Talk:Hulk/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

current personality status of Hulk ( as of current issues)

Wondering which personality is currently showed in current issues of Hulk. Or is the Hulk alternating personalities due to his personality disorder? 18:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The personality which writer Greg Pak has been using for his "Planet Hulk" storyline has been named the "Gravage Hulk" by certain sectors of fandom. Based upon the personality and dialogue Pak has given the Hulk, it is a safe conclusion that this "Gravage Hulk" is essentially a merger of the Green and Grey versions, as he has demostrated the characteristics of both. The "Gravage Hulk's" relationship with the Banner persona is a bit mysterious right now, as the Banner persona has been largely absent from the storyline. By necessity, Banner has refrained from emerging for the most part, probably because all personas know that Banner wouldn't last 5 minutes on Sakaar. The Hulk even stated early in the storyline that "you (the warbound) will never see Banner here" or something to that effect. I'll provide the page and panel number when I get a chance and if someone really needs me to. Darin Wagner 14:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No. The term "Grayvage Hulk" gets 6 Google hits. Six. That's not enough a single sector of fandom. Let it go. Doczilla 08:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I got 570ish hits with the spelling Gravage (which is what Mikesmash under his ISP number had changed the spelling to), but this is almost entirely fan stuff. The Hulk article is too long as it is without adding fancruft. Doczilla 09:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fan-crap. Even the citation has Pak quoting fans, not coining the term or taking it as his own. He further states outright that it's Peter David's merged Hulk. The best we can do now is see an extra line being added to the 'merged hulk section', stating "A similar version is being used by writer Greg Pak in the Planet Hulk and World War Hulk story arcs." then the citation. That would satisfy citation, include the relevant information, and avoid fanning this thing up any more. I'd really like to see each Hulk major Hulk persona labelled by writer, not nicknames. The Merged Hulk would be 'Peter David's Hulk', and could all be re-written for a far more Out of Universe analysis of each.ThuranX 11:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PS - G-hits is not enough on it's own to validate inclusion. ThuranX 11:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Pretty definite it's Savage Hulk, since for the big Hulk events, they'd want to use "The" Hulk. It's pretty much Savage Hulk's personality, he's just got a bigger vocabulary borrowed from Banner, Gray, and the Prof. He's not much like Prof/Merged Hulk at all. So it's the Savage Hulk, just all grown up, I guess.

There is no way that this is the "Savage Hulk." That personality is distinct and does not evolve. It is a practically illiterate child. The "Green Scar" personality is identical to the original Merged Hulk. Cunning, tactical, brutal, and extremely powerful. It's only missing Banner's Super-Intellect. This Hulk seems to have greater psychic control however, since it clearly has mastery of it's rage boost, where none of the other personalities did. I vote that we split the Merged and Professor into 2 distinct personalities, or at least make a new personality listing for the "Green Scar." I know that Marvel would hate it, but it makes the most sense. Marvel scammed readers when they retconned the Merged Hulk into the Professor. That was almost as bad as bringing Bucky back or the clone saga from Spider-Man.

Reverse Gamma Rays

What is all this talk about gamma radiation? I seem to remember that Dr. Bruce Banner was experimenting with reverse gamma radiation when something went horribly wrong, or horribly right, and he became the Incredible Hulk. This is an important point because many people have been exposed to gamma radiation and there is only one Incredible Hulk. To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Bruce Banner is the only person to have been exposed to reverse gamma radiation, and, hence, is the only person to have become the Incredible Hulk. I am probably wrong about that last item, but my point is that reverse gamma rays are extremely rare. Otherwise, there would be lots of Incredible Hulks running around. Substituting gamma rays for reverse gamma rays in the Hulk story is not cute like substituting a recombinant DNA spider for a radioactive spider in the Spiderman movie. It would be a sacrilege like substituting copper for kryptonite in the Superman story.Captain Phoenix 00:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

#500

Can ANYONE tell me when Hulk is going to reach it's 500th issue?

