This is perhaps one of the worst sentences I have ever read: "Despite all the recognition of the Fantastic Four be of Stan Lee, the americans Lucas Axt and Victor Giulio had written in 1958, the first history of The Fantastic Four, at the time, called "The Spectacular Quartet", in college newspapers and independent magazines." Can we get a rewrite? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottux (talk • contribs) 13:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This article seems to ignore the many controversies surrounding Lee's career (e.g., his relationship with Jack Kirby; allegations of financial improprieties, etc). Pervious edits acknowledging these things seem to have disappeared. Do others feel it is overly sanitized? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.214.186 (talk) 05:33, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... the bio seems a bit wrong. It says that Lee got his start because his uncle Robbie Solomon, the brother-in-law of Martin Goodman. Then it says that Lee's cousin Jean was married to Goodman. Should it be that Solomon is the father-in-law of Goodman?

This is way out of my league, but didn't Mr. Lee have a big lawsuit against Marvel? Shoud that be in here?Me mi mo 10:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's already there.--Tenebrae 00:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone should put up a more recent picture of Mr. Lee. I would, but I haven't had much luck with figuring out the image uploading policy. Komodo 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Why does everyone always want a newer picture? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a picture of him when he was most notable (i.e., the early 1960s)? Anyway, see below. —Chowbok 01:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Because he looks grotesque in the current picture?--CyberGhostface 23:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I'm not talking about the quality of the current picture. I'm just saying that if we're wishing for an ideal picture, why do we want a new one? —Chowbok 23:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we???--CyberGhostface 01:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is more a general Wikipedia discussion at this point. Moving to your talk page (and mine, presumably). —Chowbok 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That picture should definetley be changed! if not to a newer one than at least to one in wich doesn't look so weird--DaGrob 16:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Is there any truth to the rumor that Stan Lee is the dad of actor Jason Lee? jengod 18:24, May 17, 2004 (UTC)

I doubt it. I don't recall any mention of Jason Lee when I read Stan Lee's biography and autobiography. For what it's worth, Stan was born Stanley Lieber. Gamaliel 21:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Category: comics writer should really be Category: Comic book writers, and if you're going to put in a new +cat, you should create it. khaosworks 15:12, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

How can there be a encyclopedia page about Stan Lee without mentioning that he really wasn't the driving force behind Marvel but capitalized on his status as Editor, which he got because his uncle owned the company?

• Easy: we stick to the verifiable facts, and leave the opinions and speculation out of it. The article mentions his relationship to Goodman, for example; it's up to the reader to conclude whether that's the reason he got the job. It also mentions that there is disagreement about how much of Marvel's success was due to Lee vs. other creators. Tverbeek 21:29, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• • Also, if you go to this wikilink, you'll see different quotes from books by both Lee and Joe Simon that refutes the nepotism charge. Also, Martin Goodman wasn't Lee's uncle, but his cousin by marriage. And it was Simon, according to Simon, who did the hiring. 24.199.120.207 01:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Opinions should be fine if they're cited opinions from other industry professionals/his colleagues, not the opinions/OR of wikipedians. Tehw1k1 (talk) 03:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The page mentions Striperella, but not the lawsuit against Lee Regarding the creation of Striperella. It doesn't mention the facts that artists such as Ditko and Kirby dispute his claims of sole creation of these characters either. This is smelling like a whitewash to me. History has to record ALL the facts, including ones that makes the people you see as heroes look like villians. unsigned comment from 66.190.70.147

• If we have made omissions in this article, please feel free to add information. I doubt anyone here is interested in a whitewash. All articles here are a work in progess and it's most likely something that no one has gotten around to adding yet. Also, you can sign your comments with four tildes (~). Gamaliel 01:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Don't assume that Lee is my (or anyone else's) hero, just because we don't describe him here as a villain. As a matter of fact, the article does mention the disputes regarding Kirby and Ditko's role in creating those characters. (See the paragraph that begins, "Because of this system...") It's pretty brief, probably because the more you say, the more opportunity there is to say something that violates neutrality. Instead it simply reports what "some observers argue". Maybe more detail is needed. If there are facts missing, then please add them; that's how a wiki works. Just keep in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of view, so anything that smells like a witchhunt (like some of your judgmental edits to Spider-Man) is going to get edited to tone it down, just the same as anything that smells like a whitewash should be. (P.S. It helps if you register before making edits, so people can see that you're here as a positive contributor and not just an anonymous troublemaker.) Tverbeek 02:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I dispute that the Silver Surfer wasnt co-created by Stan Lee. I remember him having dialogue in issue #48 of 'The Fantastic Four' his first appearence, so would have to of been scripted by Stan Lee. Additionally he is officially credited to this day as the Co-Creator with Kirby. Additionally his whole history, where he come from and who he is as a character I suspect would of come from Stans Lees writing. But if what you say is true (which it could be), The Silver Surfer page will require some changes too. - The guy who made the change (sorry forgot I wasnt logged in) --UnlimitedAccess

"Many are familiar with the often-repeated story of how Lee was presented with the penciled pages to FF #48, only to be surprised by the new character in the story." I googled this up quickly from http://www.twomorrows.com/kirby/articles/23notes.html. Not sure of the source of the story (Origins of Marvel Comics?), but it's a very common and famous one. Gamaliel 00:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It troubles me that still to this day that the character is officially credited by Marvel as a Lee/Kirby creation, I think its worth noting. Okay, then how about this. "Lee is credited for officially creating the Incredible Hulk, the Silver Surfer, Iron Man, the Mighty Thor and the X-Men with Kirby; Daredevil with Bill Everett; and Doctor Strange and Marvel's most successful character, Spider-Man with Steve Ditko." The Silver Surfer page goes into sufficient detail about this anyway. But the Silver Surfer page could have one alteration, where it says at the top "Created by Jack Kirby and Stan Lee" could read something like "Officially created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby". I know its a bit semantical, but as an encylodpedia it's worth including. What do you think? UnlimitedAccess

Perhaps we should just leave SS off that list entirely and just deal with the indepth discussion for the Silver Surfer Article. To say he's "credited officially" with creating all those characters may lead the reader to suspect that he played a role in none of them, while in reality SS is probably the only one where he played no role at all. (And if you really want to get into it, you could say SL is a creator since he fleshed out the character and adopted SS as a pet project.) Gamaliel 17:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Well okay, I just felt that if someone is researching Stan Lee the article should at least point to this dispute of SL/JK creating Silver Surfer, particarly because of the "official" status that still stands and because of the final point you made in your last post. -UnlimitedAccess

---

This whole debacule with people saying “OH STAN SHOULDN’T GET A CO/CREATOR CREDIT” is very upsetting to me. Let us take the case of Silver Surfer then, If Lee was infact caught completely off guard by the apprence of the character, he would still have a hand in its creation, as he wrote the diologe and one can easily say that the diologe of a character is its personaility in a comic serireis, BUT you maintaim that because Kerby desinged the look should recive full credit. While Lee activly worked with Marvel he had his hands in almost everything that was going on, so therefore one could say he was co-creator of just about everything marvel put out during those years. I belive that Lee should be credited as co-creator, but if it is that important to some out there, perhaps his name should come first, as the Last name in a Co-creator credit is usually the more noticed -----Iorek Brynson

Your right, his look is only 50% of his character, but your forgetting Jack Kirby in SS first apperance wrote and scripted his dialogue as well, thus giving him his personality. Stan Lee and Jack Kirby after then both worked on SS for the next several years giving flesh to the character, and because of that Stan Lee is officially credited as a co-creator. But technically, SS was exclusively created by Kirby. I still stand by initial statement though, that it is worth including on this page of his involvement with the character. - UnlimitedAccess 04:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Kirby wrote and scripted ? Can you give support for that ? -- Beardo 03:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that Kirby wrote the dialog for any issue of Fantastic Four, and the style of Kirby's scripting for his Fourth World titles and elsewhere is wildly different from anything in FF.

