Talk:Gwen Stacy

First Love?

Right in the header of the article, we read "Gwen Stacy aws the first love of Peter Parker". Well, that's not true. When Spider-Man comics began, his love interests were Liz Allan and Betty Brant. Gwen was only introduced later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.54.176.252 (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Liz Allan and Betty Brant were love interests, but not loves. Peter and Gwen were in love. Wufan10304 (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

George Washington Bridge?

Text on the comics says George Washington Bridge, but was designed as Brooklyn Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nveleda (talk • contribs) 13:56, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Stan Lee confirmed it was supposed to be the George Washington Bridge, but the artist drew the wrong bridge. It is now widely known to be the Brooklyn Bridge and the text is considered typo. In the movies they homaged both bridges. In Spider-Man, Green Goblin throws his girlfriend off one of the bridges. In The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Peter has a picture in his bedroom of the Brooklyn Bridge, and later in the film, in her infamous "death" clothes, Gwen is standing on the George Washington Bridge after leaving her cab and viewing the words "I love you" written in webs on the Brooklyn Bridge. The two bridges are right next to each other between Manhattan and Brooklyn. Also later in that film, Spider-Man and Gwen Stacy are standing on top of one of the Brooklyn Bridge pillars, where they both stood and Gwen died in the comics. Wufan10304 (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Untitled

Nobody mentioned the Ultimate Gwen's death...

Time Problem

"During a recent battle with the Sinister Twelve [..]" That should probably changed, I think the author of that sentence thinks Spiderman really exists.JayAlto (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is it controversial?

the into says her death was controversial among fans. was it really? i've had this discussion with fans who were reading at the time of her death and thats not the impression i got. sins past was far more controversial. who decided her death should have this subjective reference to it in the opening paragraph?— ChocolateRoses ^talk

It was much, much more controversial than Sins Past. Conway received death threats, readers complained for months. Conway wrote the Clone Saga to make a point that Gwen Stacy had died, period. The reason it is considered the turning point to the Bronze Age rests on this. --Leocomix 00:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Carnage

Should we post Ultimate Gwen transforming into Carnage? I haven't been able to find any images of that since the Clone Saga began. 70.58.211.220 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.101.86.69 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Spider-Man Loves Mary-Jane

Shouldn't someone post more content on Gwen's appearence in "Spider-Man Loves Mary Jane"? I mean, like a summary or something. UnDeRsCoRe 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

She's only just shown up. She appeared on the last page three issues ago, then the next two issues were flashback. We'll know more in a month or so. - HKMARKS 01:59, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I expanded it a while ago. UnDeRsCoRe 20:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Why Conway killed off Gwen

Until now, it has been not analysed why Gerry Conway killed off GS in the first place. I just reread my Essential Spider-Man issues and brought in my analysis. I tried to stay factual, but is of course my POV, so feel free to comment.

• Galvanisation: I think this is self-explanatory. Her death was a 11 on the Richter scale.
• Blandness: after MJ, Gwen became typecast as the sweet and cute girl. It is boring to write these characters!
• Character downgrade: the Gwen from issue 31 was spunky, the one of issue 121 a spineless shadow of herself.
• Saturation: my POV loaded opinion is that Gwen had simply outlived her potential. Every angle of possible conflict had been played.
• Plot reasons: a conclusion of "saturation". Peter and Gwen were written as being a perfect couple. But a married Peter Parker? Both were hardly twens. In comics, only old people are married.
• Personal preferences: Conway hates Gwen, it is a well-known fact. Google it up.

Feel free to comment and improve. Onomatopoeia 02:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC) [amended, see below]

I'll take a look at it later. I do think that most of the section is subjective and should be deleted, unless you can provide examples of those opinions held by the creators or a notable section of the fanbase. --Chancemichaels 19:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

OK, added some tangible info Onomatopoeia 21:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

House of M

I follow DC more closely than Marvel, so I wanted to get some input on this entry before editing. Do the events of House of M deserve mention here? Specifically, the revelation (further expanded in Son of M #1) that Peter Parker's perfect life included being married to Gwen, that she was the love of his life? Or is that an issue already clear enough from the regular series? Since HoM was such a large event, I thought some mention might be appropriate. ZZ 05:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Indeed. In Son of M#1, Peter had confessed to himself that during the House of M universe, he married Gwen, the woman he wanted.

