Films Festivals (a few examples searching in internet) But you win. I write the adition one time more. The last time. If you delete it I don´t write it again. I think that this information is interesting and litle known. I think that was the correct in Wikipedia. I`m sorry I want not bother you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaneWithman (talk • contribs) 20:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Pen name"
The opening phrase is bothering me. "Jacob Kurtzberg (August 28, 1917 – February 6, 1994), better known by the pen name Jack Kirby" seems to accord improper focus on his names. "Jack Kirby" wasn't just his pen name, it was his legal name starting when he was about 25. That means it was his name for two-thirds of his life, and for the strong majority of the career that makes him relevant. It seems much more appropriate to say "Jack Kirby (August 28, 1917 – February 6, 1994), born Jacob Kurtzberg,[...]" Thoughts? --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that openng with Jack Kirby makes sense, and that's indeed the format at Stan Lee -- though not at Gil Kane, so if we change Kirby's lead, we should change Kane's as well. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Stan and Jack both had their names legally changed; I don't know whether Gil did, and if not his formulation should maybe be more like James Tiptree, Jr. If there's no objection to the change on Jack in one more day, I'll make the change here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn't make any sense to me since Kirby NEVER went by the name Kurtzberg in his entire professional life. Sorry. I'm still kinda new to Wikipedia - so I went ahead and made the change. If necessary, I can offer citations - but this pen name issue is nam ipsa loquitur for anyone who has studied American comic book history. TheNewGuy (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: I'm not sure if this is a puppet situation technically, since it links to the right place, but the user just above who's calling himself TheNewGuy is actually User:RayWyman. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: no puppet situation, actually. Nice of you to notice that I am a real person using his real name (which is kinda unique in this cloister of Wiki-editors. I did the "newguy" thing because it seemed appropriate to identify myself as "the new guy." Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Turpin and Kirby
Turpin was a Kirby character from the Fourth World comics BUT when it came to including him in Superman TAS, the decision was made to give Turpin Kirby's features. I've read this in interviews with animator Bruce Timm but I can't specifically remember if it was in a general article about the animated series or in the Bruce Timm monograph that was published by Twomorrows so I can't provide the citation. But perhaps this will lead others in the right direction.MARK VENTURE (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

World War II Service discrepancey
Camp Stewart, now known as Fort Stewart, is nowhere near Atlanta. It is near Savannah on the east coast of Georgia, more than 250 miles east of Atlanta.

Kirby4Heroes
I'm following and looking to help out Jillian Kirby with her efforts with the Kirby4Heroes effort which is primarily looking to honor the legacy of Jack Kirby. There's no mention of this at all on the page and wondering if it deserves a section or not? Or maybe at least an entry in the Legacy section? Bil Simser (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Categories
This page has a lot of categories that are not listed or are unused. I recommend update this list to reflect categories in use. These are not listed categories I found: American comics artists American military personnel of World War II   American people of Austrian-Jewish descent Bob Clampett Humanitarian Award winners Golden Age comics creators Jewish American artists Jewish American writers

These are the recommended in use categories: Jack Kirby Comic book artists Comic book icons American artists Golden Age comics creators Jewish Americans 1917 births 1994 deaths — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayWyman (talk • contribs) 03:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * My mistake for not signing - please comment. I think that this page would search better if it had better/more accurate cat tags. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo update
I think it is time for a new photo of Jack. The current photo is not flattering at all. The new proposed photo is professionally taken and has been seen on several fan pubs, including Kirby Collector and the Kirby Checklist (TwoMorrows Publishing). The Jack Kirby Museum made the original request and created this page specifically for this task. By the way, I can change the filename - I was following Wiki-Commons guidelines but was told that it was too promotional. I disagree, but I can see how it may appear (I get carried away with details). Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 05:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I asked Ray if he had any photos of Kirby that would be available for Wiki-Commons, and he generously offered three photos for which I created the Kirby Museum's Free Culture Licensed photos page. We are both doing our best to follow the Wiki-Commons and Wikipedia guidelines to provide a more flattering photo. Rand (talk) 12:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree the caption should read "Jack Kirby in 1992" with all other information on the Wiki-Commons page. Rand (talk) 13:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it' s a good photo and that the caption User:Randolph Hoppe proposes is fine. Let's give it a few days to see what other editors have to say.


