|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to . If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Arts and Entertainment||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Comics / Creators / United States||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
Passive voice, and a larger issue
per [], "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable."
- It has been announced that Adams would take over as the new artist on All Star Batman and Robin after Frank Miller and Jim Lee finish their run on the series.
Sentences like the that show up too frequently in the comics articles, and appear either as if the promotional departments of comic-book companies are using Wiki to plug new projects, or passionate fans are tossing in news and gossip items, which may or may not be of encyclopedic weight.
In any case, "It has been announced" ... by whom? by what? where? Can this be cited? Is it from a news column or a gossip column? These are important distinctions to make and reasonable questions to ask regarding content being put into an encyclopedia. - Tenebrae 10:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes that's right Neal Adams has nothing better to do than come here and plug his book. You idiot. Hate to tell you hall monitors, but Wikipedia isn't half as important as you think it is.
Well, your voice isn't passive when it comes to throwing insults.
Neal Adams doesn't have to plug anything. Promotional departments do. That's what they're paid for. I did mention that. I'm sorry you apparently skimmed and didn't read that before losing your temper.
Wikipedia is the 19th most visited site on the Web, and is the cover story of this week's Village Voice. -- Tenebrae 00:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Lois Lane #80 cover
Does not look like an Adams cover to me (I think the GCBDB got this one wrong)...there are tons of better 60s DC covers by Adams that would be more representative.Stationwagontodd 16:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
- Good eye. According to the Neal Adams Checklist at the artist's own site -- which I should have checked with for secondary confirmation on what, in retrospect, isn't instantly recognizable as Neal -- it was only inked by Adams, and penciled by Curt Swan (http://www.nealadams.com/checklist.html). I'll notify GCD and remove the image. -- Tenebrae 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, mate...Superman's musculature did have a bit of an Adams look to it, Neal being the inker explains that. Interesting, I don't recall ever seeing any Swan/Adams collaborations in the past. Stationwagontodd 15:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I think there should be a larger section on Neal's theories about his new model of the universe.
Oh man, yes! Listen to him being interviewed: http://www.theskepticsguide.org/skepticsguide/podcastinfo.asp?pid=51 He's hilariously crazy! --Havermayer 05:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- After listening to the podcast interview, it seems to me like the interviewers spent a lot of effort to emotionally express their disbelief rather than use facts in their arguments; using terms like 'that's bad science' or 'that's just not true', whereas Adams gave a lot of information that genuinely makes me think. Note, I disagree that the earth must be hollow, but these anomalies, like size and speed of Tyrannosaur compared to its bone structure, are still anomalies to explain. The challenge here is to provide a theory consistent with all the facts. -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 09:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- I remember this podcast differently. I don't think the SGU crew simply dismissed NA's points in the manner you describe. But regarding the science see the follow on emails: http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?s=neal+adams Mindme (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason they said things like, 'that's bad science', and 'that's just not true', was because the BS that Neal was spouting WAS bad science and it WAS simply NOT true. Whether this was from Neal being a liar or just being batshit insane, your guess is as good as mine, but I'd say some combination of the two. --Zhuul
You guys in wikipedia are up to your usual bad practices. You want to state his theory is wrong. That is a conclusion you can't make. You can only fairly report that he has a theory and what it is. You should not make assertions about whether it is good or bad science or not. You dont have the facts to do this. I doubt if you know the difference. So just mind your own business and don't make conclusions or conclusive statements about this. For example the earth's rotation is slowing down which is consistent with the expanding earth model. But in any event you probably can not make any conclusion about this one way or other since the tidal effect of the moon is involved and other factors as well which may or may not have to be changed. This is an interesting idea that should be thought about and not discarded as is usually the case, since scientists are basically fans of pet theories which are usually wrong. This impeeds progress. We need ideas and not scientific stasis.188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- 184.108.40.206 there are very good logical, scientific, and evidence based reasons to reject Neal's hypothesis. See the URL I posted above. Neal has to hand wave away a lot of observations and experimental data that DIRECTLY contradict his claims. He has to hand wave away multiple lines of evidence from entirely different fields of science (physics, geology, paleontology, anatomy, etc.) that all point to conclusions very, very different from Neal's. So what his idea is consistent with one observation? It's not consistent with 98 others. I could make up any just so story to explain anything. God did it, is a great one. Look, what distinguishes a good theory from a just so story is a theory that makes (correct) predictions. The only prediction I ever saw Neal make (as regards his idea) was a web page he posted that an ESA probe would crash on the moon and make it ring like a bell. When this did not happen, Neal simply deleted the web page with his prediction, instead of admitting results did not support his idea's prediction. One of the hallmarks of good science Neal totally crapped on. So, please, don't lecture us about science. Talk to Neal first. Mmmmkay? Mindme (talk) 17:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
No image in introduction
There is a blank white space at the beginning of this article. Where's the image?
WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required
This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Done. The whole biography is thin on references - I'll have to return to this after the B-class assessments are done and I'll flag everything that needs a source but in the meantime throwing some references in there to support statements isn't going to hurt the article. (Emperor (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC))
Re: Rip Kirby
The only mention I can find is at a sales site for the retailer Ken Pierce Books, here, from which an uncited sentence in the Wikipedia Rip Kirby article was lifted. Commercial sales sites are disallowed as Wikipedia references, and since Adams himself does not mentions Rip Kirby, and the only source is a retailer who wants to sell Rip Kirby books and does not cite his own source for this information, then this claim does not reach the threshold of encyclopedic veracity. Accordingly, I have removed the Adams claim. -- Tenebrae (talk) 02:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Date of birth
Objection to section on science
user:Seankpat: If you have an objection to Adams' science project in his WP biography, you must amend it according to Wikipedia policy. You removed the entire section twice which was essentially vandalism. Now you've inserted WP:Original research which is unsourced. Wikipedia is not a science journal. Its biographies are inclusive of the sum knowledge about an individual. It is not for personal unreferenced opinions such as you inserted. The section already states his theory is rejected by mainstream science. If you have anything to add, it must be referenced with WP:reliable sources and comply with WP:Due weight. --MichaelNetzer (talk) 12:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)