Lee himself has stated in many interviews that Kirby came up with the concept of the Surfer and deserves full credit for that. But just as Spider-Man, say, is credited as a co-Lee/Ditko creation, since the concept, the visuals, and the characterization all play a part, the converse seems true here — that the Surfer is a co-Lee/Kirby creation. -- Tenebrae 11:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe I remember reading somewhere or other that Kirby's version of the Surfer's origin was totally different, and that Kirby's idea was for him to be an energy being created by Galactus out of nothing. Anyone have an idea where that's from 65.92.154.5 23:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Kirby wanted the Surfer to be totally non-human which was why he was so fascinated with human emotions and the like in his early appearances. Lee took the Silver Surfer away from Kirby and did a book with John Buscema that told a completely different origin than Kirby had envisioned. This is generally looked at as one of the things that drove Kirby away from Marvel. He did not like the way Lee took control over things that Kirby had a larger hand in creating. There is a Mark Evanier book on Kirby that goes into this as well as numerous other books on the story behind the scenes in the comic industry. Vaginsh (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Kirby wanted the Surfer to be totally non-human which was why he was so fascinated with human emotions and the like in his early appearances. Lee took the Silver Surfer away from Kirby and did a book with John Buscema that told a completely different origin than Kirby had envisioned." That pretty well confirms that Lee should be regarded as one of the primary creators of the Surfer. The Surfer is primarily noted by fans because of the character which Lee built around him as the one who gave up Shalla Bal to save the planet Zennla. Take away all of that and turn him into what Kirby wanted and no one would remember him today. Kirby was never very good at creating plots or writing scripts. Lee has to be regarded as an essential inventor of the character of the Silver Surfer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.38 (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Stan Lee may have laid out the words and dialog and story of the characters, but that was in conjunction with the many characters that Kirby created. There's been a huge dispute for which created who, but from documentaries and written reports that are in the internet, I can see why stan Lee can be see as a charlatan of Kirby's creations. Even Neal Adams, whom everyone that's worked with him regard him as one of the honest people working in the industry, carries a particular amount of credibility considering his fight for Simon and Schuster's (not the publishing company) creation of Superman. The Village Voice did an article, I was told, on the big controversy in regard to Stan Lee and how he was never in charge and in fact almost lost his job if Kirby didn't step in to save Marvel. I think, in my opinion, since this has been a downplayed event, it's going to be even tougher now that Disney owns Marvel.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.252.153 (talk • contribs)

This needs fix: Lee's cameos are listed twice.

Its highly likely that Stan Lee will make a cameo in "Iron Man", due for release in May 2008, and also in "The Incredible Hulk", also due out in 2008, as he helped to create both those characters

Did you know that Stan Lee made a cameo in episode 19 of Heroes, released 19 February 2007, where he played as a bus driver? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.49.168.229 (talk) 14:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

According to this article, Lee began writing filler in 1941, when he'd have been 18 or 19, then graduated from this eventually become editor when he was 17. How did that work, exactly?

• • Go to this wikilink for the answers. Lee was born 12/28/22, and got his assistant job in mid-to-late 1939 at what he says was 16 1/2, after having graduated high school early (per his autobiography and other sources). Editor Joe Simon left Marvel sometime in 1942, so Lee would have been about 19 1/2. 24.199.120.207 01:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, is this bit true: "a conspiracy by Bill Clinton to divert Paul's Japanese partner's multimillion dollar investment from Stan Lee Media to a new Clinton company".

I have commented-out the Clinton paragraph, without erasing it, and ask for objective citations for it. It contains non-NPOV statements, and claims that don't appear to be supported by the References or External Links. What is the "Hillary Clinton Accountability Project"? Iis it a non-partisan, academic, historical project or something else? There are inflammatory statements here, and also some that would seem to require verification, such as "the largest fundraising event for Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate campaign." Is there an objective, news-media statement giving facts and figures to support this? Tenebrae 01:38, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The Clinton paragraph came back, this time with an unlinked reference citing WorldNetDaily.com. That Web site is a right-wing blog, not an accredited, journalistic news source. If the alleged information about Lee and Clinton is real and accurate, then the editor posting it should have no problem citing and quoting established, credible news sources and not have to rely on such a clearly biased and thus non-journalistic site. -- Tenebrae 16:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The Clinton paragraph was deceptively written to imply that Lee had a prominent role in a Clinton finance scandal. There is no evidence to support this whatsoever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:71.242.118.162 (talk • contribs) .

In the part about Stan Lee Media (in "Later career"), I removed the POV statement "and produced the best flash animation on the internet". I also removed "winning the 2000 Web Award as the best entertainment portal on the world wide web, Stanlee.net" because I can't find anything about such an award on the Web. Can someone find what this was supposed to refer to? ←Hob 21:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC) It might mean the Webby. --Chris Griswold 18:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

So, what is ole Stan worth these days with all the movies and stuff?

More than you. I also don't believe any of that "tyrant" bullshit. I mean, Steve Ditko created THE CREEPER! That means Stan Lee created Spider-Man entirely by himself. Because the creeper sucks donkey balls. Oh, and don't even remind about those awful and completely forgettable Charlton comics characters. Steve Ditko doesn't have the creativity to have done all he says he has done. 168.243.218.2

• That would be 'opinion,' not 'fact.' Dr Archeville 18:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stan was collaborating with Ringo Starr to produce a super Ringo character..eg. magic rings, etc. Has anyone heard any further details on this?

I would like to know the religion of Stan Lee. I see him eulogizing a Christian manga: “….a clean, inspiring Christian comic done in a hip, contemporary way. I think you’ve really got a winner.” [1].

Stan Lee, was born into a jewish family, (originally named Stanley Lieber) but I don't know if he practices or not.

It seems odd that the period since 1991 gets more space than 1960-1990 - surely the 1960s are his most influential period and should get most coverage ? -- Beardo 03:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, one reason was that some PR type inserted entire paragraphs from a hype-filled POW! press release. I've boiled the information down to the facts, but there's still an awful lot of unencyclopedia language and crystal balling. -- Tenebrae 11:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It could also be argued that some of that ground is covered in the article on Marvel Comics as well as those of the characters Lee co-created. -- Pennyforth 18:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find a page on this company-wide event, where all the books came out with a number -1 and had an impish version of Lee narrating the story. At least, I think it was Lee. 66.217.130.147 22:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That was the "Flashback" event of July 1997. I put a paragraph about the impish "Ringmaster Stan" in the Fictional Portrayals section. -- Pennyforth 18:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that this article is a poor excuse for a biography, I really think someone like Stan Lee deserves a better article, 1) It needs a picture of him, 2) History of his works in comic books, 3) A Section of his pre- comic book years. 4) Other works 5) Current status.

................. Yes I know some of what i mentioned is already their, but needs to be clarified. I don't know how to site an article yet, but I know this really needs a re write.--Gakhandal 06:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've recently got around to creating the article on The Harpy, so if anyone wants to contribute thereto: please feel free to do so. DrWho42 05:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed "your mother" from list of references.Thus Spaketh Dave? 17:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the following text:

Stan Lee is set to make a cameo in chapter 16 of NBC's TV Show Heroes.

