Talk:Spirit of '76 (Marvel Comics)

Fair use rationale for Image:PocketComics 2.jpg

Image:PocketComics 2.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 (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Spiritof76-comics.jpg

Image:Spiritof76-comics.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) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Marvel's Spirit of '76's real name

His surname is properly spelled Nasland. His name was first given in the 1983 Marvel Handbook #14, and was spelled Nasland there and in all subsequent handbooks. Naslund is a common spelling error, but it is an error. 31.52.12.84 (talk) 12:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If there's a discrepancy between a primary source and a secondary source, the primary source takes precedence. The comic books themselves spell it "Naslund." If I had to guess, someone misspelled it in a handbook at some point, and that misspelling got repeated in subsequent editions and compilations. Go to The Invaders #14-15, for example.

In any event, all the edit-warring I've been seeing by anonymous IPs needs to end and a discussion between all parties needs to take place here. If the primary and secondary sources are in conflict in an unresolvable way, we need to find language to represent this. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The character's real name isn't given in Invaders #14 or #15. In fact, it isn't given in any of his comic appearances until Captain America #4 in 2005. The name, William Nasland (not Naslund) was revealed in the 1983 Marvel Handbook entry for the character; the Handbooks ARE the primary source in this case. It remained Nasland in all the subsequent Handbooks. So the handbooks did not misspell it, as you supposed; they established the spelling and it has stood for decades. The spelling error is the one used in Captain America #4, which may have been repeated in the couple of subsequent appearances the character has had (I've not been able to check yet). As for the link you cited, it's another wiki site effectively - just because an entry claims a given spelling of the character's name doesn't mean that name is actually in the comic - the link cites Invaders #14 and 15, despite the name (either version of the spelling) not appearing. Heck, it claims William Naslund was the Spirit of '76 in the 1945 Green Hornet Comics #27, which is risible, and proves it is useless as evidence. 86.162.113.16 (talk) 01:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

And this is exactly the kind of dialog that the three or four IPs who were edit warring should have engaged in earlier. I'll look into my longboxes of old comics and see what I have in terms of his appearances.

The GCD is not considered a wikia by WikiProject Comics in that it has editorial oversight of users, which include a number of experts in the field such as Michael Vassalo who are all making bylined rather than anonymous contributions. Like anything else, it's not infallible, but it is become the standard data reference.

I've invited the other IPs to come in and comment, and we should wait for them to give their own views. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"And this is exactly the kind of dialog that the three or four IPs who were edit warring should have engaged in earlier." "I've invited the other IPs to come in and comment, and we should wait for them to give their own views." All the IPs since 15 October who have said Nasland are the same person - me. My internet provider gives me a floating IP. So the "edit war" has been two people, myself and 71.etc. As for this being the kind of dialog that should have been engaged in earlier, you will have seen that I put a note on his page after the first time he reverted the page, and I put a note on this page too - I have been prepared to discuss the situation from the outset, but he's simply reverted and left any "discussion" to his comments while doing so. Inaccurate comments at that, insisting wrongly that the handbooks say Naslund. As for GCD, yes, editorial oversite does make it less fallible than a wikia, but it still suffers from one of the biggest problems wikias have - perceived knowledge, the "everyone else seems to be saying this, so I will assume it to be true rather than check the source material." The only point of contention here seems to be that the name originates in a handbook, rather than a comic. If it had appeared a single time as Nasland in, say, Invaders #14, I doubt anyone would argue that the recent usage of Naslund since 2005 was anything other than a repeated spelling error. But the 1983 Handbook that gave Spirit of '76 his name cannot, by definition, have spelled it wrong, as it defined the spelling - and Mark Gruenwald made it clear in the 1980s that the handbooks could be a primary source ("We are proud to have certain information appear here in the Handbook for the first time anywhere"). The later expanded entry in the Deluxe Edition handbook reconfirmed this spelling. Naslund originates from a poster in Captain America #350, after both of those came out, and was a typo, as he was back to being Nasland in the Master Edition handbook in the early 1990s. Since those are the only places the name was given prior to Captain America #4, it seems inevitable that Ed Brubaker either got it from one of them, or checked for the character's civilian name online from a site that got it from one of them; either way, the use of Naslund would seem to be a perpetuated spelling error, rather than a conscious decision to change the character's name. That the current-era handbooks continue to use of the Nasland spelling for Spirit's entries supports this. 86.145.240.255 (talk) 10:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