Technically speaking, the Hulk has already reached its 500th issue a while back. Before they relaunched the Hulk title, there had been somewhere around 470 issues of the Incredible Hulk already printed since 1962.Odin's Beard 23:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And for future posts refrain from using the talk page for anything but discussions about the article. This is not a forum. Also dont forget to sign your posts. Thefro552 02:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This SHOULD be in the Article. To Odin's Beard: when Marvel rebooted Incredible Hulk at Issue #474... it was technically only issue #376. Here's why. After the first six issues of Incredible Hulk in 1962, Marvel canceled the series. Six years later, "Tales to Astonish" was renamed into "The Incredible Hulk" starting at issue #102. Therefore, if you do the math, Hulk is technically at issue #484. pvegeta 16:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's very interesting and all, but I fail to see how it could be important to the article. It's an itneresting bit of trivia, but that's about it. If there were a trivia section, it'd be an ideal addition I believe. However, since the article is, currently, almost the same size as the Wolverine article, last thing it needs really is another section.Odin's Beard 23:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image size

Per Wikipedia Manual of Style:

Specifying the size of a thumb image is not recommended: without specifying a size the width will be what the reader has specified in their user preferences, with a default of 180px (which applies for most readers). However, the image subject or image properties may call for a specific image width to enhance the readability or layout of an article. Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:

* On images with extreme aspect ratios * When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts * When a small region of an image is considered relevant, but the image would lose its coherence when cropped to that region * On a lead image that captures the essence of the article.

--Tenebrae 04:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hulk in Marvel Ultimate Alliance

The section describing Bruce Banner's appearance in Marvel Ultimate Alliance is unclear. It says who voiced him in the Xbox, PS3 and Wii versions and also says he was a playable character in the downloadable add-on to the Xbox 360 version. There is no mention of the PS2, PSP and PC versions of the game. Does Bruce Banner appear in them at all? 218.215.128.29 04:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not unclear, it's incomplete. feel free to research that and report back. ThuranX 05:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hulk in Secret Wars

The mountain lifitng feet is a huge misconception spread across net that needs to be clarified for an enclyopedia. Just saying on cover "he's under billions of tons of rock" doesn't translate to "he alone is supporting 150 billion tons." just because there are "two miles of rock above them" doesn't mean "he alone is supporting 150 billion tons." he's holding a lot of weight, i'll give him that much. but he isn't holding/bracing/pushing against 150 billion tons. The planes of the top half of the mountain and the bottom half of the mountain weren't separated. hulk wasn't the only point of connection between, thus, he was not bracing the entire weight of the mountain. the vast majority of the "bottom half" on which the "top half" was resting was holding the majority of the weight. If that much weight was pressing down directly onto the hulk, the rock wall would be shattering and grinding every hero in their to dust as it takes over the "empty" area in an attempt to relieve the pressure. This is pretty easy to see in issue.

You're substituting personal interpretation and opinion for what the official stance is. If Marvel Comics says that the guy supported or can support 150 billion tons, that's what goes into the article. Granted, it was written on the cover of the issue but the amount of weight is still clearly written. Everything you said makes sense in the real world, but you're fighting a losing battle when it comes to applying logic to comic book articles. If anyone has ever read a comic book, it's obvious that what's logical isn't always what applies. Even the laws of science and nature don't apply in comic books, as they're routinely broken on a regular basis. Odin's Beard 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you even read the ACTUAL issue??? The cover only says "he's under billions of tons of rock" thats it! This would be like posting a comic cover that has Venom holding the broken body dead body of spiderman as saying venom killed spiderman. read the issue and make sense of the logic instead of HYPERBOLE--which doesn't belong on wiki.

Yes, I have read the actual issue. I've got the paperback of all 12 issues, which features the cover of each individual issue inside. I'm looking at the cover of #4 right this second and it says, and I quote, "Beneath one hundred and fifty billion tons, stands the Hulk -- And he's not Happy!" You really need to get your facts straight before you post. Also, please sign your posts next time.Odin's Beard 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I too have the 12 issue paper-back and my Dad has the original issue and it DOES say one hundred and fifty billion tons...Nuff SaidThe K.O. King 2 August 2007

Excess detail in description of Planet Hulk

The planet hulk section had excess detail in it and I have cut it down to two paragraphs. How it stands now explains the key bits for a general reader. --Fredrick day 23:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Someone needs to update the hulk history. It's too short and only leads up to him coming to Earth. Someone needs to add his fight with the X-men,Iron man, Ghost rider and anything else that happened in the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.196.182 (talk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictional_history_of_Spider-Man we need something like thus for HULK

HULK NEEDS A DETAILED HISTORY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.196.182 (talk)

Why do we want the unfinished info for WWH? the most recent entry doesn't include any of the events such as hulk's fight with blackbolt, him meating with the x-men, ghost rider, his fight with iron man why the Hulk bias? why does spidey get a highlt detailed history yet hulk can't even get a few tidbits about his huge event? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.196.182 (talk)

