Talk:Steve Ditko

A sea of quotes. Sad!

The sheer volume of qoutes in the §Creation of Spider-Man is laughable

After Marvel Comics editor-in-chief Stan Lee obtained permission from publisher Martin Goodman to create a new "ordinary teen" superhero named "Spider-Man", Lee originally approached his leading artist, Jack Kirby. Kirby told Lee about his own 1950s character conception, variously called the Silver Spider and Spiderman, in which an orphaned boy finds a magic ring that gives him super powers. Comics historian Greg Theakston says Lee and Kirby "immediately sat down for a story conference" and Lee afterward directed Kirby to flesh out the character and draw some pages. "A day or two later", Kirby showed Lee the first six pages, and, as Lee recalled, "I hated the way he was doing it. Not that he did it badly — it just wasn't the character I wanted; it was too heroic".

Lee turned to Ditko, who developed a visual motif Lee found satisfactory, although Lee would later replace Ditko's original cover with one penciled by Kirby. Ditko said, "The Spider-Man pages Stan showed me were nothing like the (eventually) published character. In fact, the only drawings of Spider-Man were on the splash and at the end [where] Kirby had the guy leaping at you with a web gun... Anyway, the first five pages took place in the home, and the kid finds a ring and turns into Spider-Man."

Ditko also recalled that, "One of the first things I did was to work up a costume. A vital, visual part of the character. I had to know how he looked ... before I did any breakdowns. For example: A clinging power so he wouldn't have hard shoes or boots, a hidden wrist-shooter versus a web gun and holster, etc. ... I wasn't sure Stan would like the idea of covering the character's face but I did it because it hid an obviously boyish face. It would also add mystery to the character...."

Much earlier, in a rare contemporaneous account, Ditko described his and Lee's contributions in a mail interview with Gary Martin published in Comic Fan #2 (Summer 1965): "Stan Lee thought the name up. I did costume, web gimmick on wrist & spider signal". He added he would continue drawing Spider-Man "[i]f nothing better comes along." That same year, he expressed to the fanzine Voice of Comicdom, regarding a poll of "Best Liked" fan-created comics, "It seems a shame, since comics themselves have so little variety of stories and styles that you would deliberately restrict your own creative efforts to professional comics['] shallow range. What is 'Best Liked' by most readers is what they are most familiar in seeing and any policy based on readers likes has to end up with a lot of look-a-like (sic) strips. You have a great opportunity to show everyone a whole new range of ideas, unlimited types of stories and styles—why FLUB it!"

From 1958 to either 1966, or 1968, Ditko biographer Blake Bell, without citing sources, said, "At one time in history, Ditko denied ever touching Stanton's work, even though Stanton himself said they would each dabble in each other's art; mainly spot-inking", and the introduction to one book of Stanton's work says, "Eric Stanton drew his pictures in India ink, and they were then hand-coloured by Ditko". In a 1988 interview with Theakston, Stanton recalled that although his contribution to Spider-Man was "almost nil", he and Ditko had "worked on storyboards together and I added a few ideas. But the whole thing was created by Steve on his own... I think I added the business about the webs coming out of his hands".

Spider-Man debuted in Amazing Fantasy #15 (Aug. 1962), the final issue of that science-fiction/fantasy anthology series. When the issue proved to be a top seller, Spider-Man was given his own series, The Amazing Spider-Man. Lee and Ditko's collaboration on the series saw the creation of many of the character's best known antagonists including Doctor Octopus in issue #3 (July 1963); the Sandman in #4 (Sept. 1963); the Lizard in #6 (Nov. 1963); Electro in #9 (March 1964); and the Green Goblin in #14 (July 1964). Ditko eventually demanded credit for the plotting he was contributing under the Marvel Method. Lee concurred, and starting with #25 (June 1965), Ditko received plot credit for the stories.