 * I'd like to ask you both to use your real user names rather than variations when you sign; it's not strictly sock-puppetry but it's misleading.
 * I'm logged in and using four tildes to sign my entries, what else am I supposed to do? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Hoppe (talk • contribs)


 * If you're using four tildes, I'm not sure why  "User:Randolph Hoppe"  is appearing as  "Rand",  which makes it appear as if a pipe and a different user name were added manually. Using the "unsigned tag" above and inserting "Randolph Hoppe" did not result in "Rand". --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I just clicked the check box in the signature section of my profile that says "Treat the above as wiki markup" and I will place four tildes at the end of this comment. Let me know if that addresses your concern. Rand 16:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randolph Hoppe (talk • contribs)
 * Looks like that didn't work. Having "Rand" in my signature field, and not having checked the box at least brought a link to my profile. I have removed "Rand" from that field, and have unchecked that box, and now offer you four tildes. Randolph Hoppe (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since talk pages have to follow the same rules as article pages, I have removed the promotional caption from the photo here. WP:NOTADVERTISING. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should use this photo (and thank the folks involved for the effort in making it available.) I would suggest, however, that we use the existing photo as well, somewhere later in the article, as a color image carries certain information that a black-and-white one does not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Nat. That makes sense, but shouldn't we caption it with place/event? I'm guessing SD ComicCon 92; kinda looks like a comicon badge he is wearing. But it could be anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayWyman (talk • contribs) 16:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OOPS. Forgot to sign Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's from Comic-Con 1982. That info is on the image's page; you can click on an image to get taken to its page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find that. Still fumbling around looking for things. And my mistake... 1982... not 92. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 16:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree with Nat. And since Kirby's facing off the page where he is, this will also give us a chance to move it to the left and correct that basic graphic-design flaw. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I guess we have to wait for more input, or can we proceed? Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no deadline. Let's allow more than two or three editors to comment over the course of a few days. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how many editors you expect to comment; we've already had more users give their opinions than any topic on this page in over three years. If some unlikely consensus roars up against it, it's always undoable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we should take the long view. Waiting, say, three days to give WikiProject Comics members who may not be on Wikipedia for a day or two time to comment seems only reasonable &mdash; especially when it comes to changing the infobox image, which is the main image people will see. And in general, this helps set a good example of considered deliberation. There's no need to rush anything through without giving fellow editors the opportunity to speak, and it's bad practice for us to say, "Let's go ahead and rush something in and we'll remove it if anyone complains." That's not really in the spirit of consensus-building. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, recognizing when a consensus has been reached and understanding that that doesn't mean it won't change in time is very much in the spirit of consensus building. --23:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, we can respectfully disagree. I certainly wouldn't call anything a consensus after less than a single day, and I think most editors wouldn't either. I don't think my suggestion of three days is unreasonable. Rushing something in, especially an infobox image change, without giving editors at large ample time and opportunity to comment ... what's the rush? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Things delayed are often things that aren't gotten around to, and in this case we have an edit with no sign of controversy, an substitution of a photo that was reverted on the claim of "We don't change long-stable infobox images without page discussion first", a claim that does not reflect anything in my experience or in any guideline that I can recall reading. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Marc Hempel graciously agreed to allow the color photo below to be licensed so as to be used here. Can we please use this rather than the current, unflattering color Alan Light photo? Randolph Hoppe (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)