As I posted on this anon-IP user's talk page, WPC prohibits overdetailed, issue-by-issue synopses, and in this case, the information doesn't even go here but in the main article, World War Hulk. I don't know how old 24.90.196.182 is, and justing from "him meating with the x-men" I imagine it's a kid and I don't want to be harsh, but this detailed information about one story arc doesn't belong on the general Hulk page that has a "see main" link. I'm sorry. --Tenebrae 13:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't apologize, apologies are meant if you did something wrong. I find it unfair that Spidey gets a highly detailed history while the Hulk doesn't. Please excuse my poor grammar, as I was writing fast and not checking my work. My intent was to give a very loose idea of the info and then have someone who has more free time the chance to edit it. I find it funny how it's the "rules" for the WCP, I assume it means Wikipedia Comic Project, Spider-man is a comic book character, is he not? Perhaps we should remove his history. Even by the WCP's standards, the Hulk history section is very poor. It focuses too much on the history of the character in terms of when it was written and who wrote it. Even so, I offer my apologies, I was harsh, yet bias iritates me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.196.182 (talk • contribs).

I think if you'll look again at the Spider-Man article, you'll see that the "Fictional character biography" is just one paragraph, with a link to Fictional history of Spider-Man. And if you go to that sub-article, you'll find the the "Death of Gwen Stacy" storyline is also just one paragraph, with a link to The Night Gwen Stacy Died. Honestly, there's no bias here. --Tenebrae 18:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The bottom line here folks, is that additional detail on the World War Hulk events should be posted at the World War Hulk main article not here. Here, it becomes clutter. Kontar 21:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Propose to move 'Other versions' to a new article

This article is quite long. I propose that we make the 'Other versions' section into its own article. Both Spider-Man and Wolverine have their own article about their other versions. (Wolverine's; Spider-Man's) This was done to shorten the main article, and I think it should be done here. -Freak104 14:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is getting long and we should probably break that section off onto another page specifically designed for "Other Versions," especially if there continues to be developments for those other versions such as Ultimate Hulk.--Kontar 17:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Tempest Fugit retcon

