Talk:Michael Netzer

Conflict of interest tag

This article was written almost entirely by the subject himself. It is non-neutral, has original research, and is written in a hagiographic tone. --Tenebrae 06:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So, I've made a first pass at trying to gently bring this article into Wikipedia tone and style. I respect Michael as an artist and a Wiki-colleague, and I'm trying to do justice to both his notable life and career and Wikipedia neutrality and other guidelines and policies. Honest-to-God, as corny as that sounds. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While no great fan of {{COI}} it does seem needed here, however, we could do with fixing the problems and removing it as soon as we can. There are a number of statements that require sourcing but still might conflict with WP:BLP (like the insanity claim and possible mentions of legal proceedings without solid sources). There are a number of interviews that can probably help but can't just be put in the reference section - they need to be footnoted to support statements made. Also there seem too many links to the one site and the whole Webography needs attention as well as do all sorts of WP:NPOV statements. I've flagged this as needing attention and will go through in more detail later - we should be able to sort out any issues but if anyone has any specific areas of concern then drop them in here and we'll try and address them too. (Emperor (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC))

I've been through and tweaked some areas, editing to avoid mentioning too many personal details involving third parties per WP:BLP, and tried to write more neutrally. I removed the webography section, that appears to breach external link guidance. Hiding T 14:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

A big improvement - I suppose the main problem was that while well written it didn't strike me as being very encyclopaedic.

Anyone spotted anything else that needs work? The one still niggling me is "which led his colleagues to often cite his behavior as messianic and indicative of insanity." I assume as it is still in that Michael is OK with this but I feel it really violates WP:BLP and I'd prefer it if we at least had a quote to cover this. I suspect I'd be best removing it and replace it with "which led his colleagues to be concerned about his behavior" but even then it needed sourcing, hwoever, it would be in a for that doesn't warrant removal.

On the broader note of improving the article I suspect the next step is a bibliography - the section on his most recent work is getting a little "listy" with the string of titles he has worked on and it'd be better to leave a few solid examples in there and put the rest of his work in a bibliography.

Any other comments? I'd like to get the {{COI}} removed and we can use more specific tags to address any other lesser concerns there may be. (Emperor (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

It is a privilege to work with you two. Again, as corny as that sounds. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Much gratitude to this fabulous trio. The article needed outside intervention and the combined effort has shed some light, for me, on the tenets of encyclopedic writing. Regarding Emperor's concern about the insanity claim, I'd first say that this was the widespread perception in the comics community of the late 1970's and I understood it to be exactly what it is, a matter of perception and not necessarily indicative of the absolute reality of my condition. However, I also understand that to venture into the direction I did back then, that this would become part of how I'm perceived in the industry and there'd be little I could do about it. As a result, I found that embracing this notion and moving on, was a little more preferable than appearing to attempt to deny it, especially in the face of the many stories and rumors that have been circulated about me since. That said, perhaps the word "eccentric" might soften the rough edges of the phrase. At any rate, here are two citations for it:

• The Comics Journal *72, May, 1982 Listing, Cover. Interview with Neal Adams on the debut of Ms. Mystic #1. Adams was asked about my involvement in the book and he said, roughly: "Mike did some layouts on the book before he went off the deep end and disappeared".
• Adelaide Comics and Books, interview with Joe Rubinstein. "He chain smoked pot and God knows what other substances he smoked and lost his mind. He got delusional and I’m not sure if he thought he was Jesus or Jesus’ prophet. If you asked Mike a question it was halting in the way he spoke because he had to get every word just right because he knew it was going to be in the next testament that God wrote....I mean, maybe they… we know they called Jesus crazy so I’m hesitant to say that Mike has lost his mind because I’m not agreeing with what he’s saying, but I’m sure not agreeing with what he’s saying. I try not to judge him but I haven’t joined the Apostles."