But I'm at work, and can't access the link at Comic Book Resources with the interview to the writers of the show where they discuss this and even show pictures of Lee and Masi Oka (Hiro). Could someone please add the reference so it won't get deleted by someone asking for references? Thanks in advance. Vicco Lizcano 00:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC) ^{(Tell me where I'm wrong)}

Given the size of the settlement over the Spiderman lawsuit and the size of his other holdings, one would assume this man's net assets would be over $50 million dollars. Given his roots, that'd be noteworthy. Anyone got a source w/some reasonably sound speculation on the subject? 00:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Stan Lee narrated Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends seasons two and three. I don't know if voice-over work should be listed under appearances or not so I'm not including it (sue me, I'm not being bold), but it's referenced on that page. --otherlleft 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I think that some of dumbest crap in Wikipedia either begins or develops from WP:BOLD and WP:IAR; it leaves newbies and arrogant knuckleheads feeling they are empowered to push an agenda that would get them throttled anywhere else. So, it's cool with me that you didn't go all bold. :)

Why not create a new section called "Voice-over work" a lot of people have it - check out mark Hamill's article; he doesn't list it that way, but the thing he is famous for after the Skywalker thing is being the voice of the Joker. No one does the cackle like him. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

if both of stan lee's parents were romainian shouldent he be classd as a romanian-american —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.201.62.36 (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE and WP:SOURCE specify use of subhead "References" when there is a section called either "Notes" OR "Footnotes", which are not BOTH used. "Notes" or "Footnotes" contain, well, footnotes. "References" are additional general sources used to support the article, and "External links", used correctly here, are "for further reading" links. Some tweaking on this article's overall refs may still be necessary, but not wholesale changes contrary to Wiki guidelines. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. To my knowledge, I was following accepted formatting conventions per Wikipedia:Guide to layout#Standard appendices and descriptions. I did not use BOTH "Notes" and "Footnotes" sections; there was a "References" section and a "Notes" section, where "explanations or comments on any part of the main text" can be placed. I was being bold, trying to improve what is in my opinion a very messy eyesore, and decided that a combined "Notes and references" section was not desirable in the case of this article. (Nowhere can I find support for the "Footnotes" section naming you reverted to.) Several featured articles use the convention I followed.

It seems to me that your description of a distinction between "Footnotes" and "References" corresponds to what are referred to as "Citations" and "References" in WP:CITE#Short footnote citations with full references. I did not feel that it was necessary to resort to separate "Citations" and "References" sections, as article size is not a major issue, and the referencing isn't so complex as to merit it.

As it was, most of the material listed under references did not seem to correspond to any in-text citations in such a way that indicated that the references were actually being used as sources for article information, so I either used them in new in-text citations, moved them to the external links section, or simply removed them. I left in a few orphaned listings with the understanding that they may have been used as sources, and just lacked corresponding citations. If they weren't, they don't belong; the "References" section is not for indiscriminate listing of "Further reading" material.

The extended commentary footnote mentioned that Joe Simon's autobiography The Comic Book Makers was cited in the References section; it wasn't. I corrected that. The link in one of the citations was dead. I fixed that, too. I honestly don't see how my edits were inappropriate. Dancter (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed rationale. It's always good to be able to respond to specifics.

I think we may be stuck on a nomenclature thing. What you changed to call "References" were footnotes, so there were both "Notes" and "Footnotes".

And, yes, I hear you and sympathize: The various overlapping and occasionally changing policies and guidelines at WP:CITE, WP:SOURCE, WP:FOOT and WP:GTL, among other pages is labyrinthine and confusing and occasionally contradictory. From longtime reading of these pages and of their talk pages, here are a couple of points that, as you say, can be hard to find:

WP:Cite#Footnote_referencing: "A footnote is a note placed at the bottom of a page of a document to comment on a part of the main text, or to provide a reference for it, or both. The connection between the relevant text and its footnote is indicated by a number or symbol which appears both after the relevant text and before the footnote reference."

WP:GTL: " 'Notes'" is only for footnotes (explanations or comments on any part of the main text)."

Comic-book databases are listed under "References" since any referenced comic-book title/issue # can be looked up; it's not necessary to clutter the page with a footnote for every single issue mentioned. Likewise, a book that provides a general history is often used as support material for footnoted citations; this is preferable to having two citations for the same thing, over and over throughout the page. Because you yourself -- or, rather, any editor oneself -- may not see how a particular source under References is relevant doesn't mean that it's not. If you question a source, please ask about it on the talk page. I can't speak for other editors, but anything I've put under References was used in my portions of writing the article.

Many of us longtime editors have found that folks tend to bring out Be Bold as a catch-all rationale. It's a more complex and subtle guideline.

One editor to another, thank you for fixing the missing Simon intro and the dead link.

I hope this provides good background and addresses your points. I'm certainly open to discussing this more if you'd like, and to any response. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your civil tone, to be honest, I'm still feeling a bit patronized, here.

I agree that there is some issue with nomenclature. Yes, what I split off into "References" were footnotes; and as described by the guidelines, what put I put under "Notes" were footnotes, too. That doesn't mean that either are synonymous with "Footnotes", which would encompass both. Although I did miss one "Note" that had still remained in the "References" section, I otherwise made sure the sections were properly distinguished. As I mentioned in my last post, I could not find anything in the guidelines on using "Footnotes" for a heading title; "Notes and references" seems to be the accepted convention for a combined section.

Regardless, my main point was that the combined section doesn't work well for this article. Some of the footnotes have their own citations, and since Cite.php references cannot be embedded in other Cite.php references, it forces an inconsistent citation style. I also happen to think it looks ugly, especially when one particularly long footnote wraps into a second column.

While it is not necessary to have a separate citation for every item in a list (my style preferences do not favor lists in encyclopedia articles except in rare cases, anyway), simply listing works in a references section is normally not enough. Broad reliance on particular sources does not obviate citing them in-text; specific citations are especially important when referencing intensive works such as books, that would benefit from details like page numbers. Readers should not be forced to search through entire works just to verify a particular fact in the article. It's true that a source isn't irrelevant just because an editor may not see how it's relevant, but one thing that does help illustrate the relevance of a reference is corresponding in-text citations. If redundancy in citation is the issue here; then a separate "Citations" section may indeed be warranted; with specific, abbreviated, footnoted citations to complement full general references in a "References" section.

Granted, this approach cannot be applied so readily for a source such as the UHBMCC, and the content it is probably being used for; but if extensive reliance on a database is necessary for sourcing portions of article content, it does call into question the salience of that content in what is supposed to be a cohesive and contextualized overview of the subject. The concept of "significant coverage" is usually referenced in discussing the notability of an article subject, but I feel it also applies to the salience of content within an article. If a fact is worth mentioning in an article about the subject, it stand to reason that a reliable secondary reference would be available to point out its significance.

This was not my reasoning for changing the UHBMCC link, but even if I may have misunderstood the purpose of that link, I'm still not convinced of its appropriateness as it was. I don't want to dwell too much on that, because it wasn't the main purpose of my edits. In my experience, it's actually quite common for items to be added to a "References" section that aren't being used for verifying article content; the section can be almost as much of a spam magnet as the "External links" section. With the POW! Entertainment and Stan Lee Web links, I can't think of a good reason to resort to generalized "References" listings rather than specific citations, which shouldn't be that complicated.

You're implying that I have somehow misunderstood the principle of "be bold". Could you point out how I violated it here? I feel that I was acting according to both the letter and the spirit of the guideline. My edits were actually fairly conservative; looking back at my changes, there was only thing in the article that I deleted straight out, which was the fan site link. Everything else was left in, one way or another, and aside from the aforementioned footnotes and links, the actual text of the article was not altered at all. As far as I could tell, the formatting was not subject to any heavy controversy, collaboration, or discussion such that I was being carelessly disruptive. I was bold, you reverted (presumably without any difficulty), and now we're discussing. I truly did not expect this much resistance to my changes, and certainly not on the basis that I don't understand Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Dancter (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You describe a genuine issue with both posts such as these and with e-mail, which is that because one can't convey tone of voice, politesse can be taken, by certain people, as being patronizing. What can one say to a charge like that, other than it doesn't imply a good-faith reading. Why not consider that maybe I am just trying to speak politely.

Regarding "be bold": There is a difference between being bold, in terms of actual action, and saying, "I was just being bold" as a catch-all rationale.

Where do we do go from here? Short of double- or triple-footnoting points with specific pages of the books now listed under "Reference" — said books supporting and confirming the more easily looked-up online citations — I think we're actually agreed that putting all those footnotes and all those reference books (and official sites, etc.) mashed together in a "Notes and References" section is ungainly and impractical.