This is in relation to the Hulk articles in general. I can't find any that have incorporated the nature of the retcons established in "Tempest Fugit" and "Hulk: Destruction". The former completely wipes Bruce Jones' run out of continuity; the latter confirms this and also rewrites the background of the Abomination so it fits into a contemporary continuity (as opposed to one where the US is at war with Russia). This needs improvement. MultipleTom 14:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You would need to provide citation stating that the stories are accepted retcons which were intended as such by Marvel. After such, you could add the revisions to the article, but not in place of the current info. Rather it would need to be presented in the Out-of-Universe style that Marvel had story A, but in year X retconned story B into the character history. ThuranX 19:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it not be simpler to just excise the "offending" (I use the term loosely) content? The relevant issues are Hulk #81 (wherein Nightmare reveals that the Hulk has been living on his fantasy island for a while) and Hulk: Destruction #4 (wherein the Abomination does not recall their previous "encounter" involving his wife and Hulk remembers that it was Nightmare's doing). Together, this conclusively established that none of the events of Bruce Jones' run past #50 (and, presumably, prior to that as well, as it was all part of the same storyline) actually happened anywhere other than in Bruce Banner's mind. MultipleTom 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX. Even though the history has been retconned, an encyclopedia should chronicle the revisions as well as the original history. I think you're right though- the revisions should be highlighted. --Kontar 17:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. The retcon was easily explicit enough to negate any claims of speculation, as long as we note down that it may not be final. (That goes for Black Panther as well btw) However, while the Bruce Jones run may be out (or at least partially out, as this was the point of the 'Dream and Reality meshing together' comment, the Paul Jenkins stuff still seems valid, given that Ryker has shown up in 'Gamma Corps'. Dave 13:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to chime in here. Beyond the Hulk: Destruction story the retcons were confirmed in the recent World War Hulk #3, where Betty was stated as dead by General Ross. So the Devil Hulk, the ooc Absorbing Man story, and most of Bruce Jones' run, i.e. Betty's resurrection, Nadia and the Abomination, seem to be out going by the images above Nightmare when he explained his scheme. Although the Leader's two 'deaths' were simply noted as confusing ruses he had manufactured himself in She-Hulk #18. Dave 10:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not citable information, that's your judgement based on different writers' stories, and is explained under WP:SYNTH. You need to find an interview with the writers, or a sstatement by one of marvel's Hulk editors, stating that it's all retconned out. That Marvel chose to turn it all into the Bobby Ewing ending is not indicative, on it's own, of a 'retcon'. It's indicative of one group of writers being hired to 'fix' a plot ending that was unacceptable to the readers or editorial staff or both. That it all was built into and explained by the Nightmare story means that it all still happened, even if most of it was really in his head. ThuranX 11:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup. it was all in the Hulk's head, and/or tangible illusions created by Nightmare. That's the point of the retcon. It was more elegant than simply saýing "it was all a dream", more like "much of it was a scheme". In any case I do remember a Peter David/Paul Jenkins panel where David said that he considered most of what happened after he first left as out of continuity, so if someone could find that for further backup that would be an idea. However the only retcons explicitly shown were those mentioned above, so we'll have to restrict ourselves to mentioning that, rather than scrap everything 1998-2004 or so. Dave 14:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's STILL not a retcon. A retcon is a real world, non-in-universe editorial decision to alter or remove prior events in the character's personal history. Without any editorial commentary to cite, the entire event that occured counts as 'Nightmare began a long and subtle attack against the Hulk, manipulating him in dreams to believe her was being pursued by a giant faceless organzation. Within the fantasy Nightmare created, Hulk was tricked into killing the abomination, running from the government, seeing betty come back to life, and on and on." It's all legit and real. Your continued insistence that the 'it was all a dream' equals' it's a retconning' is groundless without citation. That David decided that nothing that happened since he quit counted and used the Dream device to get around all that is his way of saying, I don't want to deal with any of this stuff, I want it how I left it, so everything since I left was in a dream. It might be Peter David's retcon, in that he doesn't have to acknowledge all that stuff, but to call it such would need a citation. (and frankly, it's a good sign of why Peter David never should have come back to the comic, since he refused to accept anything not his. Big ownership issues.) ThuranX 15:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So to boil it down we agree of what happened (Some of the Jenkins and most of the Jones run were definitely 'hallucinations' crated by Nightmare, or at least the 'no Nadia' and 'dead Betty' bits were confirmed in other stories) but use different words to describe it? The definition that explicit editorially passed happenings within the comics are not enough to warrant the retcon word itself is new information to me, but if you have a better term I have no problem with using that instead. As for PD, I agree that he seemed too possessive, but several things later on, including 'the professor' and Nadia's portrayal, directly contradicted what he had established as well, alternately made no sense, like the Absorbing Man being a creepy serial-killer or the formerly dead/stuck in a polar bear Leader twice showing up mutated just to die again, so it's at least partially understandable. Dave 15:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hulk's powers

Someone removed the link to the list of Hulk's powers and abilities from the main page.I feel that it is rather inconvenient for people who wish to investigate the character,and am wondering if someone knoew how to link the page to this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manthor (talk • contribs) 08:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't his powers include at least some degree of reactive evolution? He seems to be able to adapt to almost everything, and I think it was Nick Fury who mentioned that he probably could adapt to live in space if given enough time. 193.217.196.6 15:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Reactive adaptation? Find references and examples. The Hulk is not Doomsday.

Who said he was? I said some degree, which mean only a low level, but enought to make it possible for him to adapt more than can be explained to toughness alone.

Examples: In Incredible Hulk #89, Hulk is sent out into space by SHIELD. In #90 when Nick Fury is asked how Hulk will survive, he says he will adapt to space.