If there has been more than one spelling used in the actual comics, then both should be noted, with citations given as to which issues they were taken from. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. We don't note that Peter Parker was incorrectly called Peter Palmer once or twice, for example. Spelling errors do occur, including some that get repeated. That's not the same thing as a deliberate choice to alter the spelling. So I would agree that if we have more than one spelling that is frequently used, then yes, we should note them; however I'd also argue that we should note which one is correct, and that the others are simply common misspellings. And Naslund is a spelling error - cf http://www.comixfan.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1559798&postcount=118 86.145.240.255 (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a thoughtful discussion, and I'm glad we have a variety of parties involved. I would like to say, however, that I'm not quite sure how I or anyone could reasonably have known that several different IPs addresses are those of the same person. So I'm not sure your implied criticism is fair. No worries; I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it.

Next item: When splitting my comics collection with my brother years ago, it appears he got The Invaders. I'll pull out the more recent stuff shortly, and I'm hoping others involved here can do the same.

Finally, while Mark, whom I knew, would understandably claim primacy, like any other proud parent of a project, Wikipedia recognizes movies, books and other media, including comic books, as primary sources — as does virtually every other reference body; that's standard. Also, Wikipedia doesn't allow forum postings as reference sources.

Now, certainly, I'm not disagreeing with you or doubting whatsoever that Nasland is stated in the Handbook. Clearly, it is. I am saying, however, that given an obvious discrepancy, we need to have an inventory of which comics said what. In other words, let's have all the facts before us before proceeding. From what I gather, you're an intelligent and methodical editor, so I'm sure you probably had the same idea. I guess let's get to it. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I didn't intend the IP comment as a criticism, merely an explanation, and a clarification that what you perceived as an edit war was hardly that - I'd made efforts to enter into dialogue which had been ignored. Since new information is revealed in the handbooks from time to time, then they are in those instance primary sources, whether Wikipedia chooses to recognise that or not - and frankly, if Wikipedia doesn't recognise information revealed in handbooks as legitimate, then a lot of Marvel Comics entries will need to be re-edited, as there's lots of other cases where civilian identities have only been given in said books. Now, I have no problem with someone saying "but a handbook said this, and a comic later said that, so the comic overrides the handbook" - but only in as much as any comic can be retconned. However, there is a world of difference between a deliberate decision made to change the spelling of a character's name, and a simple error a writer makes and then perpetuates during his run on a title - and if another writer makes the same mistake because he's got his information from the comics the first writer has written, or from Wikipedia, where the error has been put into the character's entry, then it remains a mistake, not a valid change. If a modern-day writer started to write "Sherlock Homes" stories, and others followed his misspelled examples, we wouldn't be listing Homes as a valid alternative to Holmes. Just because this is a more obscure character with fewer appearances does not change the principle.

On not recognizing forum posts as valid references, you differ from others on Wiki. There's other pages which use posts by those in the comics industry as references, and that's what the link provided was - the poster is one of the Handbook writers.

On which comics say what - the handbook entries for Spirit of '76 uniformly say Nasland. A poster of the character in Captain America #350 says Naslund, which seems to be the origin of that spelling. No story in any comic that Spirit of '76 appears in prior to Captain America #4 in 2005 gives his name - that's not a guess or vague recollection, I checked all of them before editing the page. Captain America #4 says Naslund. Captain America 615.1 says Naslund too - but that's written by the same writer, so you'd expect any spelling errors to be the same. I've checked every other appearance of the character with the exception of Captain America: Patriot #1, which I don't have a copy of; his civilian name is not given in any of those others. Obviously it might have been mentioned in comics he doesn't actually appear in, but that's a needle in a haystack as far as locating any of them. 86.145.240.255 (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I have Captain America: Patriot #1, though I have to sift through a few unalphabeitzed piles to find it. I'll look for it tonight.

