Talk:Mockingbird (Marvel Comics)

Please go to

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.

I changed the sentence that said that "October 12th" was the date Mockingbird miscarried. Its is actually the date they guessed that their child would have been born. So I've added a couple sentences to reflect that. 74.12.144.178 00:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read Astonishing Tales #6 last night, and Bobbi Morse, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. was nowhere to be found. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 13:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to head off any possible complaints about the changes I made to the first appearance and creator credits in the article here is some of my reasoning:

First off the first appearance: as the article points out the character that eventually becomes Mockingbird appears for the first time, albeit unrecognizably, in Astonishing Tales #6. The previous claim that she first appeared in Astonishing Tales #12 seems to be based on two misapprehensions –

1. That it is the appearance that was created first. This may be true as the “Man-Thing!” story in that issue was actually produced much earlier then the rest of the issue as it was intended for the unpublished version of Savage Tales #2. It should not matter though as generally the first published appearance is what is meant by “first appearance”. For instance Superman may have been a newspaper strip proposal before he appeared in Action Comics #1, but publishing that newspaper strip proposal today would not make the newer comic his “first appearance”. 2. That this is the first time that she is identified as “Barbara Morse” and so starts to gain significant traits of the character. This too is flawed for several reasons. First she appears as “Barbara” in earlier stories so the exact point where Thomas and co. decided to combine these characters is unclear. Also the “Doctor Barbara Morse” in Astonishing Tales #12 is hardly the finished version of the character, as she has a ways to develop before becoming the “Mockingbird” we recognise her today.

As such it is clear in these early years the character was in constant state of development and so, although she looks and acts very differently than she would later, Astonishing Tales #6 is the character’s first appearance.

For the same reasons I have changed the way that “creator” credits are assigned for the character. A survey of her history clearly indicates that this is a character who has been “developed” over long periods rather than “created” at a single definable point. Over the years significant contributions to the character have been made by

Finally, the superherobox only allows for “creators” to be listed so I found it necessary to list all the names above, even though - as I’ve said - I think it is more appropriate to say that the character has been “developed” rather than “created”. Hueysheridan (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brings up a point, that the article is called "Mockingbird (Marvel Comics)," rather than "Barbara Morse" or something along that line which is what that long list of creators applies to. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but "Mockingbird" is, by far I would say, what the character is best known as. I guess redirects for "Bobbi Morse", "Agent19" and "Huntress (Marvel Comics)" ("Barbara Morse" redirects here already) could be created though. Hueysheridan (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes redirects is the way - we tend to name the character as they are best known and only lapse back to their actual name if it is a grey area. Anyway it is always open for debate if anyone feels strongly about it (so it isn't set in stone) although it'd be best to do as a move request to open it out to other editors. (Emperor (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Good work - if only all articles could be kicked up a notch like this. A few things:

• "publication history" is the best name for the main section
• The creators credit does go to those who actually created the character, we can't go adding credits into the infobox for people who've helped develop the character as this would get out of hand and very quickly verge into
  WP:OR
  , so best avoided. A good publication history will flag those who have helped develop the character.
• Good call on using full comics citations, I suspect your life would be made easier by using {{cite comic}} though as it sorts out all the formatting for you, plus it really helps standardise how it appears (and allows any adjustments to be made centrally - even just updating this article by hand would be a pain).
• "powers and abilities" is always a potential pitfall for an article and this is no exception
• There are a couple of places that I feel need a source to stop it from appearing as unsourced opinion/speculation - the dropping of the Huntress alias because it was in heavy use at DC and the W.C.A acronym being chosen as a wink towards the West Coast Avengers.

So it is shaping up nicely - my changes address the first couple of points (they are there more as an explanation for my edits) and it is the last two that are problematic and need addressing. Other than those a quick run through shows this is a hair away from getting a B - when those are addressed I'll do a more thorough run through and flag any minor points that might need a source and then once those are addressed we can start on the climb towards GA!! (Emperor (talk) 18:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I also agree about the first appearance (and so does Marvel so my agreement does count for much when faced with that!) - I've skimmed through the issues and that is indeed the character. However, there seems to be a story here that has to be winkled out - it seems like Wein/Adams might have created the character and she was introduced in Astonishing Tales #6 to lay the groundwork for the appearance in AT #12. No way I can prove that at the moment but it is worth investigating - I'd suggest punting it over to Comic Book Legends Revealed [1] along the lines of "Was Marvel's Mockingbird created by Wein/Adams or Conway/Smith?" If you don't want to then I'd be up for it (I have a few points that need clarifying and that seems the best way). (Emperor (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to write your thoughts Emperor, feedback is always good and its nice to know that your work gets noticed. To address your points:

