Talk:Great Ten

Redirection of Great Ten (comics)

As soon as its possible I'll change my version Great Ten (comics) over to a redirect. I wanted to leave this version open just in case a mainstream "Great Ten" existed, but now it just makes sense to use it. I moved most of my content to your page. Basique 04:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Stereotypical Heroes

To the person who edited out the stereotypes criticism: it's not speculation. [1] is an article about it. --ColourBurst 16:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I looked at the page from your link and it has no bearing on the Great Ten article. --Basique 22:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticism is sourced and valid:

although DC Comics has failed to incorporate him into "The Great Ten", its new (fictional, ironic) Chinese government superhero team, which includes groaning stereotypes:

Honestly, this article borders on fancruft without any sort of references to outside views. --sigmafactor 22:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a comic book article in progress, exactly how does fancruft factor into it Sigma? Honest detailed criticism would be valid addition to this page, but the article only uses the existence of the Great Ten as a straw horse. And it's obvious that the person who wrote that article was reacting to the description of the characters posted on the wire services and not the comic they appeared in. --Basique 02:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There's an honest, detailed criticism about the actual comic they appeared in here, and here is a critique of Week 6 and 7 (actually all the weeks are here) which talks about the Tibetan Buddism thing and about Orientalism as well. Mother of Champions and the Yellow Peril is also mentioned specifically in both places. --ColourBurst 19:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are both blogs. --Basique 00:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism has been added to the main article using the 52 Pickup blog as one of the references. --Basique 10:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticism that has been added is not at all objective and does a disservice to the arguments of those who have launched the criticism. Right now, it sounds like the criticsm is silly and weightless. I have re-written that section with a more substantial account of the controversy surrounding these characters. --Jfang86 17:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The criticism that was added, was highly objective and based on existing knowledge of the team, adding to that would have been fine instead you felt it necessary to delete my entry completely and replace it with your own including completely unfounded out of left field assertation about Egg-Fu. Seeing as this is an ongoing story and very little has been revealed about the team outside of the initial descriptions I have reverted the criticism to the previous version. If you wish to add to that based on existing textual information and not forum conjecture then do so, but do not delete my existing entry. --Basique 03:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Miss Fang, using your own website Reappropriate and your own article as a reference might be a bad idea in this case. Are you really approaching this from a NPOV (neutral point of view)? --Basique 03:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a problem with just adding to the existing entry -- the current language you are using is not objective -- in fact, I argue that it is highly subjective and in fact dismissive of all criticisms regarding the Great Ten. Are you sure YOU are writing from a NPOV? For example, you use the language "mistakenly mislabel" regarding MOC; that's hardly neutral. You also "correct" the critics by claiming false authority and saying that MOC is a "Divine Mother" archetype when neither you nor anyone else short of Grant Morrison knows the true intention of the MOC character. The Egg-Fu controversy actually arose out of the 52-pickup blog and has been commented on heavily there (also, the Egg Fu theory is supported out of evidence taken directly from the Official 52 site, and the criticism of Egg Fu as racist has been within the fan community for nearly a generation of comic readers). Your section doesn't even address the Thundermind criticism which was significant enough to be addressed by Greg Rucka. I refute your claims that I use my own website as a reference -- I took pains to keep my website out of what was written and the original text neither links to it nor references material that is exclusively in it. While I obviously have an opinion on this (as do you, which is obvious both from the article and from this Talk page), I feel I was writing from a NPOV since I was careful to include counterarguments that have also arisen in the fan community. Ultimately, I am concerned with this article best reflecting what the controversy is (I'm not really interested in an extended Wikipedia battle) -- it currently does not. In fact, this Criticism section, as it currently stands, ignores most of the criticism out there and is basically uninformative. If you want to, you can use the paragraph I wrote and tweak it so that you feel it is more objective, but I feel the current paragraph basically needs to be scrapped based on its combatative and one-sided tone. A compromise could also be reached if you would edit the problematic language from your paragraph; I would be willing to then add-on to it more detail about the controversy. --Jfang86 15:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Review requested

Since you feel that my maintenance of the page itself does not appear to be from an NPOV standpoint I have asked members of Wikiproject Comics to form a panel for the sole purpose of reviewing the page. --Basique 18:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm here in response to that request.

1. My first impression is that this article is trying to be two things at once - a summary of the new team Great Ten, about which almost nothing is known, and a critique of Chinese characters/archetypes in comics. The latter needs to separated out and moved to it's own article if it continues to exist.
2. Much of the "Background" is not NPOV, using terms like "highly trained and profession team." The line under the spoilers makes reference to an issue #3, but doesn't specify which comic book it references.
3. The entire Criticism section needs to go away. There's only one reference in the entire thing, and that's a blog. Blogs don't meet the criteria for a reliable source, and in fact are listed as sources to AVOID using.
4. The trivia reads like fancruft and needs to be sourced or be removed.
5. Likewise the section about other Chinese characters needs to go, as it falls outside the subject of the article.