 * And there you go &mdash; this is exactly why we leave this open to proper discussion. As much as I might like the black-and-white photo, some editors may argue that a color photo &mdash; by dint by being in color like real life, and all else being equal &mdash; is the more representative image. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I will jump through any hoops presented in order to have that unflattering picture removed from this page. When it was being discussed to keep it simply for being color, I took further action. Ray Wyman Jr and Marc Hempel deserve many thanks for stepping up in response to my calls for help. I look forward to this waiting-for-consensus-building-period to be over. Randolph Hoppe (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm with you: If we can remove that color image and replace it with this color image, with a full-face shot as opposed to the profile shot that's there now, we should. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nobody was shutting down discussion, Tenebrae. Performing an edit does not force a halt to discussion. The Kirby article will not be finished after placing the photo, and we are completely free to change photos repeatedly. I frankly don't think this new photo suggestion does much for us. It doesn't seem as clear an image to me, and while the extant color photo may not serve a goal of flattering our subject, I'm not sure that's supposed to be our central goal. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what's the rush &mdash; I find most decisions are better are due deliberation. And in this case, it looks like we now have two decent images to choose from for the infobox. And as much as I like the black-and-white portrait, the fact is that Kirby was in color (I say puckishly) and all else being equal that makes the color photo more representative of his real-life self. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Because people are using Wikipedia even as we discuss it, and there's no reason not to have the better foot forward as we discuss it. But because you went and made up something about how "We" don't change photos in infoboxes without discussion, while we sit here and thrash out whether the picture by the talented Mark Hempel or the clearer black and white picture deserve the space, the picture which is nobody's preference is what is getting shown. --23:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * There's no deadline. And I didn't make anything up: We don't change major, stable article elements without discussion. In any case, of these two images, I'd go with the color image just above, and use the b/w one elsewhere, perhaps in Legacy. What does everyone else think--Tenebrae (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hempel in the infobox, and Skaar in Legacy? Yes, please. Randolph Hoppe (talk) 01:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * YES... please. Let's do this. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You can sit there and repeat the same claim, but unless you can point to some sort of exception to WP:BOLD that applies to infobox photos, it's just repeating the same false claim. We're supposed to be improving the articles first through editing, we're encouraged to do so. This isn't a template where a change will have mass effect on many pages, and it's not a guideline where a change could have a rippling effect on how pages were edited. It's an article page; one sees the way it could be improved, one improves it. If you think that infobox photos should be an exception to WP:BOLD, then there is where you should be trying to introduce the change, not here. (Skaar up top, Light below in the appropriate time period as it shows him in the context of a moment, no Hempel is my preference.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Nat, you're a fellow longtime editor, and I'm surprised you're assuming bad faith on my part. I'm sure you know that with stable articles we don't make changes willy-nilly. And in fact, in this case, there's debate over which image to use, so adding one's personal preference after less than a day of discussion, as you wanted to do, doesn't seem to me in the nature of collaborative editing.


 * In any event, we've kept this open for several days and there's been lively ongoing debate. The majority who have announced a preference would like the new color image in the infobox (though we could probably pass it through a sharpen filter), the black-and-white one in Legacy, and remove the profile shot, which would be made redundant by a full-face 1980s image. Since we don't vote but rather try to reach consensus &mdash; which doesn't mean unanimous agreement or veto power &mdash; I would ask if all my colleagues here feel we have reached consensus or not. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae, I believe we have reached consensus to make the proposed changes. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Tenebrae, saying that what you say is false is not an assumption of your bad faith, it's a statement on the factual accuracy of that statement. However, when you put forth I'm sure you know that with stable articles we don't make changes willy-nilly., you're painting me with your own invention. What I know from editing Wikipedia is that we edit Wikipedia, that even "stable" articles are subject to WP:BOLD. It's inappropriate to reject an edit to an article simply because the article has not been changed in a while. Meanwhile, you may want to strive for a little more consistency; the majority here agree with you, so you call it consensus,; the majority on the awards disagree with you, so you call for an RFC. (And as a note, I still don't agree with the "consensus"; in addition to the reasons mentioned above, both the black-and-white and the Hempel shot are blatantly staged shots, and I think it would be better to have at least one impromptu (or at least seemingly impromptu) shot in the mix. Had I a wish list, I'd rather have a shot of him at the drawing board, but I retain my preference for the convention shot over the Hempel shot.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I never once said we had reached consensus on the image, so I'd appreciate your not accusing me of hypocritical behavior.


 * Let's put out a neutral notice on WikiProject Comics that there's an infobox-image discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I really like the black-and-white photo and would prefer it in the Infobox. Most Wikipedia articles do not have professional portrait photos and if we have the opportunity to use one here, we should. The Hempel photo is good but the b&w photo has a quiet dignity to it that underscores Kirby's status in the comics field. Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I love the BW photo for the infobox. the current infobox profile image is a great one for further into the article, esp. as it shows him with a nametag, so presumably at a convention-in his element. the color portrait is nice, and color has its pluses, but the BW is clearer and more direct in its capturing of him. I dont know if the color portrait needs to be here if the BW is here.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:25, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the current color photo. I don't find it unflattering and it has an authenticity lacking from the professional black and white photo. Wikipedia is neither an artbook, nor a hagiography. So that argument rings hollow. But since some people went to the trouble of making it available, let's use it. The color photo can stay in the corresponding section (1979-1984) if it's indeed from 1982. Leocomix (talk) 09:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I could go for either the b/w or the the newly added, Hempel color photo over the existing one since they each show Kirby full face, which is always preferable to a side view. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I prefer the black and white image. I've been thinking that the King's article deserves a better Infobox photo for some time, but my attempts to contact his estate have been fruitless, so I'm glad to see someone else succeeded in this regard. Kudos. Nightscream (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The B&W image is more my preference Nightscream. I think it feels more historical than a snapshot taken at a convention. But I admit a personal bias. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So where are we on this? My impression is we're leaning toward the black-and-white in the infobox. I'm not sure where we stand on the new full-face color photo vs the side view color photo for elsewhere in the article, but I wouldn't use both since both are from the 1980s. Given the choice, I'd find the full face more encyclopedic than the side view.--Tenebrae (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I've been too busy with work to write the requested neutral notice. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, no, that's appreciated, but I already posted a neutral notice sometime back to all registered users who'd edited Jack Kirby over the past year. I would have thought that for such an industry giant more people would have gotten involved in the discussion, but what can you do.