Mention of House of M is appropriate and significantly impacted the 666 Universe (as seen in the Son of M series that followed it, and specifically Spider-Man's actions towards Quicksilver). Netkinetic 01:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

House of M was a fake reality created by Wanda where even Luke Cage wasn't married to his wife Jessica Jones. Mary Jane is who Peter wants and Mary Jane is and always will be the love of Peter's life. Naveen Furtado (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man 3

Is there a source for the information on her role in the upcoming film? Otherwise it should be removed until actual facts from the movie are released.

"She meets Peter Parker between classes, and shows interest in him. Later on, Eddie Brock shows interest in her, and they even establish some dates, which are interrupted by Parker/Spiderman. At the same time, Parker's relationship with Mary Jane is shaky, as she considers a job out of town. When the Symbiote takes hold of Parker, causing rash behavior, Parker meets with Stacy. Mary Jane notices them together, and leaves the town, leaving a letter with Aunt May. Brock also notices them, and begins to grow hate towards Parker, leading eventually to his development as Venom when fused with the symbiote."

I'm deleting it, per your suggestion. If true, it needs a source. And really should have a spoiler warning all its own. But since no source is offered, it must be considered either rumor or personal speculation and neither is worthy of inclusion. --Chancemichaels 12:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

"She is also in a relationship with Eddie Brock, Junior, who (as a friend) took pictures of her so Gwen could be a model. However, this relationship is short-lived, as Peter Parker, under the influence of the symbiote, steals her from Eddie."
I believe this is wrong. In the movie Brock was delusional with his relationship to Gwen. As evidence, when Eddie is taking a picture of her before the parade (I think it was) he mentions "that amazing night we had" to which she replies "it was just coffee". This suggests to me that they met for coffee in the past but that nothing further happened in the relationship, and Brock has deluded himself into believing them an item. It seems common stalker behavior. -Viper Daimao 15:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Was Gwen Stacy dead before she fell off the bridge

Gwen was Unconscious before she was knocked off the bridge but does that mean the Green Goblin Killed her before he took her to the Bridge? what do you think? User:Dayle14 18.04, 11 May 2006

Its a theory but nothing concrete to back it up.--CyberGhostface 16:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right but I am a bit supicous I mean she never woke up once before she was knocked off from the bridge Dayle14 18.08, 11 May

did gwen suffer a heart attack when she was falling because what does it mean that she was killed by the shock of the fall Dayle14

The visual evidence of the panels show that she could be either unconscious or dead. She is not showing any conscious movements, no obvious injuries, however she is still limp and no signs of rigor mortis. So it is a premature conclusion that she was already dead and not just unconscious. However it would fit The Goblins evil humor to taunt and torture Spidey by saying she was already dead or have him rescue a corpse after the fact. but why kill her if by keeping her alive, he could punish and hurt Spidey more by rape and torturing her. regardless if anyone buys into the Gwens children theory. Gwen has never shown any sign of heart trouble, but she has fainted before. and freefall does not kill, especially an unconscious person, it is the sudden stop that does it. Tphile 07:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Depending on the version of Amazing Spider-man #121, you may or may not see what actually occured. As Gwen fell and Spider-man shot down webs, that caught her by the ankles, the resulting force of the tightening web line caused he neck to snap. The original art shows the word "snap" near her neck and was included in the original printing but has been taken out of some subsequent reprints as this was deemed contraversial.

I meant did the shock of the fall cause her to have a heart attack caused by fright? Dayle14

This issue came out long before the mainstream appearance of recreational bungee jumping. Spidey's web has exhibited some degree of elasticity, and the only time people die while bungee jumping is when the bungee cord breaks. Does this assertion help? Not really. Just something else to think about. The fact remains, either they assumed at the time that this kind of physical action on the body would kill a person, or she was supposed to already be dead. Why they would remove the "snap" graphic in later reprints is beyond me. That decision doesn't eliminate controversy, it only shifts it from "how terrible that they're saying her neck broke" to "wtf actually happenned??" --SCOTIMUS (talk) 13:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The letters page in Amazing #125 has the following reply to the volume of mail about Gwen's death, including the "dead falling at that height":

First, for the many who wrote and complained that the fall alone could not have killed Gwen if she were unconscious (and therefore unable to be scared to death, the usual explanation for a person dying before hitting the ground), it saddens us to have to say that the whiplash effect she underwent when Spidey's webbing stopped her so suddenly was, in fact, what killed her. In short, it was impossible for Peter to save her. He couldn't have swung down in time; the action he did take resulted in her death; if he had done nothing, she still would certainly have perished. There was no way out.