Regarding the outcome of the lawsuit with Neal. Joe Rubinstein also mentions it in the interview above, but because Neal never cited the reason for the case being dismissed and no journalists were present during the proceedings, the primary verification of it lies in the Federal District Court of NY files citing the decision, which is accessible to the public. but I did recently find this Alas V. DC document which cites the case and verifies the Statute of Limitations decision:

• UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, CHARLES ATLAS, LTD., Plaintiff, - against - DC COMICS, INC., Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER, 99 Civ. 4389 (NRB), NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Here are relevant quotations:

"Plaintiff, citing to the case Netzer v. Continuity Graphic Associates, Inc., 963 F.Supp. 1308, 1323 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), argues that the statute of limitations should only begin to toll "when plaintiff first learned of the wrong." Under that theory, Atlas argues that the statute of limitations should have commenced in January, 1998 when plaintiff received the e-mail from Ken Kneisel allegedly informing plaintiff of the infringement. However, plaintiff's reliance on Netzer is unavailing."

"In Netzer, the plaintiff was an individual person who "left the United States for the Middle East" in 1981, "suffered a number of personal difficulties," and "returned to the United States in 1990." Id. at 1313-14. The publication that was alleged to have infringed his copyright and trademark rights was a comic book published by a small independent publisher that folded within ten years. Id. at 1312. The court found that under these circumstances, the two-year delay between publication and notice fell into the category of when a "reasonably diligent plaintiff would have been put on inquiry." Id. at 1315."

"In contrast, Atlas is a "phenomenally successful" New York corporation with customers "from every continent except Antarctica." Hogue Aff. ¶¶ 11-12; Comp. ¶ 4. The allegedly infringing material was a nationwide mass-market publication by DC Comics, the "industry leader." Netzer, 963 F.Supp. at 1313. More importantly, unlike the individual plaintiff in Netzer, Atlas was "a large advertiser in DC comic books, even at the time that the infringing work appeared." Hogue Aff. ¶ 5. Atlas cannot now, as a matter of law, profess ignorance of the publication of the very comic books in which it has placed millions of dollars of advertising over several decades. Id. ¶ 12. A "reasonably diligent plaintiff would have been put on inquiry" upon Doom Patrol No. 42's publication in 1991.8"

"7 The applicable statute of limitations for plaintiff's second cause of action, trademark dilution under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §1125(c)(i), is three years. DeMedici v. Lorenzo DeMedici, Inc., 101 A.D.2d 719, 720, 475 N.Y.S.2d 391, 392-93 (1st Dep't 1984). Likewise, the statute of limitations for violation of New York's Anti-Dilution Statute, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 360-1 (then § 368-d), is three years. Id. The statute of limitations for deceptive trade practices under New York Gen. Bus. Law § 349 is also three years. Netzer v. Continuity Graphics Assocs., 963 F.Supp. 1308, 1323 (S.D.N.Y. 1997); N.Y.C.P.L.R. § 214(2)."

Many thanks again for the good spirit, I'll pitch in with the bibliography and other needed citations within the next few days. MichaelNetzer (talk) 19:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this. That Rubinstein interview is even more strongly worded than the entry is now and he worked closely with you for a long time. It is tricky to know how to handle that - the least controversial way would be to tone it down to a discussion of widely held concerns about your behaviour and provide the source so those interested can read on. It does lose some of the impact, which may be a good or a bad thing (it could tone down the importance, I suppose). I think the best move for now would be to tone that down a bit and then if anyone thinks it should be more strongly worded we can kick that around a bit more - the important thing for now is getting things sourced and getting rid of the COI template.