• I just used history as that is what I though best described the content. "Publication history" suggests a narrow focus, which I don't think is justified. I also don't want someone to think that the page needs a "fictional character biography" - I hate those things. I respect your superior experience in these matters though.
• As above I'll defer to you, though I'll reiterate that I'm uncomfortable with giving just two people credit for creating this character. The girl in Conway and Smith's story has none of the characteristics of Mockingbird as she exists today (besides her gender); In fact she is actively dissimilar in major ways!. Seems like we are trying to fix a square peg into a round hole here. Maybe filling in the creator box with "N/A see pub history" or something like that is more appropriate?
• I only noticed that those citation shortcut existed as I was finishing up my edit. I didnt have the heart to go back and rejig each one. Thanks for doing it for the links though!
• "powers and abilities" - this is the only part of the article that I left untouched. I'm not a fan of the section honestly, but I didnt want to unilaterally junk it as I'm not familiar with current attitudes around here about that kinda stuff. I certainly was not going to try and find citations for all of it! if you think it's dodgy then please get rid of it.
• On the "Huntress" and "WCA" points - is it really necessary to find citations for such obvious inferences? I don't see that these interpretation could be controversial. I also don't know of any third party articles on this character, so finding a way to source this stuff could be impossible. I think it is important to include these points though and I feel that the article would be missing something without them. One solution I guess would be to just rephrase the sentences so that rather than being explained the facts suggest themselves, though that seems like a weaselly way out to me (and I'm sure theres some WP: written policy against it somewhere)
• On your final point - I honestly cant see any merit to the idea that Wein and Adams really created this character. There is no way that Conway intended for his character to be Wein's "Barbara Morse". The speech pattern, appearance and hint of psychic powers are just too way off. Its very possible that Roy Thomas decided to combine the characters before #12 - the fact that she becomes blonde in #8 seems to have no other explanation, but I'm not sure that matters much and as you write there is as yet no definitive source on when or why these decisions were made. As it stands now the article lays out the facts in a (hopefully) impartial way, making it clear when each parts of or change to the character were intro'd, so a reasonable reader can make their own judgments.
• Funny you should suggest that I contact CSBG, I actually e-mailed Brian Cronin about the page after I did the first big edit. But I suggested that it was good material for his "Foundation Deep" column (about characters with complex, retcon-filled backstories) rather than Urban Legends. We'll see if he uses it. Hueysheridan (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...I'll reiterate that I'm uncomfortable with giving just two people credit for creating this character.

Some of those people you had included would be analogous to putting John Byrne (if not Mort Weisinger, Edmond Hamilton, Curt Swan, etc.) in the creator slot with Siegel & Shuster in the Superman infobox, I would think. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. If one of those creators had actually come up with the Superman concept, while Siegel and Shuster had just debuted a newspaper reporter character who didnt even resemble Clark Kent, then the situation would be analogous. Or to put it another way - do you think that Stan Lee and Steve Ditko created Jessica Jones? she did make her earliest appearance in one of their stories. Hueysheridan (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Jessica Jones (the intro to her article cited very recent comics, which I've never read), so I'll have to recuse myself there. Certainly Goodwin as editor of the one story with Morse in her Huntress persona is on the same level as Mort Weisinger's involvement with the creations of the Phantom Zone, Kandor, the Arctic-located Fortress of Solitude and so much more of the Superman mythos, and probably a lower level. And does whoever turned

Hmm I suspect that we are talking in circles here and are unlikely to convince each other, but I'll try and tackle a few of your points anyway. The Phantom Zone, Fortress, etc are separate, supporting concepts around Superman - it seems like they are not comparable to the various evolutions of Mockingbird we are dealing with here. The Dick Grayson example is better - if the wiki article was about "Nightwing" then wouldn't Wolfman and Perez merit some mention as creators? (there is a Nightwing article but it seems to succesfully avoid having to name any "creators" for the Dick Grayson version, which is what I'm suggesting we do here as well). You would hardly credit Kane, Finger and Sprang as creators of Nightwing would you? (I think I may have actually seen a "created by Wolfman and Perez" credit in an early appearance by the character!)

I should point out though that I don't think Grayson is a perfect parallel with Mockingbird anyway. It is clear from Gruenwald's comments in MTU #95 that the basic concept of Mockingbird was created separately years earlier and (as seems to be a common occurrence with this character) Morse was just slotted in to the role. Hueysheridan (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a partial bibliography and it was promptly deleted because it was "incomplete and unnecessary". While I have to agree that it was incomplete, I think it would be extremely useful to both collectors and casual fans.Davelecave (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@65.126.152.254:"Whatever writer Gerry Conway’s original ideas were for this character, subsequent creators developed her to such a degree that she is unrecognisable as this earlier figure. In particular, no later story makes reference to any psychic abilities that these quotes might describe."

Gerry Conway's original ideas were dropped. Subsequent creators developed her to such a degree that she is unrecognisable as this earlier figure. And no later story makes reference to any psychic abilities. All of that is fact and can easily be seen by reading through the article and checking the other sources.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. If you have sources that explicitly states the "Gerry Conway's ideas were dropped" (implying a certain level of disrespect), or that the figure was "unrecognizable" as the original, then we are on solid, level ground. If not, its an evaluative statement, and not allowed (as per

WP:OR). - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, we could change the wording from "dropped" to "not followed up on," if you like but, as for a "source..." we're not going to list every single appearance the character has made since in order to validate a fact (not original research) that the psychic abilities were never mentioned again by subsequent writers.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wait... the word "dropped" isn't even used (which completely invalidates your argument since it now "implies" nothing).Cebr1979 (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Mockingbird (Marvel Comics). 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/20130927115401/http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=41551 to http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=41551
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://marvel.com/news/tv/24095/declassifying_marvels_agents_of_shield_aftershocks
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://variety.com/2015/tv/news/agents-of-shield-promotes-adrianne-palicki-to-series-regular-1201434285/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://collider.com/comic-con-marvel-tv-aka-jessica-jones-hulk-cloak-and-dagger/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/adrianne-palicki-nick-blood-star-816692

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.

• 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) 21:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]