![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Would it be worth a section on public domain characters and titles? [1] (Emperor 03:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Image:StrangeTales114 detail.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) 06:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article, about an important period in the history of American comic books, starts out with a strong intro, and then just meanders with received wisdom and no concrete references. It's too significant a topic to leave fallow. Most of the scholarship on the Golden Age of Comics probably appears in books rather than websites, judging from a quick Google search. Many of my books are in storage; a few are not. I'd like to ask my fellow editors to dig out their own and help bring this important article up to speed. With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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) 16:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As this B-Class article has yet to receive a review, it has been rated as C-Class. If you disagree and would like to request an assesment, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and list the article. Hiding T 14:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article is important to the project so we need to push it on to a B and beyond. If you have any good sources (that you aren't going to add now) then drop them in here and someone will look them over and see what they can do.
For starters:
As I find more I'll add it in. Once we get it to B I'll do a more intensive search and dump the resources here so we can push on to a GA. (Emperor (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]
None of the five ostensible citations that the period between the Golden Age and the Silver Age was called the Atomic Age hold up.
Aside from the fact that no contemporaneous sources use that term -- whereas comics themselves referred to the Golden Age and the Silver Age, for example, no comics sources in the surrounding eras use the term "Atomic Age of Comics" -- these five cites fall short:
The bottom line is that to in essence create a whole new era, the bar is set very high in terms of documentation and widespread general agreement among the field's scholars and historians. That consensus widely exists for Golden Age and Silver Age. A few scattered mentions by questionable or non-reliable sources is hardly enough documentation to stake a claim for a brand new era. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overstreet himself and many of the other vendors and collectors refer to an Atom Age in the 38th edition of the Price Guide. In the glossary, he lists Atom Age comics as those published from 1946-56. Atom-age Combat was the title of a comic book that came out in the 1950's. 75.119.233.41 (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are a bunch of articles in the front of Overstreet where quite a few collectors/vendors refer to an Atom Age. John Haines for example notes that Atomic Comics #1 came out in 1946, and Atomic War #1 in 1952. Maybe as a compromise we could put quotes around "Atom Age." 192.171.47.21 (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article makes an offhand remark to the effect that Superman fought Atom-Man in the TV series. Having seen every episode of Adventures of Superman, I for one recall no such villain. Atom-Man appeared in the second Superman movie serial, not the TV show. I am going to go ahead and make this edit, but if someone has a source that contradicts my recollection, please let me know. 71.77.52.3 (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could the Kefauver hearings mark something of a bright line between the Golden Age and subsequent ones? These attempted to blame comics as the main cause of juvenile delinquency and resulted in lots of self-censorship by the industry, some actual censorship by authorities, and the eventual adoption of the Comics Code as a sort of ongoing self-censorship. 75.246.142.16 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
InThe Power of Comics, Randy Duncan and Matthew J. Smith argue that 1954 was the peak for the comics industry in terms of the number of titles offered, and that publishers like EC that did not touch superheroes were fueling the growth. The introduction of the Comics Code does seem to be the main reason that EC stopped publishing most of its titles. They also write that 1957 was the peak year for Atlas, and it was mainly the bankruptcy of their distributor in that year that forced them to cut back on the number of titles they offered. Superheroes going out of favour happened a bit earlier maybe around 1949-1950, but humour, crime and horror all expanded after that. 192.171.47.21 (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we could add something somewhere, maybe just a sentence, about what came before it? I came to this page first and it was not clear that I should click on ”American comic book” to get to an earlier history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bossk-Office (talk • contribs) 16:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I find it funny. I'm coming here for a similar reason, but from the other angle. I find it odd that there's not 'Comic Books in the 1950s' entry in Wikipedia. If one is to follow this article's synopsis, Comics had a Golden Age, there was an 'interregnum', then there's a link to The Silver Age of Comics.
I may find it odd that this article doesn't really want to broach the 50s, or make a separate entry for comics in the 50s, but I'm not surprised. Many comic book philosophers are only focused on superhero comics. There were very few in the 1950s, and even less that stuck, so this decade is set aside as a Dark Ages for comics. One quick glance at what EC was doing in the Science Fiction and Horror genre, though, should make anyone take a few steps back.