That's the nearest contemporary statement on the matter. Several later stories explicitly homage the events and usually Spider-Man saves the falling woman by jumping after her, getting hold of her and then diverting her momentum rather than suddenly arresting it. (This is also how he saved Gwen in a What If? issue.) It's not clear who's responsible for the changes in reprints (anyone know when the snap first disappeared?) but I seem to recall one later writer commenting that he thinks the original plan was to have a much greater emphasis on Peter's illness affecting his judgement and be even more explicit that Gwen died because of that misjudgement. Maybe what was printed was already watered down and confusing, and a reprint editor took it further, especially as for decades nothing was ever made of this precise point. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sins Past and POV

Please do not add POV statements to the article. These include saying its "extremely" controversial, or adding saying that the Mad Goblin article "attempts to" fit Sins Past into the mythos rather than simply fitting it. It will be reverted. Thank you.--CyberGhostface 20:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

It IS highly controversial and the article ATTEMPTS to fit it in (without conclusive success)!!!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.167.130 (talk • contribs)

No...those are only your opinions. And if you post your narrow-minded opinions, they will be reverted. Furthermore, your talk page shows you have a history of vandalism.--CyberGhostface 19:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Check out any Spider-Man message board and tell me it's an "opinion". "Highly controiversial" is an apt adjective. Seems to me that you're trying to soft-peddle the controversy.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.167.130 (talk • contribs)

Then post your ramblings on the messageboards and leave Wikipedia alone. POV is not allowed. Furthermore, your history of vandalism destroys any credibility you may have had.--CyberGhostface 21:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of highly on the Web:

to a high degree or extent; favorably or with much respect; "highly successful"; "He spoke highly of her"; "does not think highly of his writing"; "extremely interesting"

There has been extensive debate regarding this story. Therefore, the story is highly controversial.

The only vandal here is you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.167.130 (talk • contribs)

The only vandal here is me? Have you checked your talk page? How does deleting your POV saturated statements compare with you vandalizing the Ipod page?--CyberGhostface 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

IPOD?!?! I've never even been to the Ipod page. I don't own an Ipod, nor am I interested in Ipods. Perhaps someone else from this IP address (a public library which has multiple internet stations) did the deed, but it was NOT I!

Maybe you should register an account then so there won't be any confusion.--CyberGhostface 22:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Harry was on LSD in issues 97 - 99 of Amazing Spider-man as well...? .--Humorbot5 23:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes (#96-98), but it was discovered and actually snapped Norman out of his Goblin-mode, all before Gwen came home. The next issue had nothing to do with Harry and #100 kicked off the Six Arms Saga. MJ's flashback scene specifically references (clothing, location, specific shots etc.) a scene at the beginning of #121. -HKMarks 02:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Age of Apocalypse

Is there any information on the Age of Apocalypse version of Gwen? HKMARKS 16:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Beyond a paragraph that I included,not much. - R.G. 18:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

When Gwen appeared

There are two different listings, one in the first paragraph and one in the beginning of the Comic Books section. They list it has being The Amazing Spider-Man #35 and The Amazing Spider-Man #31 respectively, though both have the same month. Can this be verified properly?--Mike 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Also in question is when she died, as it's listed as comic books 122 and 121.--Mike 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

She first appeared in Amazing Spider-Man #31. She died in #121. The Green Goblin died in #122, and that was the second part of a two-part story. - HKMARKS 12:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Merge

HelenKMarks (talk · contribs · count) has proposed the merger of this article into The Night Gwen Stacy Died. Discuss.

External Links re. Sins Past

Please retain the links to "Deflowering Gwen", "Sins Past and the Cult of Gwen", and "Great Power, Greater Irresponsibility", as they are well-written sources of information and describe different sides of the controversy over "Sins Past" in an intelligent fashion. So these links get deleted, but not the mock-Gwen-autopsy page?!?!

The fact is, Sins Past IS controversial, and a Gwen Stacy page NEEDS links to detailed information and debates about it.