 * How about this, then: If no one objects in one week's time, I'll replace the existing infobox photo with the black-and-white and insert the Hempel color photo (with focus-sharpened) elsewhere in the article, eliminating the 1980s side-view shot. If we do field objections that may prevent consensus, I guess the next step would be to do an RfC and let an admin decide at the end of it, which is usually after 30 days. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 18:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Randolph Hoppe (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, then. It's been well over a week with no objections, and so with at least six editors in agreement, I'll go ahead and follow up as noted above.--Tenebrae (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Awards and honors

 * I disagree with User:Tenebrae that linking to a defunct award and a defunct hall of fame twice in the article is useful. Notable, yet defunct, milestones like this don't need to appear twice. The Awards and honors section is good enough. Thoughts? Randolph Hoppe (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Rand - I agree with you. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 20:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that's one nice thing about long-stable articles: We don't make major changes to the status quo without consensus. And frankly, it boggles my mind that when a major industry award is named after you that this wouldn't be considered a notable milestone in the context of someone's life and career. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I appreciate what you say about long-stable articles Tenebrae, however I think that Randolph Hoppe's point is that the award itself is actually very small compared to the rest of JK's accomplishments. Also... mentioning it TWICE in the same article gives the award (not the accomplishment) greater stature. I agree with proposal that this award belongs ONLY in the award section. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * And I appreciate your calm discussion on the topic. To address your concerns, I would say that, first, that we don't want to fall victim to WP:RECENTISM. Second, i'm not sure how many editors would agree that having a notable award named after you isn't a major career milestone. That's a very major recognition of one's place in one's given field.


 * If you want to put this question it up as an WP:RfC, that's your right. I'm not sure how much support there'll be in WikiProject Comics for removing such a milestone from the lead, though. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * While having an award named for one is an achievement, it is not so much of one that it needs be mentioned in the lede of someone on Kirby's scale of achievement. An award naming is not inherently required to be mentioned up top. (To give an example, Ronald Reagan has an award named after him notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but it is not mentioned in the lede of his article.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Simply because another article doesn't do that doesn't mean that all articles shouldn't. One might also argue the relative scope of the two men's accomplishments, and that the Ronald Reagan Freedom Award and Ronald Reagan International Airport might be relatively less achievements that major Hollywood star and president of the United States of America. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * These awards have not been issued since 1987. The authorizing body is dissolved. The mention of them in the lede is in error because it does not define the subject matter; it fails to emphasize the interesting points of the article. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Recentism is not a rationale to say that having a notable industry award named after you is not a major milestone that helps establish the subject's prominence and significance. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This is not an article "overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens" - that call is not warranted here. We're talking about ONE award that was named after Jack and issued for three years then went dark. Editorially speaking, it is an error because the award is mentioned twice one article. Let's agree to at least fix the unnecessary repetition. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean: It's mentioned in the lead and mentioned once in the article. The lead isn't supposed to contain material not in the article. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's an error because the award isn't all that significant. That award had its day and is a passing curiosity. All things considered, why not open the lede to the quote from the NYT Op-ed - isn't it far more interesting and significant to be described as a man who "created a new grammar of storytelling and a cinematic style of motion"? Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 04:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's your opinion it's an error. Please don't state it like it's fact. You don't like mentioning the award, that's fine, you're entitled to your opinion.. Declaring it's "an error", however, is simply untrue. In your opinion it's an "error." In other editors' opinions, it's not. As for "Had its day and is a passing curiosity": Just because something isn't current doesn't mean it's not notable. Having an award named after you in your field is a major milestone. Please address that fact: How is it not a major milestone? Please explain. And finally, what does your opinion about whether it's an error or not have to do with your statement "it is an error because the award is mentioned twice one article" [sic]? As I mentioned, It's supposed to be mentioned twice, for the reason I gave. Could you stay on-topic, please? -- Tenebrae (talk) 05:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * As for your other point: I think we should take this one point at a time, or at least start another thread for it. And secondly: You really don't think "regarded by historians and fans as one of the major innovators and most influential creators in the comic book medium" is enough? Or that it doesn't say the same thing succinctly? --Tenebrae (talk) 05:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Editorial matters are based on opinion - that much I'll agree. But look at the facts. Earlier you said, "Frankly, it boggles my mind that when a major industry award is named after you that this wouldn't be considered a notable milestone in the context of someone's life and career." No doubt, this award is interesting, but hardly a milestone. For one thing, it was not Jack's milestone as much as it was an industry effort to recognize him. And while for some people such an award might be the apex of their lives, clearly this is not the case for Jack Kirby. As Nat Gertler said, "It is not so much of [an achievement] that it needs be mentioned in the lede of someone on Kirby's scale of achievement." Let's focus on the one point that he makes (one that Randolph Hoppe and I have been also making) - that of Jack Kirby's "scale" of achievement. THIS award may be a fascinating candle to some, but it quickly fades in the daylight of the total picture. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You may find it interesting that in five history books that mentions Jack Kirby - or where he is the editorial focus - none mentions the award. I know I didn't mention it in my book. Three years of one-on-one interviews while I was working with Jack - never once did he point it out as an accomplishment. Sure, it was an honor - but not so significant to him personally. My "declaration" is not without some study. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You've been clear and steadfast with your opinion that this award ought to be held up as a milestone of Jack Kirby's career. Three editors here disagree. I believe that the Wikipedia rules are clear that an edit is allowed once a consensus has been reached. There may not be a deadline, but we are all asked to be BOLD. Time to be bold, Ten. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * No, if we're going to remove something so major from the lead, this needs to be an RfC with all of WikiProject Comics commenting. Basically the argument being made is, "I don't think it's important so it shouldn't be there." Any outside observer who doesn't know Joe Smith in the world of airline pilots would objectively find it a significant milestone that the Air Pilots Association had a Joe Smith Award.