On that front I think we are pretty much there. I've removed the flag from immediate attention from the Projects header and will leave it a day or so to see if anyone raises any other issues that need to be addressed. If not then I'll remove the COI template - anything else should be fairly minor and we can deal with it in the more conventional ways. (Emperor (talk) 23:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC))

I share your sentiment on COI in that Wikipedia policy doesn't absolutely forbid it, rather asks that it be done diligently and with care. In that spirit, I've softened the phrase and added even more sources to give a wider perspective of the perception of craziness. I believe this maintains the due impact without sounding too harsh. I've also placed the missing citations on the rest of the article, updated the ending with pertinent new items, including necessary citations... and completed the bibliography. This should at least provide material needed to smooth out the rough edges in hopes of removing the tag. Thanks again and best wishes to everyone involved. MichaelNetzer (talk) 07:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[deindent] OK I have been through and made some minor changes [1]. I toned down the claim for craziness (I know Michael is OK with it and the sources are a lot more strongly worded, but I think we'll keep the claims of actual craziness for those with diagnosed medical conditions - not folks who think they can make the world a better place ;) ) and just took the edge off a few things (saying someone worked on a host of characters and that a comic heralded a new age of a country's comics could pass in articles without WP:NPOV/WP:COI issues but we have to be a bit stricter). Everything else was pretty minor - I like to try and avoid "listiness" in a biography when describing what someone has worked on (the bibliography can go into more depth on this) and I wanted to flag his work on the Martian Manhunter series as it helps explain and foreshadows the point later on about the campaign to save him.

So all pretty small changes and, while I'd want to check through some of those sources as I note some are blogs (so might need removing and changing), I'd be happy to remove the COI banner from the top of the page, and if there are further concerns we can use more specific (and helpful) tags, like {{fact}}, to address the problems. Tenebrae and Hiding, any other thoughts? (Emperor (talk) 14:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC))

File:Nasser Batman.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nasser Batman.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Lou Fine

Wonderful of you to draw and add that! Let's hear it for the forgotten '40s guys. With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 05:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Long live the forgotten 40's guys. Lou Fine accompanied my early years at Continuity, having been a sort of progenitor of Neal's style, who also filled in for Fine on some strips in his early career. Two things we have in common; he was stricken with Polio in his leg and he also had a relatively brief comics career. I've had this on my mind for a while now. If you have a list of priorities for needed creator portraits, let me know here or elsewhere and I'll also make them a priority. Many thanks. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Feldstein

Nice Feldstein fix... and a beautiful portrait! Pepso2 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Nice to have the good collaboration that made it easier and polished the fix. Thank you. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits

The reference to "NRG" never stated a "birth name". The article is full of inconsistencies with other references about name and family history; a sloppy transcription of the original interview. For the record, the official birth name on the certificate is "Michael Mansour Nasser" but there's no available reference for it. As a child in Lebanon, I was known as "Mansour Nasser-a-din" in Arabic but that was never an official name or a birth name. Notice the journalistic inconsistencies of this article with other biographies and note that the only ref that states a "birth name" is Refname-Shuki (https://web.archive.org/web/20110721140937/http://www.shofarnews.co.il/site/ARDetile.asp?id=7885) which states it as "Mike Nasser". MichaelNetzer (talk) 09:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:79.180.41.81 (talk)‎: You've made an edit only based on my statement here, which is a PRIMARY SOURCE without citing a RELIABLE SECONDARY SOURCE. That I said it on a WP talk page does not make it reliable information. This is why I noted that no such sources exist for my birth name and thus cannot be used until one is procured and presented. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines for NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and the relevant links in that page. All WP content needs to follow this rule. MichaelNetzer (talk) 10:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michael Netzer. 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/20141219022424/http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/front-page-comic-news/43699-mike-netzer-vs-dc-comics-3.html to http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/front-page-comic-news/43699-mike-netzer-vs-dc-comics-3.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141219021932/http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/front-page-comic-news/44685-mike-netzer-burns-original-superman-art-appease-bleeding-cool-message-board-posters.html to http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/front-page-comic-news/44685-mike-netzer-burns-original-superman-art-appease-bleeding-cool-message-board-posters.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130611013021/http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/front-page-comic-news/70671-don-mcgregor-vs-dynamite-over-lady-rawhide.html to http://www.bleedingcool.com/forums/front-page-comic-news/70671-don-mcgregor-vs-dynamite-over-lady-rawhide.html

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) 06:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)