Talk:Jim Shooter

Where's the rest of it?
Having just read this article for the first time, and not knowing all the edits that came before, I certainly found it wanting. Shooter seemed to be both one of the most successful and disliked (loathed?) comics executives of the late seventies to mid eighties, but this current version of the article would barely give that impression. I was an avid comics fanboy during those years, and Shooter's name was certainly one of the most controversial, both pro and con! Certainly, there must be a way of including many of his successes and failures while still being NPOV. Throughout his tenure, there was was a flood of material pertaining to him, interviews, articles, editorials and investigative reports all over fandom, so there should be enough material to sift through for bare facts, as well as to give a balanced feel of this period. In reading this article as currently written, at one moment he's at the top of the world leading Marvel, and in the next sentence, he's been fired. Why, by who, under what confirmable, or at least official cirmustance? Who were these financial backers who almost purchased Marvel under Jim Shooter's leadership? Then, in the Valient section, it's claimed that he pulled these financial backers (and major creative types) to start the new comics line under his reign, but in the next sentence, he's forced to draw some issues himself! Investors had enough to compete with Ron Perelman over the buyout of Marvel, were then willing to risk capital under Shooter for a new indie line, but then can't come up with enough money for a stable of comic book or commercial artists? Something is missing. And getting back to Marvel, as the section is too short for the subject, certainly Dazzler shouldn't be taking up as much space as it does. Considering that Jim Shooter was chief editor of, and vied for the ownership of a major company, which was both a big winner and loser on the New York Stock Exchange, and is still a major mover in today's Hollywood, and Shooter played some part in it's commercial growth during the critical period of comics growth in the eighties, he should have a weightier article. My own interests have moved away from comics, so wouldn't have the interest in editing myself, nor have I the patience to review past versions, to see what battles have taken place over the article through the years, but would like to see a better, more in depth entry. 71.125.238.223 (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. This article needs attention, especially Shooter's tenure as Marvel editor-in-chief. -- stoshmaster (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto. But it has to include inline citations of reliable, verifiable sources. Nightscream (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Valiant (NPOV? Sources?)
These two sections in particular:

''At Valiant Jim produced the best work of his career. He brought many of Marvel's big name creators with him (Bob Layton, Barry Windsor-Smith) and together they changed the face of comics.''

The Valiant characters are often called the most important of those created after the Marvel revolution in the 1960s (when Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, among others were created).

Changed the face of comics? How? Who says that? "Often called the most important"? Again: called by who? If it's often, surely there must be sources to back up this claim. (Same goes for the "best work of his career" section. "Best" is subjective.  Who says that it's the best work of his career?)

In my opinion, the section reads like a press release, and not an objective, NPOV summary of his career at Valiant. -- g026r 17:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. The article reads like something Shooter would have written himself. In addition to the portions you quote, this section is also oozing POV: "One might assume that his revitalization of a dying company might have conciliated the bruised egos of some creators. Or, for that matter, that his having instituted royalty payments and bonuses when original characters were licensed to be toys (making top comic artists wealthy) might have elicited some sense of gratitude, but one would assume wrongly." i.e. Mean old unappreciative employees not appreciating their boss's obvious greatness. That is far from neutral language.


 * I revised the section pertaining to Valiant---Jackel 18:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

POV?
Shooter was made editor-in-chief over more established personnel at Marvel, and, during his tenure, certain long-time key staff defected to DC.

Is there any proof that this was connected to Shooter directly? It's always easy to cite the editor-in-chief rather than the pay in interviews with fans who want to know why you've left.

Shooter was, however, responsible for seriously angering staff and fans alike with his declaration that there were no gay characters in the Marvel Universe (see Northstar).

When did he make this declaration? And was it Shooter's own decision or another case of him being the one everyone blamed for corporate deisions?

Shooter angered and alienated a number of creators by insisting on strong editorial control and strict adherence to deadlines.