I'm not here to flame other authors for what they think is important. And I'll be honest, I'm not the sort of guy who writes Wikipedia entries, so I'm not your man for the job. But it seems to me that if Wikipedia has the space for all the characters in the Final Fantasy series, it can make some room for a treatment on comic books in the 1950s. Whether that belongs in The Golden Age, or is it's own section, I'll let others decide.
Jmgariepy (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overstreet's classification has a Pioneer Age running from the 1500s to 1828, a Victorian Age 1828 to 1883, a Platinum Age 1883 to 1938, a Golden Age 1938 to 1945, a Atom Age 1946 to 1956, a Silver Age 1956 to 1970, a Bronze Age 1970 to 1984, a Copper Age 1984 to 1992, and a Modern Age 1992 to the present. Dongord 192.171.47.21 (talk) 13:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a series of historical overview articles in the various Overstreet guides by Robert Lee Beerbohm and Richard D. Olsen Ph.D. where they outline their periodization scheme. They actually refer to 1946-1956 as the Atomic/Romance age, but it seems most of the vendors and collectors as well as Overstreet himself just use Atom Age. I agree completely that there are problems with this article which we need to improve upon. I've been adding more detail. Let's see what we can do. Dongord 184.175.19.129 (talk) 17:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned this on the American Comic Books entry talk page, but I'll put it here as well. In The Encyclopedia of Comic Books and Graphic Novels, (2010 ISBN 978-0-313-35746-6 edited by M. Keith Booker), there is an article on ages of comic books by Tim Bryant, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Buffalo who teaches about Alan Moore's Watchmen in one of his courses. He writes that historians refer to Golden, Silver, Bronze and Modern (or Iron) Ages, and that the era before "the rise of the superhero in the 1930's is often referred to as the Platinum Age. ... Some commentators label the period between the mid-1940's and the mid-1950's as the Atomic Age because of comics writers' preoccupation with nuclear proliferation and the burgeoning arms race."(p.12-13) Dongord (talk) 13:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In his A Complete History of American Comic Books, Shirrel Rhoades, former publisher at Marvel, lists the Overstreet/Gemstone classification scheme including Atom Age 1946-56, and writes "Since Gemstone is the publisher of the authoritative Overstreet Comic Book Price Guide, we're obligated to take these suggestions seriously. ... And while we agree that the Atom Age defines a specific period of genre diversification, we'll leave it as a subset of the Golden Age." p. 5-6. Incidentally, Ron Goulart in Over 50 Years of American Comic Books writes "Comics collectors and fans got their bible in 1970, when Robert M. Overstreet published the first edition of his Comic Book Price Guide." p.316. I should also note that the History of American comics entry on Wikipedia already includes Atom Age citing Rhoades.Dongord (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added sentences on Mad and Uncle Scrooge here, and sentences on MLJ's Pep Comics/Archie and Prize's Young Love/Young Romance to the American comic book article. There was already some material on Dell's Walt Disney's Comics and Stories in the American comic book article. Bryant mentions how 'golden ages' may differ among genres of comic book with the late 1940's to early 1950's being the golden age of horror comics, coming after the superhero golden age. (Booker Encyclopedia p.12) Re. circulation, Goulart on page 223 of Over 50, for 1956 lists sales figures of 9 million for Dell, 6.2 million for DC and 4 million for Atlas/Marvel. For 1958, Goulart gives 14 million for Dell, over 7 million for DC and less then 4.7 million for Atlas/Marvel. Dongord (talk) 09:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re. the question of whether Robert Beerbohm is a 'historian' I notice that in The Power of Comics Randy Duncan and Matthew J. Smith, two academics, quote quite happily from the Beerbohm/Olsen article in Overstreet, as well as Beerbohm's other publications. They also thank him personally in the acknowledgements. Prof. William Hilyerd of University of Lousiville quotes Beerbohm/Olsen as well, but gives another source for the 'Atom Age' term, J.C. Vaughn and Arnold T. Blumberg "Comic Book Ages: Starting the Discussion" in Overstreet 33rd edition. ("Hi Superman, I’m a Lawyer: A Guide To Attorneys (And Other Legal Professionals) Portrayed In American Comic Books: 1910-2007" Widener Law Review, Vol. 15, No. 1, p. 159, 2009 p.169 Dongord (talk) 09:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to suggest adding more content to the "History section". Since the page describes the so-called "Golden age" of comic books, it must explain some key moments. First of all, there is a brief paragraph about the patriotic war-time comics. It mentions the first issue of the Captain America comic book as an example. It should be mentioned that the Captain America comic book was exclusively created by the members of the War Winter’s Boar, which was a national propaganda agency created after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The company had over control how people perceive their characters and their stories. The budget of this company was enormous, and it is even named the greatest propaganda machine in history.