One of the most celebrated issues of the Lee-Ditko run is #33 (Feb. 1966), the third part of the story arc "If This Be My Destiny...!", and featuring the dramatic scene of Spider-Man, through force of will and thoughts of family, escaping from being pinned by heavy machinery. Comics historian Les Daniels noted, "Steve Ditko squeezes every ounce of anguish out of Spider-Man's predicament, complete with visions of the uncle he failed and the aunt he has sworn to save." Peter David observed, "After his origin, this two-page sequence from Amazing Spider-Man #33 is perhaps the best-loved sequence from the Stan Lee/Steve Ditko era." Steve Saffel stated the "full page Ditko image from The Amazing Spider-Man #33 is one of the most powerful ever to appear in the series and influenced writers and artists for many years to come." Matthew K. Manning wrote that "Ditko's illustrations for the first few pages of this Lee story included what would become one of the most iconic scenes in Spider-Man's history." The story was chosen as #15 in the 100 Greatest Marvels of All Time poll of Marvel's readers in 2001. Editor Robert Greenberger wrote in his introduction to the story, "These first five pages are a modern-day equivalent to Shakespeare as Parker's soliloquy sets the stage for his next action. And with dramatic pacing and storytelling, Ditko delivers one of the great sequences in all comics."

See the collapsed section just above. Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? This is the worst section but the whole article is written like this.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 11:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's lazy writing: a sign of low effort/interest by the creators. Always easier to copy and paste and than to summarize concisely, but Wikipedia has no minimum length and needs no padding. It also makes articles look more like magazine or newspaper articles (chatty, personable, long-winded), less like a professional-quality encyclopedia (sober, concise, authoritative, well structured). Excessive quotes anywhere are formally discouraged: MOS:QUOTE states While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate (while being aware that close paraphrasing can still violate copyright). Have at it, nerds ;) --Animalparty! (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Ethnicity

The article states that Ditko is the son of first-generation American Ukrainian immigrants, and cites the Ukrainian part from a seemingly reliable source, however, it contradicts citation 4 which states that his parents' graves are located in the cemetery of a Rusyn church. Their graves are indeed in the cemetery of a Rusyn church, as St. Mary's is under the jurisdiction of the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church. This leads me to believe his parents were in fact Rusyn and not Ukrainian. Another thing is, the statement that they are Ukrainian in the source text could be a simple mistake, as some believe Rusyns are a sub-group of the Ukrainian people while others believe they are a distinct ethnic group. YoungstownToast (talk) 15:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

His parents where indeed Rusyn. Rusyn are sub-ethnos of Ukrainians. They speak in the dialect of Ukrainian - Rusyn dialect.--37.225.43.229 (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:37.225.43.229: fixed the indentation on your above comment. I don't disagree that he was indeed Rusyn (all the evidence in this article makes it quite obvious). However, This claim is not sourced in the article. To make this claim, we at least need some reference. Even the autobiography sourced on this article does not mention his parents being Rusyn. If you have a solid source on the claim, I'd love for it to be included...let me know.KaerbaqianRen^{[ talk ]} 21:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Batman Ditko.jpg
• Ditko-amazing-fantasy.jpg
• Steve Ditko.png

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography addition

Daredevil 234 and 235 (1986) 185.45.204.13 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The original version of this article appears to be directly copied

The earliest version of this article appears to be directly copied from Dave Grieber's collecting/consulting website:

https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Steve+Ditko&oldid=286140&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.comic-book-collection-made-easy.com%2Fcomic-book-artists.html