I think in general that if something falls within guidelines (and I did provide links and quotes from those links, so I'm certainly showing good-faith effort) and there's no talk-page clamor for changing it, I'm not sure there's any urgent need to. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The intro and the SHB perforce cannot be comprehensive. They're only meant to give a brief overview, with a handful of typical examples. For the non-comics, general-audience reader to which Wikipedia is aimed, this essentially means the characters widely known outside of comic books — which in a practical sense means the characters on which major studio movies were based. Also, I deleted the Silver Surfer per the long-settled debate above on this page, as that character is not a clear and unambiguous example among the countless examples available. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think the use of the word "Draconian" regarding the comics code authority might be an example of a weasel word? Just for the record I personally agree with that description, but in the interests of objectivity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.210.160.57 (talk) 23:05, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Could we get something a little more recent? Most people's image of Stan Lee comes from his appearances on QVC, his awkward cameos in the Marvel film, and Who Wants to be a Superhero. I'm not sure a picture of him from the 70s with a painted-on mustache is representative.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you can find a more representative photo of him that is freely-licensed, feel free to put it in. —Chowbok 17:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

i was just about to mention this.

Yep...the rules are, even if the picture is beyond horrible and outdated, if its free it stays in favor of better, more recent pictures.--CyberGhostface 22:14, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. Just like how even if an article is poorly-written, we don't replace it with copyrighted text. —Chowbok 23:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your comparision is flawed, to say in the least. Anyone with a decent writing ability can easily improve a poor article without resorting to plagurism. Finding a decent free image thats more recent than thirty years old of a celebrity is much harder.--CyberGhostface 16:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a far cry from the grandfather-ly image we've had burned into our minds, but this, uh.. swarthy photo of Lee is great. LEAVE IT BE. Es-won 23:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not for long. I found this pic, which is needless to say, much better.--CyberGhostface 02:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

He's right. I say let him use it. I'm sure there's way to have it freely licensed, or any others for that matter. Nathen

New Picture

Finally found a photo that wasn't older than I am. Anyway, if anyone wants to change it, the following photos have also been granted permission. http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=Stan%20Lee&w=51035562155%40N01 --CyberGhostface 04:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Image date

Y'know, when you go to the image page and see the picture blown up, it actually does say " '75 " in the signature. Maybe the uploader typo'd or misremembered when he wrote 1973? --Tenebrae (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this myself. If it is a truly autographed photo then the caption under it is incorrect and needs to be changed. --Bentonia School (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What if the picture was taken in 1973 and autographed on 75? I don't know... just guessing. ViccoLizcano (NotLoggedIn) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.23.91.242 (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CaptAmerica3.jpg

Image:CaptAmerica3.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) 04:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless someone can exhibit a WP policy that we ever have a legal obligation to attribute a photo in its caption, the identity of the photographer must add something to the coverage of the topic to be included: e.g. being more or comparably notable compared to the topic. I did find (Google translation) "talk-show radio Cantonese man of San Francisco Edward Liu" in it:Harry Wu, and "The author is Edward Liu, former xcin is one of the developers." in zh:Gcin, and combined with those, the Google results

100 for radio "San Francisco" "Edward Liu"

and

83 for "photo by" OR photographer "Edward Liu"

suggest there is no encyc'ly notable photog by that name.
I have removed the attribution to this one: it's only justification is to support either vanity or commercial spam.
--Jerzy•t 18:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done the B-class assessment and it doesn't quite make it. There were already existing requests four sources and I've added some more to the main points which I feel need addressing - this should be easy enough to sort out. However, there is a broader problem:

• "Film and television appearances" is largely unreferenced, the obvious answer would be to use IMDB but, as recent discussion on this shows, we can't. I am unsure how we can address this but unreferenced it could be seen as original research, which is a pity. Could we find a source we can use that gives the screen credits or a reliable site that perhaps lists his appearances.

• "Fictional portrayals" is always going to be a tricky section, because just stating the issue they appeared in isn't enough, unless it is very obviously him, then it needs referencing. Parodies are always going to be tricky as you'd need someone saying "I based this on him" a clear sign is the use of weasel words: "created the character Funky Flashman as a possible parody of Stan Lee." Also a problem I see is that some of the parodies are bordering on WP:BLP violations: "Moore's alter ego 'Affable Al' parodies Lee and his allegedly unfair treatment of artists" and "an exploitative publisher who relies on Lee's gung-ho style and "Bullpen" mythology to motivate his stable of naive and underpaid creators." Some of these probably need removing or a quote inserted which takes it away from a boldly stated fact to one person's opinion.

So both those sections are problematic and are going to stop the article from advancing any further until they are dealt with somehow. (Emperor (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC))

The image Image:FF10.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Ff1kirby.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This article surely doesn't seem like C-class quality - it's one of the best sourced text on WP, I think.. --78.128.199.9 (talk) 19:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

See my comments above when I assessed this article - there are clear criteria for being a B-class article and this fails it. In particular the "fictional portrayals" is problematic but "Film and television appearances" could be seen as lacking in sources too. (Emperor (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

I've been a fan of Stan Lee all of my life. As well, I have read both "Dunn's Conundrum" and "The God Project" by Stan R. Lee. These two men are not one in the same. That portion of the article should definitely be edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvey danger88 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The cover of the paperbacks Dunn's Conundrum and The God Project each say only "Stan Lee," not "Stan R. Lee." Googling "Stan R. Lee" and "Dunn's" yields no hits. I'm not sure your information is correct. What source or evidence do you have that the Stan Lee who wrote Dunn's Conundrum and The God Project are not the Stan Lee of this article? -- Tenebrae (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Does it not say on the inside? You'd think it'd be worthy of a mention? Looking around: Fantastic Fiction list the author as this Lee. However, I found this:

Copywriter Stanley R. Lee became the Creative Director for DDB in Los Angeles in 1966, but returned to the New York headquarters not long after. In 1973 he was promoted to Senior Vice President. During a company-mandated vacation after working on the notoriously demanding Volkswagen account, Lee and many of his colleagues were laid off in 1974 because DDB had just lost a major account worth millions of dollars. The frustrated novelist at that point had plenty of time to write. In 1984 Harper & Row published Lee's political thriller "Dunn's Conundrum" which sold respectably well and was also optioned as a film property. In 1990 Grove / Atlantic published another political thriller by Lee titled "The God Project" that featured an advertising man with unique skills who is recruited by the President of the United States to work on a special mission (shades of DDB in '64?). According to Lee's widow, Bernice Lee, the author was working on a non-fiction novel about the military when he died after falling in their apartment in 1997

So I'd suggest removing it. (Emperor (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

Will do. I'll make a note and give the citation you found (great work!), since clearly there's potential for confusion. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes good point - perhaps add Stanley R. Lee to the Stan Lee disambiguation? (Emperor (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC))

I did that yesterday, but I've been told that creating the article is a better way of going at it. Anyone want to initiate its creation? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is enough material - it took a bit of digging to find the above and you are going to have to spend a while digging through results for this Stan Lee. It might be a more solid search could find interview/reviews on the two books which would help flesh out the article. If anyone knows of any then drop then in and we'll see what we can do. (Emperor (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC))

This belongs in a hatnote, not the introduction. Gamaliel (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It says he got his first speaking role in the hulk ( think as a security guard or something) but he appears in spider-man before that and he DOES speak. He says "look out!" as he pulls the girl out of the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.76.60.163 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well don't tell us that here if you see a mistake fix it. Thats the would point behind wikipedia. Yourname (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

He's dead? 86.46.208.54 (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Could someone who is better than me at adding sections incorporate this link into the article. WookMuff (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Would whoever is putting raw URLs in the footnotes please read the guidelines at WP:CITE and WP:FOOTNOTE? -- Tenebrae (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't believe you guys missed Lee's recent work with Bones Heroman. Ok...I just added it in there -- User:blackgaia02 22:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he's helping a Japanese manga creator make 'Ultimo' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.239.8 (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Would an IMDB link qualify as Film, TV, Video citation requirement.. More specifically Stan Lee's Filmography Page on IMDB. Gremlinsa (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Stan Lee appeared on an episode of the 2000 reboot of 'To Tell The Truth.' He and his two impersonators each wore a rubber Stan Lee mask so that the panel wouldn't immediately recognize Stan Lee. I would put this directly onto the page, but I'm not sure I have an appropriate source. If the IMDB page noted in the previous topic is a valid source, the note appears there (under the 'Self' heading). Legionaireb (talk) 02:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Stan Lee/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

