It certainly seems that way to me, the minimization of Stan Lee's contributions and skills just seems like an extreme overreaction. It just feels akin to redressing a wrong by committing another and I question the usefulness of doing that, especially if one is trying to actually hold an honest dialog about the subject.

Can it feel cathartic to turn the tables, especially when the falsehood was taken as gospel for so long(and still is for some people who are only casual fans)? 

Sure, I get that. But in the long term does that actually help one get their point across?

I'd argue it doesn't, as good as it may feel it's still very obviously revisionist history and thus the argument then becomes about the extent in which you are bending reality to fit a narrative rather than the actual issue at hand which means what ever point you're trying to make just gets lost in the noise. Which is exactly why there are forty some odd pages of back and forth at this point.

You don't get any of that kind of push back if you just stick to calm, cool objective statements like, " It's terrible that people like Jack Kirby and Steve Ditko didn't get the recognition and pay they deserved for the work they did" or "Despite the many provable lies Stan Lee told over the course of his life, he was a none the less a huge part of Marvel's success."

The point that you don't buy into the old origin of the Marvel Universe lie gets across clearly and it's 100% objectively stated so no real arguments can be made against your style of argumentation which limits any chance of ugliness occurring. 

I'm sorry, I just don't see those "pings" as coming from the cane: they look to be coming from Matt's body. As for not carrying his cane out in front of him, as blind folk do, that's surely to reinforce the idea to the reader that he doesn't need the cane because of his radar sense. I don't know….maybe you're right, but I just don't see any evidence of that being an electronic gizmo in the cane when Everett drew it.

We know that Stan came up with Daredevil's radar sense in the brainstorming session with Everett prior to work commencing on Daredevil #1 because he said so in interviews. Now, you might say, "well, Stan was probably lying", but that is to automatically assume that Lee is the bad guy. Discounting everything that Lee said in interviews is not a neutral position from which to posit an alternate, revisionist theory from.

And that's the thing: everything you've said above in defence of your theory above could just as easily be flipped on its head and read in an exactly opposite way. I think you're seeing what you want to see because you are down on Stan Lee. It's classic confirmation bias.

Furthermore, your theory – along with many comments in this thread -- is based on the supposition that the artists were always right or that they can make no errors. It also supposes that they never lied or misremembered facts, whereas the truth is that the likes of Steve Ditko, Wally Wood and Jack Kirby either had a motive for downplaying Lee's participation years after the fact, were slightly weird themselves, or had addictions that clouded their memory and affected their mental health. Not that I entirely disbelieve them, of course; Stan did take a lot of credit for stuff he didn't do, that's pretty much an unassailable fact at this point.

But, I think we must accept that the artists themselves were not infallible and may have sometimes misunderstood elements of the plot Lee had given them. Or maybe they had just screwed up the artwork on occasion? These were not machines; these were very talented human beings working in a pressured environment, with a lot of comic books to churn out month after month.

It is a nasty quote.

That quote of Lee's is actually in the Disney+ Stan Lee documentary, which I watched with my wife a couple of weeks ago (she isn't a comics fan at all, though she likes the Marvel movies). When Stan came out with, "Personally I think the idea is the thing, because an idea can be given to any artist", my wife winced and said, "that sounds really unkind. Like, any numpty could've done the job." I agreed with her -- especially since Stan had said earlier in the same documentary that Spider-Man needed Ditko to draw him because Kirby's take on the character was too heroic looking. Well then Stan, looks like not just any artist could do it (that's without mentioning that it was Ditko who came up with the iconic red and blue costume, the webshooters, the spider-signal etc).

What’s your favorite Stan Lee story that he wrote before Kirby returned to Marvel in the late 1950s?

And this is what I mean by a complete lack of objective first hand knowledge as you cannot with any real objective certainty say what concepts from these early Marvel stories were solely based on the ideas of the various artists with out any input of Stan Lee. 

There may be instances where it certainly appears that way, but objectively? We simply don't really know and attempting to imply more than "Stan Lee certainly didn't come up with these ideas whole cloth all by himself and the artists deserve much more credit than they received." just seems futile. What does it get you to go beyond that if you can't support it objectively? It's a line of reasoning that is just so easy to punch holes in that it makes no sense to try and even trot it out.