Fan sites really don't need to be here. I've read a couple of the ones you've pointed to and they make a lot of assumptions, some of which are erroneous or very biased. But--

I'd like to add a short explanation of the reasons why it was controversial. People thought:

• it was a retcon that didn't seem to fit into the established timeline (she wasn't in France that long)
• it was unlikely that it would have gone unmentioned for years (by either MJ or Gwen's uncle and cousins, or hell, even her clone)
• it seemed out of character for Gwen (a "nice girl" who was in love with Peter)
• people felt it aged Peter anyway, since Gwen was the same age as him and suddenly had adult children.

Also Straczynski's defence, if I can find the source where I read it:

• it gave Gwen depth, as she had previously been a fairly one-dimensional character whom people tended to consider sacred.

But, this could easily be very POV, or construed that way. This might have been even more controversial than killing her... but I don't know, put it in or leave it out? -- HKMARKS 22:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC), HKMARKS 04:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

So, again, a link to the mock-autopsy examining the physics of Gwen's death in detail and a link to the "Night Gwen Stacy Died" FAN-MADE FILM stay, but links to essays detailing both sides of the Sins Past debate are out?!?!? That makes no sense. The whole point of the external links is to provide links to more information for people who want to expand their knowledge beyond the Wikipedia article. And since Sins Past is highly controversial, people will want more information about it when they read about it here, especially since Gwen will be prominent in Spider-Man 3, and her entry here will doubtless get more attention.

I added a short analysis of some key points that Sins Past contradicted in ASM #89-122. Tried to keep my biases out of it-- but I think it's important if we're going to say "controversial" to say why. --HKMARKS 03:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I enjoy the Spidey Kicks Butt MadGoblin page but the Sins Past article was written without enough backing of the timeline and didn't include substantial evidence that the Sins Past story fit in. It came off to me that Madgoblin liked the story and since he favors Mary Jane and fells more or less neutral to Gwen, whom he doesn't seem to know much about. I dunno just seemed too bias to me. Plus he didn't seem to care enough about Gwen Stacy to know that she handn't enough time to give birth and get back in shape before dying.

The "Great Power, Greater Irresponsibility" article was very well written and showed exact events and times that excluded the one night stand and the birth of twins from occuring. I think that article was written primarily to show the controversy and that the story was written to get attention without even trying to back the story with evidence that Gwen was unfaithful and gave birth to twins. It should stay in because I think it gave more evidence than the wikipedia article possibly could seeing as it analized every appearance of Gwen and Norman prior to their deaths. It shows only a little bit of personal opinion when it comes to the comics of today and how they don't care about the facts, but all in all it isn't very opinionated and gives excellentproof that the story has no place in continuity.

Non-ya 21:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)) --Non-Ya 04:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You just showed a bit of bias yourself with your accusations on MadGoblin's opinions. He actually responded to the claim that he's more biased towards MJ.

A corollary to that is being complicit in the "trashing" of Gwen's character because I like MJ better. Funny - I thought I just said that it's easier to believe that MJ could have slept with Norman than Gwen, although I don't believe she did. And besides, just because I prefer one character over the other, why would I be eager to see the other run through the mud since such a thing would only be a detriment to the overall series? After all, while I despise the symbiotes as villains, frankly, I think they each deserved a better send off that they apparently got (Carnage getting ripped in half in New Avengers #2, and Eddie Brock allegedly committing suicide OFF-PANEL in Marvel Knights Spider-Man #8). As popular and important figures as they have been over the last several years, they each warranted better.[1]

He doesn't have any bias in the matter...he just stated it the way he saw it. And as it turns out, by the time it was over he didn't like the story that much at all.

With over 500 comics, there's no way at all there can be one cohesive continuity. And since JMS wasn't on the title beforehand, of course its going to be hard to find earlier issues that allude to his pregnancy storyline. I'm not too crazy about the storyline either but its just pointless to go through all the issues and state "Well, this can't happen because in issue # so and so, this happened so therefore the events in this issue couldn't happen. With MadGoblin's article, he did a pretty decent job of summing up the issues at hand and making a decent explanation.--CyberGhostface 21:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said first I'm a fan of MadGoblin's site, I'm not bias against him for liking MJ better, hell, I think MJ is the best love interest of all superheroes in Marvel. But as for explanations go his was the best of what I've seen attempting to fit it in given the way the story was sloppily fit in. I'll admit I'd NEVER be able to look into every issue containing Gwen and the Goblin prior to Sins Past, but from MadGoblin I'd expect him to give that article the same treatment as he gave the Hobgoblin (every appearance of Hobs was listed and he gave great proof that Roderick Kingsley was the true hobgoblin). The GREAT POWER, GREATER IRRESPONSIBLIITY gave EVERY SINGLE instance Spidey fought Goblin and every time we saw or even heard about Gwen making it so air-tight.