I think an assumption is being made that Brubaker was making an error. Without hearing from Brubaker himself, there's no way of knowing if the name change were in error or deliberate. If Brubaker, as the writer of the actual comic, wants to spell it a certain way, that's his prerogative.

It doesn't matter how a minority of editors may feel about forum postings. WP:SPS forbids virtually any "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets." There's no way of knowing if someone posting under a given name is really that person. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume that Brubaker wants to spell it that way, and made a deliberate choice to change it. Does that then mean it is now the official spelling? I don't believe so. If a writer decided that it was Stephen Rodgers, rather than Steven Rogers, that wouldn't change the official spelling. Again, the principle remains the same, despite it being a less prominent character. As for Wikipedia's stance on postings, I find it a touch ironic, since the wording quoted presumably means that if a news site reports that a writer says something in an interview to them, and the writer then posts on their personal site that the news site made up the quote, then Wikipedia considers the news site, a second hand source, an acceptable reference, but not the writer's personal site. Plus, while you say that it's a minority of editors who are okay with using such postings, the evidence on various pages says otherwise - take Peter David's Wikipedia page for example, where his personal blog is cited multiple times. The forum in question is the one frequented by several Handbook writers, so I personally have little doubt that the poster is who he claims to be - and there's an easy enough way to verify it, as the printed handbooks include the address of their FAQ on Marvel.com, which in turn gives the e-mail address to contact the handbooks. 86.177.111.169 (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If Brubaker's use of "Naslund" marks the first use of that spelling in the comic-book itself, and no comic previous spells it "Nasland," then Brubaker is the first person to name the character's civilian identity within the comics themselves. Just as Simon & Kirby were the first person to name Captain America's civilian identity Steve Rogers. Brubaker isn't changing anything within the canon of the comics themselves.

WP:SPS states that we can quote from a person's personal blog only if that person is the subject of the article. Thus, Peter David's blog can be quoted for Peter David's article. But nowhere else. So no, "the evidence on various pages says otherwise" isn't correct in the example you give. And we also don't base our arguments on, "Well, they do it that way on this or that article" since this or that article may be in violation of Wikipedia policies / guidelines.

While you "personally have little doubt that the poster is who he claims to be," our personal doubts and beliefs have no bearing on the inclusion of information on Wikipedia — indeed, just the opposite. As for getting personal e-mail correspondence from someone on a forum, that's unpublished original research — a violation of one of the core Wikipedia policies. The reason is that without the sort of peer-review process of academic journals, there is no way to verify the accuracy or accountability of someone's original research. That's why Wikipedia requires published (print or web) reliable-source (primarily but not exclusively journalistic and academic) citations, which have editorial oversight. I'm sure you can understand how overall, and in the long run, this particular situation notwithstanding, that such a verification policy is critical.

So in the meantime, we're simply gathering facts, and you have done a good and honorable job of that so far. I hope that you'll register and become a working part of the community. I think you can do a lot of good here.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

"If Brubaker's use of "Naslund" marks the first use of that spelling in the comic-book itself, and no comic previous spells it "Nasland," then Brubaker is the first person to name the character's civilian identity within the comics themselves." - this seems to be the crux of your arguement. Despite it being clearly stated by Mark Gruenwald that handbooks can be primary sources, and that information revealed for the first time within is canon, you deem them less valid than other comics. Now, if Brubaker had decided to call Spirit of '76 "Bob Finch" (for example), taking a clear stance of "doesn't matter what the handbooks called him, this is his name" I might agree that he'd chosen to retcon the name. I'd still think the handbooks remain as valid as regular comics when it comes to revealing new information, but retcons happen. Why should we accept that Brubaker's spelling is an error if there was a single non-handbook comic that had come out previously with the Nasland spelling, yet feel Brubaker's spelling is valid if Nasland only appeared previously in the handbooks? He either consciously chose to change it (in which case it is retconned) or he didn't (in which case Naslund is an error regardless of where the Nasland spelling originated). Using a name that is almost identical to the one the handbooks established bar a single changed vowel suggests that Brubaker considered the handbook's information valid. And if he considered the name valid, then why did he change the spelling? Again, we're back to conscious choice (seems unlikely - if you are consciously deciding to change it, why only one letter? Per a search of online phone directories, both spellings are valid surnames), or error.

