Talk:Firebrand (DC Comics)

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by DC Comics work group.
	This article has been marked as requiring an image. Please add one in accordance with guidance.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

90's Firebrand

Yep, you're right, Ipstenu. There was a 3rd Firebrand in a 1995 series by Brian Augustyn. I think his name was "Alex Sanchez", but I don't know much about him.
Btw, great article! Regards, —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 19:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah! Alex Sanchez. That's the guy. He got his throat slit in the JSA Secret files back in 2001. I remember seeing that and thinking 'Firewho now?' -- Ipstenu 20:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions in the stories that the character is gay

I reverted 192.30.202.19's changes about the gay spec. First it's spec, and Wikipedia is not the place for that. If you can cite a source where the author/person in question clearly says that, then yes, it's okay. Secondly, his sister was the second firebrand, not 'number 5' (what does that mean?) so I removed that.
removed section copied below:

In the 1981 issue of All-Star Squadron in which he was replaced by his sister (Number 5), scripter Roy Thomas seems to hint in lines of Danette's dialogue that the character had been gay, drawing the inference from the slim clues that he wore a transparent pink shirt as part of his costume and had a close relationship with Slugger Dunn.

Anyone else know about this one? -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 03:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Thomas joking aside, the comments about Firebrand I's sexual orientation are complete speculation. The blogs sited don't even link to comments about Firebrand. I'm going to remove it. If someone has some really solid proof that either (a) the original writer's intended Firebrand to be gay, or (b) Thomas was retconning the character, they can revert my edits. Konczewski 16:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The first blog cited has the following comment from Alicia in the comments section: "I always thought the ASS (All-Star Squadron) Firebrand sucked less than the actual Golden Age Firebrand, who had no powers and wore the same costume. Who says there were no gay 40's heroes?" The second blog included the comment "Condor's plenty gay, but not the gayest. Sure, a large proportion of the Quality Comics roster looked gay: Condor, Ray, Doll Man, Neon the Unknown, Joe Hercules, Red Bee, Firebrand..." So its wrong to say that the blogs cited don't even link to Firebrand; they do. Speculation by people writing Wikipedia is probably not worth putting in the article; but hints and speculation by a writer of the comic book in the text of the comic book is part of the story and needs to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk)

But those comments were by readers, not writers/creators, and they're just as spec as anything else. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point of the section was that fan speculation preceded a decision by a creator to make fairly heavy-handed suggestions in a story that the character was gay, much as speculation in Legion of SUper-Heroes fandom that Element Lad was gay eventually led to stories by Keith Giffen and Tom and Mary Bierbaum. The blogs are the evidence that this speculation does exist in the fan community; the cites to the Thomas- scripted story are the story suggestions that have to be discussed. Can anyone come up with a different interpretation of the Thomas-scripted dialogue? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk)

Sure. "Gee, I never knew my brother had a secret life! Wow, I wonder if he had powers too like I do?" It's pretty simple :) And since the authors didn't say anything, and since Firebrand isn't mentioned in Seduction of the Innocent, it falls under original research and speculation. Which you're very much welcome to, though it's not encyclopedic. BTW, you can sign your posts with ~~~~ so we don't have to keep adding it in for ya. :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That strains credulity a bit and is naive to the point of ridiculousness - it doesn't explain the questioning of his relationship with his bodyguard, or the references to a secret in a closet, and she didn't even know she had any powers at the time. Original research and speculation by encyclopedia contributors is one thing; taking cognizance of the speculation that exists in the mainstream is another. Seduction of the Innocent is pure speculation by Wertham; but its still reported and discussed in the articles about Batman and Wonder Woman. Unlike Batman or Wonder Woman, the only thing interesting or worth noting about Firebrand as a character, apart from less-than-his-best artwork by Crandall, is the gay less-than-subtle-hints in the All-Star Squadron stories. ~~~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.30.202.20 (talk)

(don't put in the nowiki tags to have your sig show up)

And you've hit the nail on the head with the problem here. Wertham was a wacky guy, but he was picked up by the media. If he came here to post his theories, we'd tell him the same thing. Original research, go away. You need an authorized, non-self-published third party source to bring up Firebrand being gay to escape the original research stigma. 'Secrets in a closet' ... Where else do you store clothes? Both views are valid perceptions on what something means, and both are unfounded, original research. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex vs Alexander?