Anyway I say keep both articles both are good at explaining how it does or doesn't fit in. Neither is perfectly unbias seeing as GREAT POWER,GREATER IRRESPONSIBILITY thought the story was bad, and Sins Past and the Cult of Gwen thought the story was either good or too criticized.

Non-Ya 07:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gwendolyne vs. Gwendolyn

This page had the name Gwendolyne for a long time, but I'm 99% sure it's Gwendolyn. Spiderfan.org listed it as Gwendolyne, and I have a strong suspicion people a lot of people just ripped it from there, as that seems to be the more popular search result on the 'net. ASM #62 and the Marvel Encyclopedia (v.4, Spider-Man) both list it as Gwendolyn, though (that's the only issue I have on hand with her full name... my Essentials are packed away somewhere). So, I changed it. - HKMARKS 19:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

... and #90 gives her name as Gwendolyne. Don't you love it when canon contradicts itself? --HKMARKS 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The official and correct spelling is "Gwendolyne Stacy", not "Gwendolyn Stacey".—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.167.130 (talk • contribs)

But what makes it official or correct if the comics say both and the handbook says Gwendolyn? I'm going to add a note on it to the page. Neither seems to be more correct than the other. Stan Lee was notoriously bad with names. -HKMARKS 20:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The officially accepted spelling is "Gwendolyne Stacy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.167.130 (talk • contribs)

Like I said, according to whom? -HKMARKS 18:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I always thought that her name was spelled Gwendolyn, and it's amply stated in the comics. I just say add both variations to the article until an authoritative source is found that states otherwise. MiztuhX (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Also, I just did searches on Google for both names, and Gwendolyn Stacy received 1.76 million hits, while Gwendolyne Stacy only got 55,500 hits. It's pretty obvious that the former is the accepted name. MiztuhX (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Issues with Superherobox/supersupportingbox

There are some problems with the SHB's full name/alter ego fields right now due to maintenance on them. Be careful about messing with the name fields. ---HKMarksCANDY IS A FOOD GROUPTALK♦CONTRIBS 00:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Deadpool

Is Deadpool's Gwen clone really notable? It was a small appearance in a satirical one-shot that has not been referenced since. It does not deserve a section at all. --DrBat 13:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe it's too notable (it wasn't even the real Gwen). But, still...UnDeRsCoRe 14:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

At the most, a one-sentence reference could be made to the 'Gwen Stacy's clone' section. --DrBat 15:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Another source of confusion

In the prose novel Goblin's Revenge by Dean Wesley Smith, the Chameleon posing as the Green Goblin also kidnaps MJ Watson and takes her to the top of the Brooklyn Bridge.

12:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)~Enda80

What's confusing about that? ...and what are you talking about? Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This anticipated the 2002's film placement of MJ as the "throw momma from the bridge" 20:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Enda80

First off, sign your comments properly with 4 (four) tildes. Second, from the little sense you made, your comment see,ms like utter speculation. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"References" vs. "External links" vs. "Footnotes/Notes"

Hi, all. The reason I've changed "External links" to "References" comes from these sections of Wikipedia:Cite_sources, quoted verbatim below. (Please note in Item 2 below that the italics are theirs, and not inserted by me.) Thanks!

1)

Maintaining a separate "References" section in addition to "Notes" or "Footnotes"

It is helpful when non-citation footnotes are used that a "References" section also be maintained, in which the sources that were used are listed in alphabetical order. With articles that have lots of footnotes, it can become hard to see after a while exactly which sources have been used, particularly when the footnotes also contain explanatory text. A References section, which contains only citations, helps readers to see at a glance the quality of the references used.

2)

Further reading/External links

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Some editors may include both headings in articles, listing only material not available online in the "Further reading" section.

All items used to verify information in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are generally not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic.

