Talk:Hugo Danner

I will expand his bio shortly. I have added several pictures and an info box already.--Ghostexorcist 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Extremely interesting article. Very close to GA, just a few concerns.

The dates of birth and death on the intro seem odd. Is this necessary for a fictional character? I'm not sure of the guidelines, but it could be confusing, especially since his timeline changes in later comics. Also, is the novel a graphic novel or an actual book?

Novel section

I was confused with this. Why does he challenge God? Why does he feel left out? These seem to be important parts of his character and should probably be explained a bit more.

Spider man

This was interesting, I admit, but it seems like OR. Does the source draw these connections, or are they discoveries of the editor?

I'm putting the nomination on hold until these things are taken care of. Just let me know on my talk page when you're ready. Wrad 02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Gladiator is an actual novel. The first half of the novel was later adapted into a comic book called "Man-God" 46 years later in 1976. I can erase his birth and death years if necessary. They are based on those given in the Young All-Stars comic book storyline from the late 1980's. The novel just says he was born in the closing years of the 19th century.

The source for the Spider-Man connection came from a Scifi.com (Sci-Fi Channel) review of the book, which is cited. If you don't feel it is a strong enough source, I can delete that section altogether.

Speaking about the god thing, his mother was religious, but religion does not play a large part in Danner’s life at all. I think once the history professor suggests he use his father’s formula to create the “Sons of Dawn”, Danner finally feels like he has found a purpose in life. I guess he feels so powerful that he doesn’t feel that God can even touch him. This is what the novel actually says. Tell me what you think. --Ghostexorcist 03:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

To start off with, it sounds like Spider-man is okay, we can keep him. I'd probably just delete the date thing and add what you said about why he's messed up inside. Also maybe in the intro, outline a bit more about how the character was originally in a novel, and didn't hit the comics until such and such a date. Also embellish a bit more about Superman and Spider-man in the intro, since that's pretty notable. Then it will be a GA! Wrad 03:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I'll get to work on those minor revisions. --Ghostexorcist 03:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's a lot better. I just have one more little thing. The article says that he "prepared to sue Seigel." Did he ever actually do it? Why or why not? Wrad 15:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

That I don't know. The source just says he prepared to sue him. It doesn't say whether he went through with it or not. --Ghostexorcist 17:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Way I read it was that he was going to sue but never did. If he had you'd have heard about it, obviously quietly dropping it because your lawyer says you don't have a case (or whatever happened) isn't that newsworthy. It might be in some autobiography or some such but a rewording as: "He was going to sue but there is no evidence things went any further" or drop it, check for sources and put it back when you have them but I think a rewording should do and also leave a hook for someone to drop in and provide a definitive source on why this happened (although we should also plan for the possibility this is lost in the mists of time). (Emperor 17:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC))Reply

I have changed the sentence around. I'll try to contact the author of the sourced book to see if he can point me in the right direction. --Ghostexorcist 17:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

Great work! It's a GA now. Wrad 18:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

This was original-research analysis taking what may have been coincidence and arguing for direct influence. Absent Stan Lee saying it or a published source citing evidence of Lee or someone else involved with Spider-Man's creation saying it, this is uncited conjecture and disallowed under Wikipedia guidelines.

And how this got be a "good article" with no publication information on the actual books is beyond me. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's because there is already an article for the book itself. Look it up. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm the one who passed it. What exactly would publication info say other than what is already cited in the reference section? Also, the Spiderman bit is pretty well sourced. I made sure of that if you check the above discussions. Stan Lee doesn't have to say anything as long as we have an analyst making the connection, which we do. Wrad (talk) 04:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The new publication history paragraphs reads like a list. Couldn't it just be moved down near the References section under the heading "Novels about Hugo" or something? Wrad (talk) 04:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the publication history because it belongs on the book's actual page, Gladiator (novel). --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The References section said nothing about the various publishers. The GA version didn't even give the name of the novel's original publisher except in the infobox — while Marvel Comics and DC Comics were included in the main text!

I'm not sure what you mean by "Novels about Hugo". There was only the one.