As seen here, in issue #77, Hulk has evolved a gland who makes it possible for him to breath underwater. 193.217.193.124 10:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Marvel is clearly defining a new Hulk with the World War Hulk and Planet Hulk stories. It is interesting that with each new issue editors are making very clear the new abilities and expanded powers that the Hulk has. The invulnerability to mental attacks being the Hulk's newest power is an example. If the narrator were anyone else, (like Nick Fury and the whole "reactive adaption" argument) I would agree with the assumption that this not be included, but Professor X's declaration was clear, he himself even was shocked by the event and called it "impossible." Obviously, within Marvel there is no greater expert on the human psyche than Prof. X. I know that some wiki editors hate power-creeping by Marvel (and ESPECIALLY DC) editors, but it is what it is. As encyclopedia editors, we can only chronicle that change, it is not our job to speculate on whether or not that change is warranted. 24.9.20.149 06:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We'd still need citation for your premise. As it is, we may be seeing powers that will fade, which are a result of foreign radiations, or any number of things which get explained throughout the series. This is the sort of thing which is why WP:COMIC often cautions against recentisms. I'd suggest holding off on any edits which imply events of WWH are permanent until the series is over, and even then, I'd prefer some editorial confirmations. I doubt that all this is permanent, because if it is, it makes the hulk into an indestructible character by any means. While we've seen some ridiculous restorations in various futures and what if stories, we haven't seen him being totally impervious to everythign before this, and will probably rapidly see him depowered after this to ensure that we can still have Hulk stories. It's highly unlikely Marvel intends to kill off TWO flagship characters right before both have movies. I'd seriously and sincerely prefer to mention Prof. X's exchange in the WWH summary with as brief a remark as possible, and only add it to the Powers listing if it's permanent. the Powers box isn't meant to list any power ever held, as evidenced by SPider-man's page lacking all the captian universe powers (to cite a clear example). Let's cover it in WWH, then address it at the end. ThuranX 06:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

See, I disagree with the statement about having to keep him depowered to get good stories. Like with Superman it's just about creating worthy challenges. The alternative to keeping Hulk at his peak would be to see him far below such characters as Thor, Sentry, Silver Surfer, Absorbing Man, Beta-Ray Bill or the Juggernaut, rather than on par with them where he belongs, and match him against dull low-scale threats. It seems biased to censor all such feats just because you'd rather see everyone forget about them. His power is relative to his rage, and has had vast peaks as far back as ripping the Celestial-fighting 'Flame of Life' in half (and likely further still), as well as deep lows. I'd rather not see that readers confuse Marvel's ludicrous '100 ton' scale with that Hulk is an even match for Killer Croc. The character's entire point is to be an outrageously powerful loose cannon, whose power increases or wanes with his motivation. He's not really 'powered-up' in World War Hulk, just so mad that he's constantly kept at his higher established levels. (And still not on nearly par with the Celestial-/Galactus-/Dormammu-level raw power shown when fighting Onslaught)

The oddball abilities should be at least briefly mentioned in that (they only occasionally show up) context. The resistance to telepathy is nothing new. Like with Rogue his multiple personalities have previously been mentioned as granting him extremely high-level resistance on this front. Dave 12:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above, this is has been verified. The Hulk has always had strong resistance to mental attacks, but as stated in the issue, this time it's different, and has been verified by the source material. Any reversals represents a personal point of view. The only reason it should be removed is if there is an actual reversal as stated by Marvel. "Permanent" is never permanent in comic books. Would you go and edit the Captain America article to remove any mention of his death simply because you believe that he will eventually come back? I would agree with you in that instance, but that's subjective. Future speculation is not encyclopedic. Besides, recentism is NOT a Wikipedia guideline or policy, and is not by itself an argument for article deletion or modification. It is a reason for discussion.On the other hand, Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's core content policies, and the speculation that his psychic invulnerability will evaporate in the future without citation or reference is against that core content policy. I agree with you that at the end of the series or in a few years he could be rendered vulnerable, but that is just my speculation and speculation is not verifiable. Kontar 15:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're talking to Thuran or myself above, so my apologies if I misunderstand, but just to clarify, I'm not saying that this should not be mentioned, I'm just stating that this is not a 1-time out of the sky ability suddenly dumped on us, which gives it higher merit for mentioning. (However, according to Xavier his resistance is stronger than back when he fought Cable) I agree that wantonly undoing (rather than modifying or shortening down) strictly fact-based additions constitutes a severe POV in itself. I had an 'Oh, come on' reaction after seeing my recent minor edits (to the WWH section) reflexively undone. Dave 17:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no 'Serious POV' which both of you keep claiming. The article can mention it in the WWH. I never said it shouldn't. What I DID say is that Infoboxs represent the general character, and not the character as it appears in a single story arc, Hence the lack of listing Captain UNiverse's powers in Spiderman, or listing Eight Arms in Spiderman. Keep it out of the INfobox, keep it IN the WWH, and after WWH, it's addition to the infobox can be discussed. Recentism is my reasoning for not modifying the general version of the character represented in the IB, but the events of WWH and changes FOR THAT STORY can be made to the WWH section. ThuranX 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely undoing virtually any relevant additions regardless how well referenced does count as severe POV, (i.e. JJonz not allowing me to clarify that Iron Man's nanobots were contructed to inhibit Hulk's powers, and tested them out on Abomination and She-Hulk, rather than the rampaging version, or that 'War Hulk' is the official handle used to refer to Hulk's servitude under Apocalypse, while 'Green King/Scar' is the one for Sakaar), alternately very lazy in cases certain adjectives or adverbs simply need to be cut out.