So sources used to write an article go under "References", and other helpful citations go under "External links" if they're linkable and "Further reading" if they're not online. — Tenebrae 22:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

So, why did you put one external link under "references"? Yeah. I'll fix your mistakes...again. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that's too harsh. Sorry. The point is, you seem like you're contradicting yourself. Like...you're going through all this trouble to make a point that really proves I'm right. It's okay, though. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 23:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your unwarranted verbal animosity. In any case, "References" and "Footnotes" (or "Notes") are two different things. See "Maintaining a separate 'References' section in addition to 'Notes' or 'Footnotes'"--Tenebrae 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My "animosity" was brought out by I perceived as lack of thought. A wiki should never be the basis for another wiki. Furthermore, I'd like you to put out how those other links qualify as "references". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If the Marvel wiki is inappropriate, I'll remove it; I hadn't put it in, and was simply deferring to whichever editor had. The other two links I used for dates, creative personal, confirmation of character appearances, etc., for which linking individual footnotes would be lengthy, cumbersome and distracting. --Tenebrae 20:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Zombies

Marvel Preview Art shows Spidey webbing away from a character who resembles Stacy; the Marvel Zombies Universe has the heroes turn into Zombies right before a lot of big events, including Stacy's Death. The link to the Art is in the 'Marvel Zombies' sub-article and the Marvel Zombies vs. The Army of Darkness Article.

Sins Past

Why should we have all this 'She didn't look pregnant in issues here to here'? The whole point of Sins Past was to reinvent that period. It's blatantly obvious that not everything would be accounted for as no-one had thought of Gwen being Pregnant when those issues were first published. This is why I am editing that information out, as it appears to be irrelevant to what actually happened.

The contraversy article is there to point out how it doesn't fit. The fact that it includes that she wore a bikini and didn't look pregnant is used to reinforce that article. And, how do you think continuity works? Something happens so you erase the older stuff. That the face that she was pregnant was retconned into the continuity, it doesn't change the past or that she wore a bikini, it just means that they made a really sloppy retcon.

The issues where she wears a bikini occur after she was in Europe, so after her delivery. --Leocomix 11:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Gwen in movie

An anon IP, giving a proper cite, says "this Gwen Stacy will not die as her comic counterpart did."

Does this mean A) that this Gwen Stacy will not die, as her comic counterpart did, or B) that this Gwen Stacy will not die in the manner that her comic counterpart did? --Tenebrae 20:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

She didn't die, period. :) Fluffybun 14:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Gwens of future tense?

Maybe I don't get it, but, just exactly how do you write about things that are past events in Spidey's history in present tense? Trekphiler 12:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

"Gwen dies" instead of "Gwen died", etc. MultipleTom 19:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gwenstacyultimate.JPG

Image:Gwenstacyultimate.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) 14:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sins Past - 3 months (re: ASM 116-18)

I'm a bit confused. According to JMS, due to these three books (an arc) being a reprint, that leaves 3 months unaccounted for - were Spider books happening one per month, or this story was the only one printed for 3 months of time in the universe, or what? And if none of these are the case, should we note this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.25.9 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

brand new day

gwen stacy's death was because of the Green Goblin knowing peter parker's name, so she would half to be ressurected just in another place —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.18.232 (talk) 18:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Stacey in Amazing Spider-Man

I placed a rewrite notice under the television explanation. It is muddled and repetitive and pretty in-universe. Someone more familiar with the material should streamline it to comply with Wiki standards. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Images

Removed Sarah images, as it was not a Gwen image. Removed Dead Girl and Ultimate Gwen returns images, as neither fully illustrated the specific points in the article. Image reduction to better reflect minimal use of copywritten images for fair-use. -Sharp962 (talk) 16:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC).

I know this doesn't really matter, but whouldn't it be better to have a picture of just Gwen on her Wikipedia article, instead of a picture of spider-man with New York and Gwens face (Spectacular version) in the background? I think this picture is better. --Caos2008lv (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The Beginning of the Peter Parker\Mary-Jane Romance

This is the information regarding the citation and volume numbers for the beginning of the Peter\MJ romance. In Amazing Spider-Man #143 (Vol. One) Peter Parker is on his way to France with Joe Robertson and M.J. is there to see him off. Before he boards his plane, Mary-Jane playfully suggests that Peter kiss her good-bye but Peter is ahead of her and places a long, passionate kiss squarely on her lips. Even after his plane takes off he sees that M.J. has stayed and watched his departure. After which the reader views her reaction: "Far Freakin' out!" which was a 60s-70s term expressing absolute astonishment.