FlairTale, as you are nominating the current version for a Good Article review, you may want to make sure that all traces of that original version are scrubbed from the article. Rjjiii (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Rjjiii Given that the earliest version of this article is from January 2002 and the earliest version of Grieber's website is from April 2005, there's a considerable possibility that his website was the one copying Wikipedia. I can reword this part if that's still necessary however. --FlairTale (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe? I'll reach out and let you know if he responds. Rjjiii (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Steve Ditko/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 04:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll review this; I'll begin with source reliability, then move to spotchecks, and finally to prose. I look forward to reading this; Ditko is an influential figure I know very little about. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to quickfail this review at this time. Rather than a single insurmountable issue, there are very many large issues that taken together are beyond the scope of this review process. I'll go into some issues in more detail below, but I have concerns over almost all the criteria. Ditko was a very influential figure, and there is substantial scholarly material analyzing themes and influences in his work: I don't see any of these being used. The standard here at GAN is lower than at FAC, but I would expect more than a single sentence about how objectivism influenced his creations. I'm also concerned about source reliability (particularly with primary sources) and spotchecks; my very first spot-check turned up problems of both verifiability and reliability. There are also lots of source formatting issues, with incomplete citation information for many books and book chapters in particular. The prose is very choppy, in a lot of places verging into listing Ditko's publications; this can be difficult with a prolific author, but more organization is needed. Finally, I don't want to make this a huge deal, but the major author is banned by ARBCOM, and the nominator has not done much to this article; I would expect to see at least some discussion with other contributors about GA readiness. This isn't a GA criterion, of course, but it does not give me confidence that the other issues I mention have been looked at at all.

To be clear, there is a lot to like here; this is a very detailed article, a lot of research has clearly gone into it, and it isn't a hagiography, as it could easily have become. However, the issues above are serious enough that I don't want to spend potentially weeks going over it many times. Some detailed comments follow, but these are examples only. If this is brought back to GAN after an overhaul, I would be willing to look at it again. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

• Sources that I'd expect to see used at least a little bit: , , and .
• An obituary from a funeral home is a questionable source in general, and should not be used for something like "an artistically talented master carpenter".
• FN5 only talks of Ditko being Rusyn, not his parents; while not a completely unreasonable assumption, it's not something I'd accept for ethic identity.
• Familysearch.org is marked as an unreliable source on WP:RSP.
• The New York Post (used many times), youtube, and tumblr are all a priori unreliable. There may be instances where they are permissible, but I don't see the need to use a questionable source on a figure so widely known. I particularly take issue with the use of the NYP for material about the financial disputes.
• There's a lot of usage of published comics as primary sources; this is sometimes okay, when a date or cover may be of interest to the reader, but in other cases isn't okay, such as FN19, in which the primary source clearly cannot support it being Ditko's third published piece.
• A lot of the material comes from fellow comic-book writers (I'm seeing David; Robinson; Brevoort; DeFalco; Kraft; Slifer. There may be more). These are good sources, insofar as they are experts on their subject; but where literary criticism exists (and it does here) relying on them so heavily doesn't seem reasonable to me. A wider distribution of sources is necessary.
• Ditko's creation of Dr. Strange needs better sources, which shouldn't be hard to come by; we should not be relying on the primary script and on a letter from Lee.
• I don't see how FN61 supports any of the content it's used for, and there are some substantial, broad claims in there.
• FN63 is primary, and isn't appropriate for the analytical claims it precedes.
• Block quotes aren't a substitute for summary of analytical content; I don't think the ones used are bad, but it's content that might flow better integrated into the rest.
• In the same section there's material about Ditko's style that really ought to go in a separate section. I would personally suggest combining material about style and influences, but there are other ways to do it.
• I'm not sure that a column on comicsbulletin.com can be considered reliable unless the author is an expert: webzines do not typically have much editorial oversight.
• Ditko-fever.com sounds to me like a fansite; I don't see why it is reliable.
• The Bibliography is far too long, currently as long on the scroll bar as the rest of the prose put together. I would strongly recommend a spinoff article, preferably in table form, and a summary here; possibly of major arcs that he was responsible for? Such a spinoff would also allow you to trim some bibliographic material that to me seems like too much detail in the main text.
• The sentence beginning "In June 2021" seems like puffery as written; it needs secondary sources at the very least, and may be better off omitted.
• FN87 is once again a primary source used for a somewhat analytical claim.
• FN116 and FN117 are both primary sources; do they actually verify the content about the history of the stories contained therein?
• A lot of the magazine/newspaper retrospectives mention Ditko's objectivism; but the paragraph that's in the text feels a little sparse in comparison.
• This is everything I found on a very quick pass. In addition to fixing these, I suggest skimming the article for similar issues, particularly on sourcing, before coming back to GAN. Regards, Vanamonde (Talk) 19:22, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.