Or "...by ensuring the books were produced on time and to a standard, as is the job of an editor in chief"? How exactly is this significant? ( The statement is significant because it implies that some of those 'angered and alienated' creators were, in both their work behavior and their negative reactions to Shooter, being unprofessional and illogical through blaming Shooter for simply doing the job he was paid to do. )

Shooter's opposition to dropping the Comics Code cast Marvel as a conservative force in the industry.

Again was this Shooter himself or a corporate decision?

Timrollpickering 09:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I rewrote much of the article tonight in order to provide it with a NPOV. Being an admirer of Jim Shooter's tenure as editor-in-chief at Marvel Comics, I felt that it would be best if someone like me were the one to provide this article at least some semblance of neutrality.  I have to say, this might have been the most poorly written article on wikipedia.  Feel free to let me know if there are any issues with my rewrite.Shabeki (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or in some cases it's clear there is a consensus, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. Better yet, edit the article yourself with the improvements in place. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 00:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Harbinger beginning cover.jpg
Image:Harbinger beginning cover.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 08:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Harbinger 01-00.jpg
Image:Harbinger 01-00.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 ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2008 (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) 16:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Source for legion fandom coaxing Jim Shooter back
http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2008/05/08/comic-book-urban-legends-revealed-154/ Unomi (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Non-NPOV and Original Research
I feel that the following sentence constitutes original research, and likely invites misunderstanding of the complaints about Shooter's handling of Ms Marvel. However, contrary to these accusations of bias, Shooter also wrote a story wherein the (male) character Thor was similarly sexually coerced by the (female) telepath Moondragon. This sentence seems to imply that the stories are analogous in terms of their controversial subject matter, and therefore people should make allowances for Shooter's Ms Marvel storyline. However, the complaints made about the Ms Marvel storyline are much broader than mind control and rape. The major problem Strickland and Claremont have with the story is that her mind control, rape, pregnancy and decision to go back to live with the man who had done all this to her are treated as an occasion for happiness and celebration. I admit I haven't read the aforementioned Thor story, but I very much doubt it was handled in the same way. Moreover, if he had written a similarly insensitive story where a man was raped, that wouldn't make his handling of the Ms Marvel storyline any better. It would just mean he'd written two bad stories, rather than one.

However, none of the flaws in the comparison would matter if it was an noteworthy viewpoint Wikipedia was documenting. The thing is, it's not. The source cited for the comparison between the two stories is not any sort of article from which the analysis could be drawn, but the Thor comic itself. The source for the comparison seems to be the editor's own analysis, and therefore qualifies as original research under No original research. In light of this, I am removing the sentence from the article. I just posted this to make other editors who might dispute my change aware of the situation, and the reasons behind my edit. Mediocre (talk) 02:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. For an editor to make such a point by relying solely on the primary source is clearly a violation of WP:SYNTH. Nightscream (talk) 01:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Additional like the above: Treatment of homosexuality section
This section consisted of two things: original-research observation about the implications of a comic-book scene, and an article of questionable journalistic standards that read, "It has been reported that although the Code had lightened considerably, Shooter declared a policy that there were 'no gays in the Marvel Universe'." It is incredibly irresponsible of the CBR writer to attribute a remarkably controversial claim of what somebody supposedly said somewhere without checking to see if the person actually said it or if it were just industry rumor.