 * Because you knew Kirby, I think you're too close to this to be objective. Your feeling is, "Jack wasn't all that impressed by an award in his name, and that's all that matters." No. Whether Jack was impressed by it is irrelevant. It has to be looked at objectively and dispassionately, and you're not doing that. We're not here to "honor" Jack. We're here to give dispassionate information to people learning about him. As in the Joe Smith example, an award named after you is objectively a milestone for anyone in any profession. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm. All Joe Smith did was fly a jet well. Jack did a lot more than just draw well. He converted a whole medium; changed its style and its guidance. And yet, the discussion continues - and all over a minor edit. So, are you the one to submit the RfC? Or can others? Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone can file an RfC. Just follow the directions and make the statement neutral.


 * As for you saying, " All Joe Smith did was fly a jet well. Jack ... converted a whole medium; changed its style and its guidance," that statement makes no sense. It has nothing to do with anything. It misses the point about objectively and dispassionately looking at something, and quibbles with an example. The point could be made with "Joe Smith, the head of the UN, had the United Nations' Joe Smith Award named after him." Having a notable industry award named after you is a big deal.


 * So the RfC will be, what? "We want to remove a mention of the Jack Kirby Award and Jack Kirby Hall of Fame from the lead of Jack Kirby"? Why on earth would anyone want to do that? And why are people with a personal connection to Jack, with a bias toward "helping" him rather than helping Wikipedia, do that? It's beyond me. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * When I have a moment, I will post a draft of an RfC request here. It will be a bit more sweeping than just the single issue. Happily, it appears that we have reached consensus with regard to the photograph. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal life

 * Does anyone have any objection to a re-organizing of the article by moving all the personal items to the Personal life section recently added by User:Tenebrae? Randolph Hoppe (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that makes a lot of sense Rand - let me know if you need any help. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Birthplace?
New York City is huge. Howsabout we drill down and mention Manhattan and Lower East Side in the article and infobox? Randolph Hoppe (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Speaking solely about the infobox, I don't know that Wikipedia gives specific neighborhoods of Paris, Rome or Los Angeles as birth places. Suburbs of those cities, yes, but those are separate towns. Before changing the infobox to list a neighborhood or borough, why don't we see what Wikipedia's Manual of Style for infobox bio material says.


 * As to the article itself, I agree that, of course, we should be as specific as possible, with citing.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:01, 4 October 2013 (UTC)