Should we name the section Alexander 'Alex' Sanchez or Alex Sanchez? Both are totally valid, as he was known as Alex, but his full name is Alexander. I lean towards the 'known as' name, personally. But let's not have an edit war over it :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "known as" name suits better for a header. His full name is already written in the article itself, anyway. 201.37.38.94 04:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and Dick Grayson is a good example of using the 'nickname' (BTW, it might be a good idea to not change the section name till we can reach a consensus, or we'll end up in the revert hell I was seeing over the last couple days. Let's all respect each other). -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Guess I should have read this section in the discussion forum before I edited the entry. Anyway, my source (the Unofficial Guide to the DC Universe, [1]) says Firebrand III's first name was Alejandro, or Alex for short. I changed the headings accordingly, as well as adding infoboxes, a cover scan for Firebrand III, and some issue cites. And I deleted the homosexual speculation about Firebrand I, since there didn't seem to be any documentation for it, apart from the one line in All-Star Squadron #5.Konczewski 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Alejandro works for me. Damn if I know who he is, I never heard of him till I started this article and did a net search! :) Nice job adding info on him. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the One infobox, but I'm a tiny bit perturbed that all my copyediting and external links were deleted. I'll go back over the article and fix.Konczewski 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was cut and pasting between three windows and scrolling back and forth :( I didn't mean to miss anything, but I'm sure I did. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:10, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eh, no biggie. I was able to fix it in no time. I guess my League of Copyeditors badge was chaffing. :-) Konczewski 18:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dannette Thomas/Dannette Reilly

Speaking of facts, does anyone have proof that the second Firebrand was named after Dann(ette) Thomas? I haven't found any citations on the web to prove it. And since Danette Reilly was created by Perez and Conway (I assume before the Thomas' got hold of her), it seems really unlikely. I think we should delete the line until hard proof surfaces.Konczewski 18:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that Danette wasn't named until Thomas showed up, and previously was 'a sister' ... But I can't remember when we first get her name. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whadya know, I found a source! Roy Thomas wrote an article on the All-Star Squadron for Alter Ego, and he comes out and says he named Dannette after his (then fiance) Dannette. The article also shows that Perez and Conway only wrote the first appearance of Dannette/Firebird; Thomas is the creator. I'll add the footnote.Konczewski 18:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... there seems to be a mistake with regards to her creators. The section of JLofA #193 where she appeared was a "free preview"/prologie to All-Star Squadron #1. While Conway and Perez did the JLA story, Thomas and Rich Buckler did the All-Star Squadron "issue". I've trimmed the 'box accordingly. And since, by all appearances, she was created with issue #5 always being the intent, I've left it as just 1 creators field. - J Greb 18:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just didn't explain it very well in my earlier Talk entry. My understanding from Thomas's article in Alter Ego is that he created the character, then handed it over to Perez and Conway for the insert. Apparently, DC did a bunch of these inserts in 1981 to promote all their new titles (like New Teen Titans, Blue Devil, and Captain Carrot and the Zoo Crew).Konczewski 19:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say, now that we've done all this work, how do we get this article rerated? I don't think it's Start class any more, and I'd hardly call it Low importance.Konczewski 19:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Firebrand1996.jpg

Image:Firebrand1996.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 Wikipedia: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 20:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Firebrand1.jpg

Image:Firebrand1.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 Wikipedia: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 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) 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Firebrand (DC Comics). 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/20070129131423/http://www.monitorduty.com/mag/fanzing37/feature1.shtml to http://www.monitorduty.com/mag/fanzing37/feature1.shtml

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]