10 images, 181 citations, niche article. JJ98 (Talk) 23:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Last edited at 23:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC). Substituted at 15:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

The X-Men are definitely more notable than Daredevil or even Thor. Please list X-Men down in the Notable Works section of the Infobox. 220.229.99.5 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC) 220.229.99.5 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. I was waiting for someone who knows the topic to decide on this, but expert came there none, so I've done it. Hope that's OK. --Stfg (talk) 14:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

he is awsome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.143.106 (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

ComicBookMovie.com gets its content almost entirely from non-professional reader submissions. This is WP:SPS content and essentially a forum for fan postings. The site even runs a disclaimer that these are reader postings and that the site isn't liable for inaccurate or libelous news posted there. Forum postings, no matter how they're clothed, are not reliable sources by Wikipedia definition, and ComicBookMovie.com reader-submitted posts cannot be allowed as reference citations.This was been gone over by WikiProject: Comics editors thoroughly about two years ago, and this consensus agrees with general Wikipedia policy. If something is of genuine encyclopedic or newsworthy value, it will be reported in RS sources. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A Stan Lee functionary appears in an episode of Doug as an editor Doug wished to show his work to, who gave him some highly complimentary input on his "Quailman" character.

In an episode of Freakazoid Freak offers Fanboy an autographed photo of Lee to leave him alone. Fanboy doesn't know who Lee is. Neither does Freakazoid. --The_Iconoclast (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

For the Stan Lee page. Under FILMOGRAPHY, under FILMS, at Thor: The Dark World, for his role... please replace "Mental-war" with "Mental-ward". (The "d" was left off.) 67.253.170.63 (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Epicgenius (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The Video Games section should mention Verticus, which was narrated and substantially designed by Stan Lee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.41.120.216 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe [this should added to his other "work". It's an interesting tidbit to add. Npabebangin (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

you guys forgot to credit him in mallrats as himself in 1994 he has a discussion with brody about the heroes he created and why he relates to each character 24.60.96.164 (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Its listed in the filmography table Kap 7 (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Since this hasn't been discussed here or in the archive that I can find, I'd like to get one going on whether to use the designation "actor" in the lead and infobox. His cameos wouldn't seem to be professional acting any more than Alfred Hitchcock's or the many other directors who have taken a walk-on role or a cameo in their films, nor would playing himself, as he has done in a couple of movies, seem to count, any more than any other celebrity playing him- or herself, such as Marshall McLuhan or Hugh Hefner.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I support removing "actor" for the reasons you discuss. I also support removing "comedian" and "voice actor" on those grounds as well. Gamaliel (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

His roles certainly qualify him as an actor and voiceover artist. I am unaware of any evidence, however, that he has done any comedy work. I removed "comedian", but if someone can point out where he has done comedy work, I'll restore it. Nightscream (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cameos in your own franchise qualifies you as an actor? I thought acting took study and/or profession? 130.243.215.220 (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Nope. "An actor (alternatively actress for a female; see terminology) is a person portraying a character in a dramatic or comic production; she or he performs in: film, television, theatre, or radio.[1] " Acting clearly takes neither skill, education or profession. Glad to have sorted that out myself. To call yourself an actor has no skill, educational or professional requirements, you just have to appear in a role on a media. To empathise for future reference, NO SKILL, NO EDUCATION, NO PROFESSION. Sorted :) 130.243.215.220 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those same rules apply for being a singer as well, in fact most jobs. Take this one for example - most Wikipedians are not experts in the subjects of the articles they edit. Despite that, a lot of "posturing" goes on around here. Wikipedia is entirely an amateur enterprise. Its quality (or lack thereof) is reflected by that. Personally I don't rate Stan as an actor, but an excellent writer and obviously an astute businessman. I would support removing "actor" as per the Hitchcock comment above, otherwise we should add that Hitchcock was an actor also. As Stan would say "'Nuff said"! Jodon | Talk 11:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

His role in "Mallrats" would definitely be considered comedic, and his role was much more than a cameo. Does that count? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.217.176.7 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

add marvel comics template 199.79.168.163 (talk) 05:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In the 1988 interview which I recently cited in this article, Stan comments at some length on how wonderful he finds the current comics scene, and finishes: "I might add I hate to think that things are going so well with very little help from me, but there's nothing much I can do about that. [laughs] I really miss it. I used to feel I was so much a part of it, now I feel a little bit like a spectator, but I think things are moving along beautifully!"

I think this is a good terse summation of Stan's perspective on his later career. But as I looked into adding it in, I started arguing with myself over where would be the appropriate place to put it. "Towards the beginning of the first paragraph of 'Later career'? (But wouldn't that be overemphasizing its significance?) At the end of that same paragraph? (But wouldn't that make seem like an afterthought, something extraneous?) How about in a quote box off to the side, not in the body of the text at all? (But isn't that just flashy and unnecessary?)" And then there's the matter of introducing the context, since it's not obvious from the quote itself that Stan is talking about the comics scene in its entirety. In the end I've found myself doubting that the quote should be added at all. Thoughts?--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a simple improvement update to one line. The line is poorly worded, missing key details and inappropriately combines two unrelated appearances on one line. I have provided the existing original bulleted line below followed by the verbatim new update creating two bulleted lines from the existing line. See my notes at the bottom for additional details.

Change request located under HEADING named: "Other film, TV, and video"

Change FROM EXISTING bullet line:

• Lee makes a guest appearance as himself in "Bottom's Up", a season seven episode of the TV series Entourage. He guest-starred in "Glimpse", a season four episode of Eureka that aired in July 2011.[147]

Change TO NEW UPDATED version of existing line by creating 2 bulleted lines with inserted text, Thusly:

• Lee makes a guest appearance as himself in "Bottom's Up", a season seven episode of the TV series Entourage.
• Stan Lee guest-starred as "Dr. Lee (aka: Generalissimo)" in "Glimpse", a season four episode of the TV series Eureka that aired in July 2011.[147]

Notes & explanations: The original version depicted two unrelated appearances in two different TV series on the same line and omitted key details. This appearance was hard to find and confusing in its current form. I would like to correct it to create two bulleted lines inserting the additional details as shown above. The reference [147] already exists for the existing line.

Since this is a request, I did not use the editing codes on here as I have done for previous edits. However, I believe the verbatim edit above is clear about the intended changes. The original line also includes all necessary references and links to featured Wikipedia articles; all of which can be retained while editing to create two lines and inserting new text.

It is important to include the Generalissimo Title, because his character in the episode is addressed onscreen as Dr. Lee but he quite LOUDLY & ADAMANTLY insists on being called Generalissimo. Thus, it is important to include both character names. It was a memorable and powerful role for his fans. I had a difficult time finding this particular appearance on this page, as it is currently written, despite specifically looking for it. I had to resort to a word search to find it. Hence the need to improve this line. It won't take more than 2 minutes to make the editing change.

