Talk:Rawhide Kid

References in Slap Leather

Having just read Rawhide Kid: Slap Leather, I noticed that it contains many more or less subtle references to other works and persons, fictional and otherwise. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of American Western literature, 19th century people and Marvel Comics could add something about this. 83.177.66.212 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rawhide99.jpg

Image:Rawhide99.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 other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rawhide100.jpg

Image:Rawhide100.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 other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Explicit Content

I have heard that, despite being published under the Max Comics banner, Slap Leather was supposedly tame and family friendly. Is this true, or is it as explicit as most other Max titles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Editor 155 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There was absolutely nothing explicit about the content. The only nudity was VERY partial, when the Kid was doing sit-ups at his camp--in the then-approved right-angle version, rather than modern crunches (SOMEbody on staff knew exercise history)--in underwear or possibly trousers, in any case stripped to the waist.

Nor was he a stereotypical homosexual, as the article currently asserts. So far as I remember, the only thing stereotypical was that everyone found him astonishingly well-dressed. I couldn't see it myself, but that's what various characters kept saying.

So about as family friendly as you can get, in an era when the Russian state and the Utah State legislature believe that letting teenagers know there are such people as homosexuals is family unfriendly. GeorgeTSLC (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

According to this critique, there was no nudity, sex, kissing or even explicit admissions by the character that he was gay.

Also, please keep relevant discussions in one section. There is no reason for a separate section just for one post made (I presume) in response to a post above it, let alone a Level 1 section. Nightscream (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reliability of Cracked and David Johnson

There is an editorial dispute over whether Cracked (the former humor magazine turned website) can be cited as a source. The dispute began as follows:

• On July 2 I added a mention of David Johnson's critique of the gay version of the character from an article in Cracked.
• On July 5 Otto4711 reverted it, saying in his edit summary "less-than-notable author from less-than-notable blog".
• User:24.148.0.83 reverted that, saying, "I disagree, and trust Nightscream's judgment".
• Otto4711 again removed the content, saying, "non-notable blog, non-notable writer."
• I then reverted Otto4711's revert, pointing out that "Cracked is not a "non-notable blog", it's a humor magazine published from 1958-2007, and which converted to a website, and pointed out that the fact that the term "Cracked" is wikilinked to that publication's Wikipedia article would've alerted any editor to this fact.
• Otto4711 again reverted the article, again asserting, "non-notable review from non-notable reviewer posted to non-notable humor website".

As I stated earlier, Cracked is only not a "non-notable blog", it's not even a blog at all. It's a website that is the current incarnation of a magazine that was first published in 1958, and published until 2007. Cracked was an imitator of Mad magazine, and its creators were some who also worked for Mad. Because notability is required for a topic to have its own Wikipedia article, then Cracked is indeed notable as a question of Wikipedia policy, because it has a Wikipedia article that is sourced to publications like The Comics Journal, The Washington Post, and Entertainment Weekly and Salon.com. This is also beside the point, because sources do not require "notability". Notability is for article topics. Sources, on the other hand, only have to have reliability. Because Cracked is a humor magazine that satirizes aspects of pop culture, including comic books, that is all that is required for it to regarded as a reliable source for a comic book article. The fact that it also has notability isn't required, but certainly doesn't hurt. Because of this, it is perfectly reasonable to be cited. It is not necessary for the author and the article to also be notable, a standard that no one I've observed has ever used or mention as a legitimate extension of WP:RS. (Indeed, what exactly is a "notable review"?) Roger Ebert, for example, is both notable and a reliable source for information on films. Does that mean that a lesser-known Chicago Sun-Times critic without his own Wikipedia article could not be used? Of course not. That is because while both Ebert and the Sun-Times are reliable, does not mean that the Sun-Times does not confer reliability upon its content by itself. An author, publication or website may be reliable, but it is not necessary for all three to be so.