Addendum: "Thus, Peter David's blog can be quoted for Peter David's article. But nowhere else. So no, "the evidence on various pages says otherwise" isn't correct in the example you give. And we also don't base our arguments on, "Well, they do it that way on this or that article" since this or that article may be in violation of Wikipedia policies / guidelines." Then someone has their work cut out for them, because the first part of what you've said is inaccurate. Peter David's blog is also used a cited reference on the pages for Carol Kalish, Shatterstar, Rictor, Darwin (comics), Secret (comics), LGBT Themes in American comics, to name just a few found by a quick use of the search function. 86.177.111.169 (talk) 19:36, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is very clear about blogs only being used in articles about the person whose blog it is. So, yes, I'm afraid you're right: There is a lot of work ahead with those articles, though WP:SPS says, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publication," and I believe David's "But I Digress" column has appeared in CBG and has been collected in books. The larger point is that virtually all blogs are not by recognized authors in their field. In any case, forum postings are not blogs, and cannot be cited.

Once again: Mark Greuenwald — who was a close friend for years, whose New York apartment I stayed in when visiting, and whose magazine Omniverse I wrote for — would understandably call the Handbooks, published officially by the company, as primary sources. But just saying that doesn't make it so. The comics are the primary sources, just as spellings of names in onscreen movie credits are primary sources, not what a reference book may say, even if published by a studio.

You don't know Brubaker's intention, and there's no sense mounting an argument in that respect since that is only one person's (your) speculation. Under Wikipedia policy, that's original research and disallowed.

From what I understand, you're new to Wikipedia, and there are a lot of often confusing policies and guidelines. But they're there for reasons worked out through years of trial and error, and much discussion. They adapt and can change through consensus. Until they do, we operate under them through that same consensus.

Your care and meticulousness are exactly what Wikipedia needs and wants, and I do hope you register and join the community. In the meantime, let's gather hard data rather than speculate or essay. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Exhausting week with numerous deadlines. I'll look for Captain America: Patriot over the weekend. Thanks for your patience. Anyone else besides us two looking this stuff up? --Tenebrae (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've found Captain America: Patriot #3-4 so far, neither of which mention Naslund/Nasland. It's probably in the first issue. I'll keep digging. Did no one else buy this miniseries? It was pretty darn good. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Found it. On the second-to-last page, panel 1, of Captain America: Patriot #1 (Nov. 2010), written by Karl Kesel and with a credits note thanking four individuals for "service to continuity aove and beyond the call of duty," the character's name is William Naslund' — with a "u."

As two writers, Ed Brubaker and Karl Kesel, have both now spelled it "Naslund" in the canon of the comics themselves, it would appear that "Naslund" is the official name. For the sake of clarity, I suggest we footnote the discrepancy. What do other editors think? --Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. We don't know the continuity help was related to the spelling of names. Given the content of the miniseries, it is as likely, if not more so, that it was for other elements of making things fit the Golden Age stories around which the miniseries is set. I still disagree with your dismissal of the handbooks' validity, but since you are clearly unwilling to reconsider your position on that, let's look at what we do know. The name Nasland was the official name for 20 odd years - there seems little doubt on that. Other names only revealed in handbooks are considered valid, and if the Naslund spelling had not turned up there would be no debate about Nasland being the official spelling. We now have an alternative spelling, Naslund. It is purely speculation on your part that it is now the official spelling. Without a statement from Marvel one way or another, it could simply be a repeated spelling error, something that Marvel has been guilty of in the past (see the Psylocke talk page, where people argued that Marvel had changed the official spelling of the character's name from Elizabeth to Elisabeth because it was being frequently spelled the latter way, until Marvel itself issued a statement in one of their comics confirming that it was simply an error). So, I would propose the entry note his name as "Nasland or Naslund" with a footnote that it began as Nasland, that there has been a discrepancy in the spelling in recent years, and that without further evidence to clarify the situation, it remains unclear whether that is an official change or a repeated error. 109.156.49.1 (talk) 10:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