In Amazing Spider-Man #146 (Vol. One) Peter is talking with the Gwen Stacy clone but this was before the discovery of her true nature; her fingerprints did match those of Gwen so as far as Peter knew, she was real. When "Gwen" kissed him and expressed her love, she asked Peter if he still loved her--but he couldn't give her an answer. After "Gwen" left in a huff Parker said to himself: 'What do I say to her? "Sorry, Gwen--but I'm not sure these days? There's another girl, somebody I've grown to care about?"' In the very next issue, M.J. tells Peter's Aunt May that she and Peter had "discovered" something about each other but felt Peter was conflicted by "Gwen"'s return. Aunt May (who had been the one who first introduced Peter to M.J.) encouraged her not to give up or be "pushed aside" by another woman.

Finally, In Amazing Spider-Man #149 (Vol. One) after the end of the adventure and the departure of the Gwen Stacy clone, Peter returned home but his Spider-Sense warned him that someone was in his apartment. He found that M.J. was waiting for him. He then said that he was glad to see her. Apparently crestfallen, she asked him: "Do you mean that, Tiger? For real?" To which he responded: "Come here and I'll show you." He closed the door to the reader's gaze and on that note, the story discreetly concluded.

This is the beginning of the romance. The couple would have their first dance together, as lovers, at a party J.Jonah Jameson was giving and the song that was playing was Carl Douglas' "Kung Fu Fighting".MARK VENTURE (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Speculation on upcoming Spider-Man movie

Although it is a distinct possibility that the upcoming Spider-Man movie will depict the death of Gwen Stacy, I'm not aware of an announcement having been made about this. I suspect that the filmmakers will want to keep it a secret until the film's release. In fact, just today there was an article in Entertainment Weekly on the speculation around this. It indicates that they haven't yet said if her death will occur in this movie.[2] As such, I have been reverting an editor who has been stating that the film will show her death, but gives no source to back this up.

(For the record, I'm not concerned about spoilers, but rather that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.) --GentlemanGhost (converse) 22:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Since the movie has now been released internationally (although not yet in the United States), this is happily now a moot point. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 04:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Main Picture - Not Gwen

The main picture is of her daughter, Sarah. I took the issue out of storage just to make sure and indeed - this issue is named "Sarah's Story" and Gwen is not shown in it. Sarah, however, is shown wearing the same outfit shown on the cover. GHA (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Gwen Stacy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080122065848/http://www.wizarduniverse.com:80/magazine/wizard/001060044.cfm to http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/wizard/001060044.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gwen Stacy. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/5mr8ahT2C?url=http://reconstruction.eserver.org/034/blumberg.htm to http://reconstruction.eserver.org/034/blumberg.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060615181025/http://it.umn.edu/news/inventing/2002_Spring/superhero.html to http://www.it.umn.edu/news/inventing/2002_Spring/superhero.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050502031042/http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/111497451826808.htm to http://www.silverbulletcomicbooks.com/rage/111497451826808.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100815224222/http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=141756 to http://forum.newsarama.com/showthread.php?t=141756

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) 15:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Image deletion nomination(s)

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 May 4. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I added (basic) information about Gwen's twins, Sarah and Gabriel

Given that Sarah and Gabriel Stacy represent an aspect of the Gwen Stacy's life, even though she herself does not directly "appear" in the story arc about them, it is pertinent to this article about her. I have provided relatively basic info and referred readers to the other article (about the twins) for a more comprehensive look at the characters. I encourage others to provide more specific information and documentation for both articles.RobertGustafson (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

PS. An apparent "controversy" over this or other stories is irrelevant; Marvel Comics is free to modify its characters any way it sees fit. (Personally, I liked the "Sins Past" story arc, as it made Gwen Stacy into another [flawed] human being like everybody else—rather than this "perfect" individual Peter always seemed to imagine her as. Although I know of no documentation confirming this, it probably helped Peter put her death and his memory of her into proper perspective, possibly helping him to see Mary Jane as the person he was "really" meant for all along. Likewise, "Dead No More: The Clone Conspiracy" probably helped disillusion Peter about other "myths" he had about her, as well as giving Gwen Stacy a more dignified [second] death. But this aside is all POV.)