ExecPE (talk) 01:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

please add peggy carter template thanks 129.49.11.152 (talk) 23:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

To where should it be added? Stickee (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

He is put on that category. But with that phrase of him stating that he doesn't really know if there is a God. I would think that he would qualify a a agnostic that was just raised as a Jew. Thoughts? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the guidelines state that unless he self-identifies as someone whose focus as a writer is Jewish-American themes, or if his Judaism is an integral part of his identity, then we include his religious affiliation. Unless those things are pertinent, we don't. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC

Just checking. One being a Jew can be debatable but when one doesn't know if he believes a deity then I wouldn't think that is one. But of course I don't put my own opinions on Wikipedia. That's why I am discussing it. lol Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 01:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Jews are an ethnic group, you can be a 'Jew' and be an atheist/agnostic/etc. ― Padenton|✉   17:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Should Stan Lee's background photograph cameo from the last episode be mentioned? [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.197.45 (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

In the Timely years, Stan Lee used some obvious aliases like S. T. Anley, Neel Nats, etc. (84.236.152.71 (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC))

Stan Lee also appears in two (2) cameo roles in the Spiderman Ride at Universal Studios' Islands of Adventure (Orlando, Florida). First as the Driver of the Garbage Truck that the Ride Vehicle (called "the Scoop") narrowly avoids and then in the finale of the ride as a Sidewalk Pedestrian that ducks away and is narrowly missed by the Scoop as it safely lands in Spiderman's Net. 104.136.212.187 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Based on the following link, should X-Men Apocalypse be added to Stan Lee's filmography section? http://screenrant.com/x-men-apocalypse-stan-lee-cameo/ 71.189.39.209 (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

As often with descriptions of people in American Wikipedia, this article contains too much uninteresting information. This is NOT people magazine - this is an encyclopedia! It is totally uninteresting what religion a comic writer has especially since he does not deal with religion in his work. And you most certainly don't need any quotes to back this up. It is perfectly uninteresting how big the houses were he ever owned and even more so their addresses. So please remove these sections entirely to leave room for necessary information. --178.2.23.3 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to respond with your own words: This is not People Magazine; this is an encyclopedia. The standards for inclusion are notability and verifiability, not how exciting the information is.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The biographical information box states that Lee only has 1 child. However, the Personal Life section makes it clear he had two daughters. Jan may have died after only three days, but she was still his daughter. I have never seen another entry in which the biographical information box doesn't count a child because that child predeceased the subject of the entry or died in infancy. The number of children should. be changed to two.72.49.235.222 (talk) 01:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

While browsing through the online archives of the Chicago Tribune, I found an article about Stan Lee from July 17, 1975. For some odd reason, the graphic includes "Galactus and his son, The Silver Surfer"! No startling new information is included in the article but it's a fun read from way back in the day. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1975/07/17/page/27/article/stan-lees-superheroes

Mtminchi08 (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Can we have a section listing all of his interviews ranging from Excelsior to the one he did for stars etc. Do you guys know what I mean? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

There have been articles in the press recently about Lee's failing eyesight. Lee can no longer see well enough to read comic books or story outlines, he dictates them.

http://robot6.comicbookresources.com/2016/01/stan-lee-reveals-the-extent-of-his-failing-eyesight/

MikeLacey 86.3.147.78 (talk) 18:32, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated reply. I'm tempted to go ahead and add this to the article, but I'm a little uncertain of the notability... Failing eyesight is a common malady when one grows old, and the article gives no indication that this ailment is affecting Stan's public life and work, even if it makes it more of a pain for him. Anyone else have thoughts on this?--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I see your point but would suggest that Lee's failing eyesight and his reaction to it (he continues to work) is notable because he's an artist working in a largely visual field. It's notable in the way a deaf composer would be. Mike Mike Lacey, UK 08:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

He's not an artist & writing isn't a visual field. 24.14.224.157 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Should we create an actual template for Stan Lee? Jack Kirby has one so should Stan also get one? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 19:03, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we should.★Trekker (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Stan Lee. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5lXJBJPZ1?url=http://www.twomorrows.com/alterego/articles/11fago.html to http://www.twomorrows.com/alterego/articles/11fago.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://209.51.142.186/~dogatco/mmms/mmms65.mp3
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-virgin19apr19%2C1%2C7072456.story
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113130700/http://comicsalliance.com/jack-kirby-tribute-superman-animated-series-funeral-dan-turpin-video/ to http://comicsalliance.com/jack-kirby-tribute-superman-animated-series-funeral-dan-turpin-video/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.therubberboy.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.avclub.com/articles/is-there-a-god%2C1413/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131026151902/http://comicsalliance.com/fangasm-unreality-geek-culture-review-video-syfy/ to http://comicsalliance.com/fangasm-unreality-geek-culture-review-video-syfy/

https://dailypunch.pk/stan-lee-dies-avengers-superheroes-pay-tribute-to-the-comic-book-legend/ 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) 21:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Stan Lee. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6O3VMOkdS?url=http://www.skyscraperman.com/ to http://www.skyscraperman.com/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/44901428/ns/today-books/t/spider-man-creators-new-heroes-are-kid-stuff/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webcitation.org/6mx4N3mnj
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independentpublisher.com/article.php?page=2172
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130523174927/http://www.ugo.com/the-goods/funky-flashman-1 to http://www.ugo.com/the-goods/funky-flashman-1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://screenrant.com/daredevil-netflix-easter-eggs-spoilers/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.comicbookresources.com/article/jessica-jones-stan-lee-cameo-spotted
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cbr.com/iron-fist-easter-eggs/

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) 11:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stan Lee. 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/20131226051552/http://m.comicsbulletin.com/interviews/4829/peter-david-and-jace-hall-join-the-world-of-heroes/ to http://m.comicsbulletin.com/interviews/4829/peter-david-and-jace-hall-join-the-world-of-heroes/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://eclipsemagazine.com/comic-con-2016-pow-entertainment-and-shatner-singularity-introduce-stan-lees-god-woke/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://ca.ign.com/articles/2014/04/28/stan-lee-will-appear-in-guardians-of-the-galaxy-after-all

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) 16:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we agree that "Stan Lee^[1] (born Stanley Martin Lieber /ˈliːbər/, December 28, 1922) is an American comic-book writer, editor, publisher, media producer, television host, actor, and former president and chairman of Marvel Comics" is an overwrought first sentence? Any suggestions for how to trim down? 11:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

According to the Marvel Comics page, Lee was "executive vice president and publisher", I'm changing the lead to reflect that. LK (talk) 11:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think he is the chairman emeritus of Marvel Media. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Wikipedians. This [3] caught my interest today, more background here [4].

In short, there is something called Web of Stories (that article is COI-edited, though), and they have this [5], which I think is a good EL for this article, so I BOLDLY added it. I see WoS is used as a source already. As an EL for this article, good or bad, opinions? Excelsior! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

In the article section "Personal Life", it mentions the death of his wife, Joan Lee, twice. Once talking about them living on Long Island, then again in a separate paragraph at the end of the section. They both contain roughly the same information and one should be removed for redundancy.69.127.99.109 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Stan Lee. 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/20131106030052/https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disney-publishing-worldwide-announces-zodiac-022000970.html to https://finance.yahoo.com/news/disney-publishing-worldwide-announces-zodiac-022000970.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/60bODaDKg?url=http://www.playbill.com/news/article/146343-Stan-Lee-Encouraged-by-Spider-Man-New-Projects-on-the-Horizon to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/146343-Stan-Lee-Encouraged-by-Spider-Man-New-Projects-on-the-Horizon
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://eclipsemagazine.com/comic-con-2016-pow-entertainment-and-shatner-singularity-introduce-stan-lees-god-woke/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6APT55YDz?url=http://latino-review.com/2012/07/11/exclusive-stan-lee-iron-man-3-is/ to http://latino-review.com/2012/07/11/exclusive-stan-lee-iron-man-3-is/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6AkJtBxhR?url=http://nukethefridge.com/2012/09/15/ntf-scoop-stan-lee-confirms-cameo-in-thor-the-dark-world/ to http://nukethefridge.com/2012/09/15/ntf-scoop-stan-lee-confirms-cameo-in-thor-the-dark-world/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812081844/https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/stan-lee-confirms-avengers-age-ultron-cameo-115500850.html to https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/stan-lee-confirms-avengers-age-ultron-cameo-115500850.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.torontosun.com/2017/03/04/ryan-reynolds-posts-deadpool-2-teaser-trailer-online-after-it-leaked
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140315054020/http://avengersassembletheseries.com/video/avengers_assemble_episode_205_-_the_future/ to http://avengersassembletheseries.com/video/avengers_assemble_episode_205_-_the_future/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6EEdphrON?url=http://file.bhcourier.com/comics-legend-stan-lee-pacemaker/2012/09/28 to http://file.bhcourier.com/comics-legend-stan-lee-pacemaker/2012/09/28
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130122112217/http://www.powentertainment.com/stanleemessage.html to http://www.powentertainment.com/stanleemessage.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.instagram.com/p/BTZOVSRB8dv/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140313015855/http://www.myfoxla.com/story/23841532/stan-lee-its-all-in-the-cameos-with-marvel-movies to http://www.myfoxla.com/story/23841532/stan-lee-its-all-in-the-cameos-with-marvel-movies