If you can refute this directly, Otto, then please do so. But merely reverting in knee-jerk fashion, and saying, "non-notable" over and over in your edit summary, without explaining why my argument for Cracked's notability is flawed, does not accomplish this. Thoughts? :-)

Reliable, per above. Nightscream (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not up to speed on this discussion. But, Cracked changing hand from an old media magazine to a web centric media...whatever...is notable. I remember quite a few articles on that. To be clear, I was contacted on my talk page about this discussion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Cracked appears to be notable to me - I'm not sure where the challenge to notability is coming from. BOZ (talk) 03:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• OF course cracked could be cited as a source where appropriate, it's a legitimate well-known comedic media outlet. Common sense does not require a blanket ban.--Milowent (talk) 04:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• I was also contacted. Looking up some information on Cracked.com, it's clearly well-known, has a history of being a reliable resource (print and otherwise) for satire of pop culture, and the website's content has at least an executive and associate editor. In addition, its content is regulated by a series of legal guidelines, which, to me, says that it fits as a reliable source. There's no reason for why commentary from this site would be equivalent to some random individual writing in their personal blog. Looking at the content of the specific reference, I see it as being equivalent to other articles, such as superhero/hot superheroine countdowns from Wizard, Maxim, CBR, or IGN.Luminum (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Some random guy said bad things about a comic book mini-series in a web article years after the fact. So what? Does he have any reputation as a cultural critic? As a comics critic? As a commentator of note on any subject whatsoever? David Johnson, AKA ezeggz, has had a whopping two articles published by Cracked.com, a site which solicits submissions from anyone who stumbles by. We aren't talking Roger Ebert here. We aren't even talking Leonard Maltin. He's not "David Johnson of Cracked" as the edit asserts. He's "David Johnson who apparently submitted some material to an article incubator and got the Cracked website to post it". It's about one step above an IMDB review. Otto4711 (talk) 11:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Not reliable. I agree with Otto4711. From page 987 of the sign-up-as-a-Cracked-contributor forum it seems that Cracked has many thousands of contributors. I think that the self-published sources guideline applies here. Some of the material at Cracked may be reliable, but only if the specific authors have established themselves as an authority on the subject by being published in mainstream reliable sources. -- John of Reading (talk) 12:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
• Well to be honest I am not an expert on magazine type information but still it seems notable enough to me. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

• I was not using "notable" in the sense of "meets WP:GNG." I was using it in the sense of "worthwhile to note" based on the author's complete lack of reputation as a critic or commentator as well as the lack of any reputation of Cracked.com as a repository of critical thinking. Otto4711 (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Its a tricky one, Cracked is notable but David Johnson doesn't seem to have any form for writing on comics before [1] and I can't find information on him writing on the medium elsewhere. The problem is, if he isn't an expert, then the list is going to be pretty shallow and only pick obvious examples. I am unsure what the editorial process is over there or if something on Cracked is intrinsically notable. The link to the article should help people make their mind up about how authoritative the information is. As it stands it seems decidedly iffy, but if someone could turn up information on him writing elsewhere or on Cracked's publication policy then it might sway the decision. (Emperor (talk) 02:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC))

I'd have to go with Otto, John and Emperor on this. I agree with them, and with Nightscream as well, that Cracked is a notable magazine; these types of cultural-critique lists are common in magazines of all sorts, and a legitimate way of presenting analytic information in a popular-press form. The question then becomes whether the author meets encyclopedic standards.

This particular part of the site doesn't seem like a paid, professional writer, but that in and of itself doesn't disqualify him — scientists' academic articles in scholarly journals or on university websites likewise might not be paid pieces.

I think it hinges, then, on two things: 1) the author's reputation, or lack thereof, in the field; and 2) whether the piece was professionally edited or just posted with only cursory oversight. If there's no evidence of one or the other — reputation and professional editing — I would disallow it as essentially a forum posting. The reasoning is this: A reputable author could post on a forum posting, where there is no editing, and it would still be disallowed. But a new author, even one writing for free, would seem allowable if he went through a vetting process, i.e., professional editing.

So there's the question: Is there any way to prove whether the piece was professionally edited, or just posted with only cursory oversight? --Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Should we take it to RSN? Nightscream (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality

I've read that the character was never depicted as having a love interest, but I don't recall where. Is this the case? I have only one issue of the original series, and it's in storage.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, one of the sources about the gay version said he didn't really have an object of affection. Since the original version had 150 odd issues, I imagine he did all sorts of things, including having at least a nominal love interest for at least one issue. -Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

He got engaged in Rawhide Kid #98, but his fiance died the same issue. 86.180.162.215 (talk) 16:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The character was a wanderer who never hung around anywhere for long. But there are several 1960s stories where he and/or a woman fall for each other, though usually something crops up that prevents it lasting. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rawhide Kid. 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/20060905050643/http://www.gayleague.com/gay/characters/display.php?id=164 to http://www.gayleague.com/gay/characters/display.php?id=164

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)