That goes against every standard used for any research involving novels, films and by extension comics. The primary source is the work itself. You are saying that you know better than Ed Brubaker, Karl Kesel and their editors. That is quite a remarkable claim.

In writing about fiction, Wikipedia considers the work itself the primary source. The primary sources from 2005 through the most recent mention, 2010, spell it Naslund, and the primary sources never spelled it Nasland. If you want to pursue an RfC, you're free to do so, and I'll wait a day or two to let you prepare one and go through the protocol. Otherwise, after that, I'm going to follow Wikipedia policy, which is to use the published comics themselves as the primary source. --Tenebrae (talk) 11:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"You are saying that you know better than Ed Brubaker, Karl Kesel and their editors." No, I am not. You are, however, claiming to know what they are thinking. Even if you insist that, despite Mark Gruenwald's clear statement otherwise, that handbooks cannot be a primary source (it doesn't matter how good a friend of his you say you were, as the handbook's primary instigator, main writer and editor, and subsequently Marvel's editor-in-chief, his in-print statement that they can be should count for more than your opinion that they can't be), we know the spelling was said to be Nasland, and that the handbooks continue to use that spelling as the official one right up to the most recent entry. But you are happy to assume that the handbooks are in error (right from the outset this bias came to play, before any in-story evidence had been brought up), but that this cannot be possible for Brubaker and Kesel. If their intention was to use the same name the handbooks established, then the u spelling is an error, "primary source" or not; if they intended to change it, then I accept that by your definition, they are a primary source and take precendence. And we cannot assume we know their intentions, without a statement from an acceptable source. Hence, as things stand, we cannot claim to know which spelling is the official one, we can only present the history of the name and the spelling alteration.

Additional - from Wikipedia's own entry on Primary Sources: "Primary source (also called original source".." are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources, though the distinction is not a sharp one. A secondary source may also be a primary source and may depend on how it is used." The handbook was definitely the original source. Given Mark Gruenwald said the handbooks could be a primary source, what aspect specifically excludes them from being accepted as such? 109.156.49.1 (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

First, any reasonable person presumes the creator of a work knows what he or she is doing. And in this case, we have two creators both doing the same thing. We don't say that the creator of the TV show The Incredible Hulk was wrong for calling the character David Banner, even though it had been Bruce Banner in the comics for many years.

In any case, the issue may be moot. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Comics discourages use of material from sources such as the Marvel Handbook and DC's Who's Who, stating, "Fictional facts are not facts per se (independently verifiable separate from the reporting source) but fiction, and rewriting or paraphrasing fiction is not transformative. As these handbooks are encyclopedic sources (albeit of fictional facts), we are a competing product (a free encyclopedia) and since we are in no way transforming this fictional material, using this material may constitute a breach of copyright."

Additionally, as far as the use of primary sourcing in writing about fiction, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction states, "writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source. ... Examples of information available in primary sources include: the birth and death dates of fictional characters ... and, the plot itself." A character's name, like birth and death dates, is a basic, standard fact. WP:FILM guidelines express it this way: "the film is the primary source" in film articles."

Again, you are free to call for an RfC. I believe, from long experience, most Wikipedia editors will agree with the policies/guidelines I've noted here. I'm not sure you and I discussing this further will be productive.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Captain America

Wats up with cap Mrvandaman99 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)