RE "as long as we have an analyst making the connection": That's the very definition of original research — having a theory, analyzing two sources, and drawing a conclusion. Yes, we can source that a wrestling scene with a superman exists in the novel, and we can source that a wrestling scene with a superman exists in a comic. But we cannot draw a conclusion that they had anything to do with each other. The odds are equally good it is coincidence. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

He is talking about the source article that states Gladiator influenced Spiderman and not the person who wrote this article. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure you're aware of how analysis works. the author is not the end-all of analysis and connection-making. Wrad (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

More WP:NOR speculation. But in this case, even the cite source disagrees: "This particular case of parallelism would seem to be pure coincidence. Wylie was born in 1902. Hugo Hercules only ran from 1902-03". — Will Murray. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

My edits were in fact discussed, both here and in the copious edit summaries. Aside from

• the grammatical and punctuation errors,
• missing and incorrect information in the comic-book section,
• and the WP:WEASEL vagueness of terms such as "It is believed,"

all of which User:Ghostexorcist reverted, this piece blatantly violated key Wikipedia policies.

As noted above, the Hugo Hercules material bears no relation to Hugo Danner — the editor's own source says there isn't. (See quote above) Given that denial, for this section to open with the phrase, "A possible influence is..." shows it as original-research speculation, which is disallowed.

The Spider-Man section was similar. Rather than simply state the only fact — that one reviewer found specific similarities between one scene in the book and one scene in the comic — it inflated this into an unsupported claim of direct influence. There is no source cited that supports this, and to take one conjecture and present a point-by-point argument in favor of it.

To demonstrate just how out of line this is, Wikipedia has a policy against Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which refers to taking two sources and drawing a conclusion based on them. This section did just that, but with only one source!

Regardless, in compromise with User:Ghostexorcist, I've restored the information about that critic's opinion, about both Spider-Man and Doc Savage.

Regarding the "Publication history": While the template Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/CharacterArticleTemplate does not have a section for "Publication history", WikiProject Comics, of which this is also within the scope, does. If anyone wants to remove or adapt that section, since it falls in a gray area, I for one have no objection.

The article's unsupported tacit claim of plagiarism, however, is indefensible — there, too, I've gone to the source, which does not say what was here. The Jones book doesn't say Jerry Siegel took Wylie's ideas; it says Wylie believed he did — yet not even enough to file a claim. For this article to absolutely assert otherwise is POV — and in fact, there were plenty other super-strong characters in fiction before Gladiator. And afterward, Popeye could lift cars and jump over mountains. Did Segar plagiarize Gladiator? Did Siegel plagiarize Popeye? Similar ideas exist in the Zeitgeist. Without concrete evidence, any statements of influence are not fact but deduction, which is disallowed as per WP:NOR.

The violations in this article were so extreme, I'm willing to call for a mediation on this, if User:Ghostexorcist insists on this article containing his POV and NOR essays. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I originally reverted your mass changes because you failed to wait for discussion before making more changes. That is how democracy works. I did not violate any rule. You discuss major changes, then you act. Starting from the top, "It is believed" are not weasel words when they are cited. It had a citation from Jone's book. I stated he was an "influence" and did not imply Siegel just put a red cape on Hugo. The Spiderman material is sourced. Your opinion on its authenticity is in itself POV. However, I'm glad to see that you have kept it in the article. I have removed the "publication history" because this is a page about Hugo, not the book. Please see Gladiator (novel) for the book. I moved that info to there. I have also reinstated much of the material you deleted from the lead. The lead is a summary of the entire article. The claim of plagiarism is not "unsupported", see Jone's book: "He’d have cared nothing for a young science fiction fan’s love of Gladiator (and would be preparing no doubt haven been shocked to learn that eight years later he’d be preparing to sue that fan for plagiarism” (Jones, pg. 80) No POV or OR there. The book also touches upon certain similarities between Gladiator and "The Reign of the Superman", of which you deleted. Violations? Mediation? Ha! You are blowing this up into something much bigger than it really is. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can we lay down the threats, here? I fail to see any extreme violations. How about assuming good faith? I agree with Ghost here, "It is believed" is not weasel wording since it is cited. Weasel wording is only such if it is not cited. I strongly oppose the deletion of cited material which has been going on here, as well. The Publication history section seemed rather pointless to me once I saw it, too, since this is about a character and not a book, and since it was written like a list and wasn't cited at all. Let's all just calm down and talk about this. There's nothing so bad in this article that the world is going to end if we don't fix it. Wrad (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