- CovenantD 18:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Covenant, i've removed those three sections and will edit the description as well. --Basique 19:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I gave a shot at re-doing the main Background section. Hope it helps. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromise. I would rather see no criticism information at all than an incomplete summary of the criticism. Since so little is known about the Great Ten, I've only added information regarding their Coalition links to Black Adam and the chair that MOC uses to maintain mobility. --Jfang86 19:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CovenantD as usual; in going through the history, I see information that interests me but it is so riddled with POV and devoid of citation that it should be gone completely until legitimate press has had a chance to look at the characters.--Chris Griswold 19:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

PS - I would love to see an article about Racial stereotypes in comic books; I just don't think that this article is the place for it. CovenantD 19:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Heck, I'd like more of The Spirit in general!--Chris Griswold 19:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean The Spirit? CovenantD 19:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I do, in fact. I love the Spirit, and I think it is still relevent, but there's some out-dated racial stuff in there that can make you cringe a little. --Chris Griswold 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The conversation has come up about creating a racial stereotypes in comic books page as well. I think that would be a good article, and could easily be written using only primary source material rather than from POV (which also annoys me). I've actually done a fair amount of research on Asian stereotyping in comic books and would love to collaborate with someone on this page (I'm not a huge expert on Golden Age/Silver Age in general, beyond my field of research, and have little experience with Wikipedia). --Jfang86 17:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will help if I can. --Chris Griswold 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a job for... the Comics Project Notice Board and talk page!! :-) CovenantD 20:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! The page has been started at Ethnic Stereotypes in Comic Books and I've posted a notice at the Comics Project Notice Board! Could really use y'all's help! --Jfang86 05:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You should also add a note here in the recent article section. --Chris Griswold 05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Egg Fu

The Egg Fu stuff seems like it came out of nowhere. Where does this character appear? I don't recognize him. --Chris Griswold 16:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

He's a 1966 character who appeared in WW #166.[2] CovenantD 16:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is Egg Fu?--70.188.99.31 01:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Super Young Team

In 52, Week 7, there was mention of the Super Young Team that almost let Brimstone(?) destroy Tokyo among the HQ of the Great Ten. Any idea who The Super Young Team or Brimstone are/is? Jeffrywith1e 01:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Super Young Team is a Japanese superhero team. It was in one of the old incarnations of this article but it's mostly speculation as to who they are. --ColourBurst 04:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Where/in what book does Super Young Team appear (if they have yet)? - Jeffrywith1e 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese translations

The article says the names are "structurally accurate, anglicized Chinese language translations". Says who? What is the original Chinese for these characters? I am taking that comment out unless it is backed up with citations and explained. There's only one Chinese name listed in the article, and no possible translation of "Gu Lao" (if that is a codename rather than a personal name) results in "Socialist Red Guardian." —Lowellian (reply) 19:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Chinese superheroes category

This might come in pretty useful, there are more than enough entries in the encyclopedia especially when you include the manhua comics, tv shows and movies. --Xero (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Mother of Champions

In Nightwing, apparently the kids age 10 years per day - what's the source on the kids only living to 25 but aging normally? Darquis (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Using "Great Ten" Checkmate Files

If you'll kindly go to Carl Draper's entry, you'll notice the Gideon II website. Here is an in-character blog of dozens of different groups and such, including security profiles of the Great Ten.

The entries are small but enlightening, shedding some light on Mother of Champion's birthing rate (Which is incorrect in the article at moment), Celestial Archer's possible connection to Chinese Myth, and explanations of powers. It's a great read, and I intend to update the article sometime soon with it. Does anyone object to its usage? JusticeAndRule (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Ambiguous first sentence

"Sponsored by the government of the PRC". Could mean (a) that the comic books or their creators receive funding or assistance from the PRC government, or (b) that the comic heroes fictionally receive such assistance. In other words, it could be an in-universe statement or an out-of. When I first read it I was convinced that the PRC had paid DC to create these heroes. Now though I think it means that, within the fictional universe, the heroes work for the government. 86.143.133.125 (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Ten. 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/20091209073525/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=111900 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=111900

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).

• 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) 17:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Ten. 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/20090823054155/http://classic.newsarama.com/dcnew/52/GreatTen/gallery.html to http://classic.newsarama.com/dcnew/52/GreatTen/gallery.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)