(The Historian Vol. 59, No. 4 [1]http://www.jstor.org/stable/24451817Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page)., pp. 795-813 (19 pages)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneS18 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it should be explained why this particular time period (1938 to 1956) is considered the Golden Age of comic books. It is not mentioned why comic books became more popular than the rest of the media products.Early comic books were considered a luxury for the middle -class Americans. As a result, a cheaper version of comic pamphlets was created, it was smaller and for the printing was used less expensive paper. A relatively cheap price of the comic books allowed millions of American youth to have at least a copy of a comic book. The production of comic books was growing during wartime along with the country’s engagement in the war. According to the 1942 statistics, about 15 million comics were created and sold every month. In just a year, by 1943 the number increased to 25 million.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneS18 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
Disregarding the original rationale from the editor who made the change, I think it is a good idea to have DC's trinity together. Though Wonder Woman was from a different company at the time (All-American), she is today indeed one of DC's iconic names. Whether she should be followed by Timely's Captain America, or Fawcett's Captain Marvel, that is another question, taking into consideration that Shazam is now DC's as well. However, since this is the article about GA, it's ok for him to be separated. The sentence should read:
--Coquidragon (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree. You are seeing a problem where there is none. Undue weight? If anybody will complain of undue weight, they would still argue under the current wording. There are 4 DC characters and only 1 Marvel character. These are the top 5 GA heroes, no doubt about it. Even if we argue that there were four companies at one time, DC still gets four characters. What doesn't make sense is splitting up the trinity. If you want, place Captain American first, and then the trinity, and then Captain Marvel. Or Captain America, followed by Captain Marvel, followed by the trinity. Just, don't split up the trinity, but this is just my opinion.--Coquidragon (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I am more of a Marvel Comics fan than a DC Comics one, Marvel's "Golden Age" characters tend to be relatively obscure or underused. The so-called "Big Three" (see the external link for explanation) were Namor, Human Torch, and Captain America. Besides their solo stories in anthology titles, they headlined their own series. Namor headlined Sub-Mariner Comics, which lasted for 32 issues (1941-1949). His series was briefly revived with another 10 issues (1954-1955), and then he was forgotten until Fantastic Four vol. 1 #4 (1962). Human Torch headlined Human Torch Comics, which lasted for 34 issues (1940-1949). His series was briefly revived with another 3 issues (1954), and then he was forgotten until Fantastic Four Annual vol. 1 #4 (1966). Captain America headlined Captain America Comics, which lasted for 74 issues (1941-1949). His series was briefly revived with another 3 issues (1954), and then he was forgotten until Avengers vol. 1 #4 (1964). Most other Marvel heroes of the era either appeared strictly in anthology titles or headlined short-lived solo titles. Red Raven had his own series for a single issue, Namora for 3 issues, Sun Girl for 3 issues, Miss America for 5 issues, Blonde Phantom for 11 issues, Venus for 19 issues. They hardly compare in success and staying power to characters like Superman who have pretty much remained in print since their first appearance. Dimadick (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Golden Age of Comic Books. 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:
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).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really like that the article begins with the text "The first recorded use of the term "Golden Age" was by Richard A. Lupoff in an article, "Re-Birth", published in issue one of the fanzine Comic Art in April 1960.". It would be even better if this section could actually quote the relevant passage from this article, to show what Lupoff himself meant by this term he introduced, and some of the context. I just looked for the article myself online, and could not find it, only dozens of other articles making the same citation. Perhaps someone needs to find an original hardcopy to transcribe Lupoff's own words?
(EDI: I found it! here it is, but its a scan)
on a similar note, I see the opening paragraph boldly defines the Golden Age as "an era of American comic books from 1938 to 1956", despite all the debate on this page arguing there is no consensus. Perhaps it would be better to state that the end date is subject to debate, some say 1956, some say end of WWII, some say last issue of All Star Comics, and give citations to each of the alternate claims? The controversy over the end date, and the very notion of "Ages", would be relevant content for the article.
J Edward Malone (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being called the golden Age of Comic Books, it almost exclusively covers DC Comics. It would be more indicative of the era if we included more characters from that time period. Saxumwasbased (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]