"It is believed" is WP:WEASEL because it doesn't say WHO believes it. No book of good writing, and certainly no book of journalism, whether textbook or the AP Stylebook — let alone scholarly encyclopedia writing &mdeash; accepts the passive-voice construction. If what one is saying true, there is simply no reason to be vague. If there is any viable reason to use vague passive-voice construction, please tell me.

Also, we cannot say "the latest" or "the most recent" or any similar timely construction, as per WP:DATED. And again, there is simply no reason to: We simply be specific and give a year, e.g., "In 2005, DC Comics released such-and-such." --Tenebrae (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

Magazine titles are in italics. Story titles are in quotes. Why User:Ghostexorcist would revert to poor grammar/punctuation is beyond my comprehension. Please tell me why the insistence on incorrect punctuation? --Tenebrae (talk) 03:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I previously explained, I reverted your mass editing (including the punctuation) because you failed to discuss it first. I realize punctuation is not my strong suit, but what where the major problems? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

These all seem like small things, easily fixed. Let's go ahead and fix them. Add the name, fix the dating and punctuation, and viola! I have no problem with those changes. Wrad (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I will make them. Thank you.

Regarding images: Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, "Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not recommended: without specifying a size, the width will be what readers have specified in their user preferences" — with exceptions made only for "extreme aspect ratios", "detailed maps, diagrams or charts", "images in which a small region is relevant, but cropping to that region would reduce the coherence of the image", or an article's lead image.--Tenebrae (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This citation does not say what the article said it did, which is that author/historian Gerard Jones "suggests Danner was a major influence in the creation of Superman."

Jones merely speculates that "Gladiator must have touched upon everything he wanted and feared to be." To to leap from that to a "major influence in the creation of Superman" is a hugely interpretive leap — particularly in light of what Jones writes immediately afterward:

"The 'superman' was scarcely a new idea and was in fact a common motif of both high and low culture by the early Thirties, the inevitable product of those doctrines of perfectability promoted by everyone fromBernarr McFadden to Leon Trotsky. [... A] Cleveland radical named Joseph Pirincin argued in this lectures that [...] the citizen of a socialist future [would be] a 'veritable superman' by our current standards. He claimed he once gave this lecture at a community center in the early 1930s and in the audience where two young Jewish men who later ... We can complete the anecdote and surely dismiss it as wishful thinking, but it's a measure of the ubiquity of the symbolic superman." [Emphasis mine]

Per the citation, Gladiator was no more influential than everything else in the Zeitgeist of the era, and to suggest otherwise — from this citation, at least — is disingenuous.--Tenebrae (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

The cite for the following is given only as "Jones," with no page number: "...one historian says Superman's nickname 'Man of Steel' was derived from Doc Savage's 'Man of Bronze'."

The index of Jones' Men of Tomorrow lists Doc Savage as mentioned on pages 85, 124 and 150. On not one of those pages does Jones make that claim. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

I can understand why Category:Superman is in place. But why is this article linked into Category:Spider-Man?

- J Greb 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

As cited in the article, a critic believes Gladiator influenced Spiderman's wrestling match. I had a large section for it, but it was deleted. I am currently rewriting large sections that where deleted. I will re-add the larger Spiderman section later. --Ghostexorcist 00:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

hrm... The things you learn. Thanks, that makes as much sense as the superman cat. - J Greb 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Before Ghostexorcist goes to time-consuming lengths, I can only hope and suggest he read the policy at WP:SYN. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

I only hope that tenebrae stops crying wolf about original research. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to impugn my motives. It shows a lack of good faith, which is yet another Wikipedia tenet. I am not pushing any point of view or agenda. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Reply