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) 11:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

the line for ant-man and the wasp is malformatted in Filmography->Film. Not correctly sitting inside the table. 220.253.127.24 (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done feminist (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

why is there a spiderman homecoming - nba finals? Someone please delete that 12.167.102.50 (talk) 22:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done as explained by following the wikilink, or as seen here - Arjayay (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Stan Lee makes a cameo in Marvel's Runaways, it is listed in Filmography, but not in Film and television appearances — Preceding unsigned comment added by LateDuck (talk • contribs)

 Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I would like to edit this because I am an author 108.25.82.248 (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
• You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:55, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I found an IMDb citation for his cameo in L'An 01. The credited role is Récitant / New York's Narrator (voice). Is this a sufficiently credible source to remove the [citation needed] tag from that section? —Satou4 (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. IMDb is not an RS, please see WP:RS/IMDB for more info. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Three key articles I see: THR on 4/10 describing Lee being victim to elder abuse and other issues, Lee's response via the NYTimes on 4/13, and Deadline.com today with notice of a lawsuit filed by Lee against a former manager regarding elder abuse. This seems to be a touchy subject, so I would urge caution in what details to include, but I think this should be included, given the rather lengthy NYTimes piece. --Masem (t) 21:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone with access tidy this ignorant use of "given name" thanks. Someone obviously thinks it means the same as "birth name". It doesn't. "Given name" is your first and middle names, i.e. the names your parents choose to *give* you, not the family name that you inherit by default. what's being discussed in this sentence is the use of "Lee" or "Lieber", which is nothing to do with his given name. "Lee later explained in his autobiography and numerous other sources that he had intended to save his given name for more literary work." 118.92.222.221 (talk) 06:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this problem too. The request is to change "given name" to "birth name".Gwideman (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Lee#Personal_life

last sentence from:

She was 95 years old.

To:

He was 95 years old. DimeDroll (talk) 20:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It is referring to his wife's age. RudolfRed (talk) 20:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

There's apparently some sources claiming Stan Lee died (Cobicbook.com for instance), but I am not sure how the Wikipedia page is indicating he died tomorrow. I am unable to research to confirm and then fix this at the moment. Will check later in case no one else has. https://comicbook.com/comics/2018/11/12/stan-lee-obituary-dead-marvel/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertMfromLI (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Add date of death: November 12, 2018 70.49.117.5 (talk) 18:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done by someone at some point --Masem (t) 19:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Change Active years to then to 2018 80.44.200.74 (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done --Masem (t) 19:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I want this paragraph to be added on Stan lee's Wikipedia , in the "life" tab , so that it will not be forgotten . The son of working-class Jewish immigrants from Romania, Lee was born Stanley Martin Lieber in New York in 1922. Source:https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/marvel-comics-legend-stan-lee-dies-at-95/ar-BBPCSj8?OCID=ansmsnnews11 144.230.82.246 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

pretty much what it already says in first paragraph of Earlt life section. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Under Personal Life, suggest changing ASSESS to ACCESS about the possible elder abuse. ASSESS = estimate the value; ACCESS = to use. The first wouldn't necessarily be that important in this case, the other would as it could indicate illegal (and amoral) action. Ljwilde (talk)

Looks like this change is already done. RudolfRed (talk) 00:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

(This was edited into a header on this page, I am refactoring it out properly as a new section --Masem (t) 01:09, 13 November 2018 (UTC))

Rd infantry regiment be changed to the third infantry division as there is a big difference. The third infantry division was once base out of Fort Lewis, now know as Joint Base Lewis McCord. I suggest in his military service; they check to make sure his link to the third infantry regiment be changed to third infantry division. The third infantry division was once based at Fort Lewis Wa, now known as Joint base Lewis McCord. The Third infantry regiment, as correctly referenced, is in Ft. Myer, Va. They are distinctly different organizations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:585:8200:6557:e9be:6dcd:fddf:a454 (talk • contribs)

It is the 2nd Battalion of the 3rd Division; the 2nd Battalion is out of JBLM (hence why they were able to award him at the local comic con in Seattle). --Masem (t) 01:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"On July 6, 2017, his wife of 69 years, Joan, died of complications from a stroke. She was 95 years old.[154]"

TO

"On July 6, 2017, his wife for 69 years, Joan, died of complications from a stroke. She was 95 years old.[154]" 182.75.40.98 (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: spouse of x years is very common usage Cannolis (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Stan lee is dead Redpurlpe123 (talk) 15:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done This information is already included in the article. GMG^talk 15:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Anymore information on the death of Stan Lee? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhame2 (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I have been watching, but no (reliable) reports have been made yet. Everyone knew he wasn't in great health, and was "fine" two days prior per Roy Thomas [6]. --Masem (t) 14:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

With all his positions mentioned all through the article, it's not clear what his current (at time of death) connection, or position, with Marvel is.

Can someone clarify this in the article?

Thank you. 2600:8800:785:1300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

His only connection with Marvel was an honorary title of "chairman emeritus". I've updated the article with information about his retirement from Marvel (and the subsequent suit over royalties). -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It should be possible easily with the numerous obits to discuss Lee's impact on the comic industry, a couple being challenge the CCA and forcing its revisions, and creating "flawed" superheroes. I'm sure there's more, but it should be a lot easier to write that now with how much attention his death got. --Masem (t) 20:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The "Death" section has a typo, it is written as "Deat", when it should be "Death." 138.207.202.168 (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

OK now. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

For background, see this edit, et seq. The claim made is that no mention of Lee's appearance in The Trial of the Incredible Hulk should be made (I think) because it wasn't produced by Marvel Studios. Of course, there's no reason that's actually a criterion for inclusion, and if it were, that would exclude all of the Spider-Man, X-Men, and Fantastic Four movies as well. So what I'm asking is, what Wikipedia policy states that everything mentioned in Stan Lee's article has to be directly related to Marvel Studios productions?

I won't be online until later next week, but I wanted to get a discussion started before I take off. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sniff rest in peace Stan Lee Fellpayrus (talk) 17:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Shouldn't Stan Lee get his own Legacy section? Here are some links to get things moving:

http://www.stanleefoundation.org/the%20foundation/The%20Legacy.html

https://www.superherohype.com/comics/427423-celebrating-the-life-and-legacy-of-stan-lee

https://iancasselberry.com/2018/11/13/stan-lee-legacy-unlike-any-other/

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/stan-lee-dead-95-spider-man-co-creator-leaves-behind-ncna935976

http://time.com/5452256/stan-lee-died-reactions/

https://lompocrecord.com/entertainment/celebration-of-life-of-marvel-comics-creator-stan-lee-to/article_c4abe7da-0e51-5893-8641-c8424f9fa9ab.html

https://ew.com/movies/2018/11/30/stan-lee-life-of-marvel-special-edition/

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-46192799

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffewing/2018/11/13/what-we-can-learn-from-stan-lee/#58ddee1d3961

https://brocku.ca/brock-news/2018/11/pop-culture-prof-says-stan-lees-impact-almost-indescribable/

Hope these links are useful. Mystic Moore (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Amirdawson888 (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC)He was A great mintor