To use the weasel word "reportedly" as he does to try to evade responsibility for not doing his work and seeing if the quote were rendered accurately or even said at all is disappointing if not actually disgusting to a professional journalist such as myself. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Good call on that removal. I'd been a bit troubled about that section myself, because Shooter having a pretend-homosexuality-doesn't-exist stance doesn't fit with the comics published during his stint as editor-in-chief (I particularly recall an issue of the Hulk which strongly, even heavy-handedly, attacks prejudice against homosexuals) nor with his general editorial policies. Also, having a whole section on Shooter's position on a single social issue which he has had little involvement with seems a clear case of WP: UNDUE.--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Nuke. It's good of you to say, and thank you for supporting this. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Today's edits
I understand that User:Zictor23's good-faith edit was based on Shooter interviews, and I applaud his going straight to horse's mouth, as the saying goes. But as written, that paragraph was self-contradictory and needs to be rewritten in a way that makes straightforward sense. The paragraph first said Shooter's father earned very little, but then said $7,000 annually was an average salary for 1966. If that were an average salary, then why would a 13-year-old child need to go to work? Shooter's version of events doesn't always jibe with other people's memories, but leaving that aside, the passage was so unclear, for the reasons noted here, that I couldn't see how to fix it so that it didn't contradict itself. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Average salaries don't tell you very much about specific circumstances of expenditure for a family. Shooter himself had had surgery the pevious year and that may have eaten into funds. It's become increasingly common for families to have to get two incomes to stay afloat. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * From what Jim Shooter said on his blog, his father only earned $7,000 "in a full year of work, a good year," so presumably he usually earned far less than this, which explains why Shooter had to write comics to support his family.zictor23 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Okey-doke. That makes sense. Good call. Although I wonder what the real story is, since I well remember Pittsburgh during its steel-boom years, and steel workers made very good livings. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's good to hear Tenebrae.zictor23 (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jim Shooter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cbgxtra.com/knowledge-base/for-your-reference/comics-industry-birthdays
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6Frnzvbnu?url=http://lamerciepark.com/legacy/comics/spidey.html to http://lamerciepark.com/legacy/comics/spidey.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005131053/http://www.eagleawards.co.uk/category/previous-winners/1979/ to http://www.eagleawards.co.uk/category/previous-winners/1979/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Shooter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20120227154012/http://onlythevaliant.com/episodes/22/ with https://web.archive.org/web/20150831165536/http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/e/0/7/e0757185d9c82329/OTV-episode022.mp3?c_id=2459974&expiration=1441044400&hwt=3241a510781582daf50b1afb015380f0 on http://onlythevaliant.com/episodes/22/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jim Shooter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091017104723/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=115854 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=115854

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic Four #183

 * Per the Grand Comics Database https://www.comics.org/issue/31121/ Jim Shooter was one of the writers of this issue's plot plus there is a notation that this issue's letters page "includes description of how this issue was written"


 * The Marvel Comics website https://www.marvel.com/comics/issue/12987/fantastic_four_1961_183 lists the writers of this issue as "Writer: Jim Shooter, Bill Mantlo, Roger Stern, Len Wein"


 * The Appendix to the Handbook of the Marvel Universe http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/brutereedceh.htm also includes Shooter as one of the writers of Fantastic Four #183


 * The Jim Shooter checklist https://www.shooterswork.com/masterchecklist.htm includes Fantastic Four #183 as one of his stories.


 * The Marvel Wikia http://marvel.wikia.com/wiki/Fantastic_Four_Vol_1_183 lists the writer of this issue as "Writer: Bill Mantlo Len Wein James Shooter Roger Stern Ralph Macchio Roger Slifer"


 * The Fantasticast Podcast http://www.thefantasticast.com/podcast/254 gives the credits as "Mantlo, Wein, Shooter, Stern, Macchio and Slifer team up with Buscema (S.)"


 * The Marvel Comics Group and the Bronze Age of Comics http://www.angelfire.com/comics/mcg-sac/1977.html includes the credits "Plot: Len Wein, Jim Shooter, Roger Stern, Ralph Machio and Roger Slifer, Script: Bill Mantlo"

Anyway, the point is that the credits printed on the splash page do not necessary always represent everyone who worked on a particular story. 172.58.139.202 (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Image
Which is which? I suspect Shooter is on the left, but I'd like to be sure. I haven't found any confirmation on Wikipedia, on Commons, or on the original source at Flickr. J I P &#124; Talk 11:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Fill-in artist
Article says "ocassional fill-in artist". Really? I have never seen this description in any other article about comic-artists. Did he do artwork that got published? Shouldn't it read artist/inker/penciler/whatever then?

It could certainly say "ocassional penciler" or something like that. Ocassional + fill-in sounds pretty pejoratively. Gott (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)