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

JCWDomino (talk) 19:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I will change the image to this: https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/stan-lee-attends-the-premiere-of-disney-and-marvels-avengers-infinity-picture-id950498650?k=6&m=950498650&s=612x612&w=0&h=co86Io-SKECIMwd9pO0Cn2bckg4HnhDNKmIigb3lJgM=

Caption: Lee at the premiere of Avengers: Infinity War in 2018

 Not done this isn’t an appropriately licensed photo. _Praxidicae (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm guessing this is being left out of the article as we don't have a tactful way of approaching it just yet? I thought I'd set up this section so we can discuss the best way to integrate it into the article. Lynchenberg (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It was left out due to low quality sourcing. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 10:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

What is meant by 'low quality sourcing'? There are plenty of reputable sources reporting on it that can be found with a quick google search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:A024:603:94F5:975:6853:EC6F (talk) 08:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Why is this article semi-protected? 173.31.203.116 (talk) 03:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• Persistent vandalism.NJZombie (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's the source for Lee's final animated appearance. R.I.P. 2601:85:4500:98EA:4423:E14F:B056:8B05 (talk) 02:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, I would like to add that Stan Lee is an absolute legend and should be remembered by all. Thanks, Ella Ellagreenlynch (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: While I agree with the sentiment, this is hardly encyclopedic. NiciVampireHeart 06:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there a reason the Personal Life section has such a strange chronology? It starts with a random list of events from his life, launches into an Early Life section and then mentions some philantrophy from 2010 and then his death. Ashmoo (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Followjavis129 made a pair of edits to insert erroneous information back in May 2019.

I suggest that the current line: "His body was cremated and his ashes were given to his family or friend." be replaced with this one, which correctly reflects the cited source: "His body was cremated and his ashes were given to his daughter." 23.25.114.201 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 20:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I noticed that LA's Stan Lee Day is listed in the article. I thought it might be appropriate to put that a similar proclamation was made on October 7th, 2016 in New York City. This announcement was made at a New York Comic Com event on October 7th, 2016. On YouTube there are videos of the proclamation made, with a full speech about Stan's contributions. If more sources are needed I can find them. Thank you! OBVRJA (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I see Boston also had one, plus NYC is naming a street after him. Will be adding shortly. --Masem (t) 00:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hawkeye was also one of Stan Lee's characters. He is kinda one of his forgotten characters and no one really thinks of him when they think about Stan Lee and his characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.223.224.100 (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The article, at the start of the Personal life section has the following text:

Though raised in a Jewish household, in a 2002 interview, he stated when asked if he believed in God, "Well, let me put it this way... [Pauses.] No, I'm not going to try to be clever. I really don't know. I just don't know."

This is an implicit misunderstanding of what it means to be Jewish. Judaism is a religion that one can believe in or not; adhere here to and follow or not, etc. Being Jewish does not depend from whether one follows the religion. Being Jewish is an ethnocultural background (in fact more Jewish people are atheists than any other group, last I read). I, in fact, am Jewish and an atheist, which in no way makes me non-Jewish. To clarify, saying someone "is Jewish", actually tells you nothing whatever about their religiosity.

So, the problem here is that by starting with “Though raised in a Jewish household...” (emphasis added), followed by the quote asserting his essential religious agnosticism—as if in contradistinction to his Jewish background; as if the same in any way renders him non-Jewish—a manifest error is introduced. Note that the source cited does not contain the error. It simply confirms that when Lee was asked "Is there a God", he answered as quoted.

I suggest the following replacement text:

Lee was raised in a Jewish household. As to his religiosity, in a 2002 interview, he stated when asked if he believed in God, "Well, let me put it this way... [Pauses.] No, I'm not going to try to be clever. I really don't know. I just don't know"...

Thanks.--108.21.51.204 (talk) 19:33, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you didn’t actually read my post above, which provides the original text, explains what‘s wrong with it, and suggests exact replacement text. As to a source, the original is unsourced and incorrect, so logically, you have no reason to balk – where what I am asking for is exactly in the nature of Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue, to any educated person. Nevertheless, read our article on Jews, which explains at the second sentence of the lead exactly the basis for my post. To wit “Jewish ethnicity, nationhood, and religion are strongly interrelated,[19][20] as Judaism is the ethnic religion of the Jewish people, while its observance varies from strict observance to complete nonobservance.“—108.21.51.204 (talk) 01:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Mostly  Done, with a little trimming of the wording. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Much obliged. Yeah, your change neatly takes way the problem, though I do think it still could be read by some in the same problematic way – but the error (a not uncommon one) would have to be imposed by the mind of the reader; the language itself is now neutral.--108.21.51.204 (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Under the later years and death section, the pronoun 'he' is used for his female wife - "He was 95 years old". Please change to "She". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackner2 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

what 2800:200:E800:423B:6D46:917B:4311:3776 (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 15:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion is removing some of the names of the characters he created as I see some of them as superflous and want it to focus on his most famous ones. Thir5 (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Try to get consensus on this talk page for that change, and if successful request the edit again. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

First, Lee’s wife was married at the time. He had an adulterous affair with a married woman who subsequently divorced her husband and married Lee. Stop glossing over things like this. Second, Lee’s contribution to the creation of characters has been challenged repeatedly by the people he worked with - this should be included in the article as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.233.44 (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

For listing all the characters he helped create, I request limiting to the most famous ones. It makes the article tighter. For example, write “ he co-created numerous popular fictional characters, including superheroes Spider-Man, the X-Men, Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four, Black Panther among others. 172.91.244.70 (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I'm assuming you're talking about the characters listed in the lead, which is already limited. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:36, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Ethnicity: Romanian Jew (Stan Lee's parents were romanian jews) The Corector Dude (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 00:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Ethnicity: Romanian Jew (Both parents were romanian jews. For confirmation search Jack Lieber and Celia Lieber born place. Or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Lee , Personal Life, Early Life)The Corector Dude (talk) 01:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Heading Legal Concerns, subheading Intellectual Property, first sentence: Lee filed a US$1 billionlawsuit against POW! in May 2018... should read Lee filed a US$1 billion lawsuit against POW! in May 2018... Please insert space between 'billion' and 'lawsuit' --MeriKen (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

What's with the Legal concerns heading? It only has "Lee engaged in several legal actions in his later years." Is this really necessary? Noaaah (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

That's an H2 header that leads into a couple H3 subsections (the IP, the elder abuse, etc.) Completely fair to have a top level heading to group those. --Masem (t) 14:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Change "American" to "Jewish-American" 2A0D:6FC0:30E:E700:85A2:C217:4EE8:C987 (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done We avoid including ethnicity in the lede as this can be a complex issue. --Masem (t) 22:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

In the “later life and death” section it mentions that he retired from convention appearances in 2017, however he was at New Orleans Wizard World Comic Con signing autographs and doing photo ops in January of 2018. Mzimmerle (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 14 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alewi020.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed there is no mention of A Trick of Light, one of the last things Lee worked on before he died. Here’s an article in Wired about it:[7]. Thriley (talk) 18:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

[8] 192.107.137.242 (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not an acceptable source under Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't even claim to be objective, it cites few sources, and most of those it does cite are not acceptable sources themselves. More importantly, the entire "Kirby did it all" conspiracy theory has been disproven in multiple ways by multiple people. Even the notoriously reclusive Steve Ditko, no fan of Stan Lee, broke a 20-year silence to contradict these claims. Historydude58 (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're the ones who say "Jack Kirby did it all" as a form of hyperbolic rejection. Stan Lee did a lot, much of which his critics, myself included, think was bad. --69.142.88.64 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

and it would be more appropriate to call him a "punch-up writer" at best. --69.142.88.64 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Currently this section contains only the text "Lee engaged in several legal actions in his later years."

Well whoopty shit. Clearly that isn't encyclopedic. 23.84.128.179 (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Sexual misconduct lawsuit should be included. MisfitBlitz (talk) 05:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

There are clearly numerous sub-headers detailing the legal concerns. If anything needs additions, please feel free to contribute and provide a WP:Reliable source and comply with WP:BLP. Trailblazer101 (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)