In this specific case however Hulk has had an extremely high resistance to telepathic assault for many years, it has simply turned more pronounced because he's currently constantly furious. I sort of agree with your point about keeping distinctive abilities to different incarnations (although he's capable of shifting between them on short notice), but this doesn't contitute a new ability as such, simply a current intense emotional state. Basically, specifically pointing him out as sensitive to telepathic assault, rather than extremely resistant but possible to overcome (Moondragon with the Mind Gem knocked him out with one blast, but then she effortlessly did the same to Professor X) needs to be slighly modified. The resistance to matter-manipulation, vague connection to the supernatural/dark magic sponge, and partial homing sense should also be very briefly mentioned.

Btw: The Sakaar & Planet Hulk versions basically seem to have the same personality/be the same incarnation as the one Peter David used during his return. Should this be mentioned? I also think unclear continuity issues should be briefly addressed. There's no speculation attached if it's explicitly referred to in the book, as long as we state no definitives.Dave 19:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, What we have here is a CONTENT Dispute. POV would be me pushing some ridiculous agenda here. I'm discussing the relevance of altering the Infobox, instead of keeping the info in the current, still-developing storyline section. That's CONTENT. If you're going to continue to make fals accusations, this discussion will go nowhere.ThuranX 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen several cases of pushing an agenda through censoring away any content someone would rather not have been seen, even if it's matter of fact, but I agree that this counts as a simple dispute since we're having a dialogue. I intended the definite 'accusation' regarding JJonz. Dave 20:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now done a (what I think is) a very matter-of fact and thinned down expansion, sticking to the most relevant bits: Another nuclear explosion footnote, holding together the continental plates of a planet, withstanding Human Torch's "nova-burst", and officially listed with certain superhuman speed. I also moved a disjointed parts into their 'proper' columns, and rephrased a few sentences for better flow and accuracy.

So, the question is: Should we briefly mention a few of the most impressive feats (such as stopping the Juggernaut, overloading the Absorbing Man, shattering the Cyttorrak bands, breaking pure adamantium, ripping the "Flame of Life" in half, keeping apart matter & anti matter, throwing an Infinity Gem into the heart of a planet etc), and more oddball powers (expanded homing sense, limited reactive evolution, dark magic sponge, reflecting gamma-blasts) in 2-3 sentences at the end? Absorbing nuclear radiation to power-up should probably get a brief mention at least. It's even listed among his powers at the top of the page. Dave 11:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems like JJonz is doing his usual senseless, non-warranted, censorship edit-warring routine again. Is there any way to permanently get a stop to this guy, since he apparently doesn't listen to, nor is shown capable of any level of reasoning beyond kindergarten insults? Dave 12:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

the thing and wolverine should be categories as hulk's rival.

i've added ' wolverine ' as one of hulk allies as someone did on ' the thing '. note that either of them most likely to battle hulk almost just each time they confronts each other. my suggestion, it's most preferably we should create a segment just for hulk's rivals (-: (or any other fictional characters especially in novel graphic)

Rampaging vs. Savage

Please note that the "Savage" title is a point of view of wiki editors, not the official titling of the Marvel character. We should not use fan-based editing. Marvel titles the character "Rampaging" to the point of it being the actual name of the series devoted to this personality: Rampaging Hulk#1. There are other references current day as well, including the Marvel Adventures series "Avengers" #4, where this version of the Hulk is still dominant and even still wears purple pants. And in this issue, he is referred to as "the Rampaging Hulk." Please refrain from adding POV edits, regardless of how emotionally attached you may be to that titling. "Savage" is not canon.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.20.149 (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2007

WHy it took this long to get an explanation from you and your friend at 193. is beyond me. Further, I'm not the only one who has bothered to revert the change. Accusations of POV and 'fan-based editing' are personal attacks. Learn wiki's etiquette, refrain from personal attacks, and learn to use talk pages sooner. Finally, use four Tildes ~~~~ to ign your posts, even with an IP and no account. Thank you. ThuranX 00:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, I respect your editing in several articles throughout Wikipedia, as you seem to truly care in most instances about the integrity of the encyclopedia. However, you were not mentioned by name (as you chose to do here) and have spent a good portion of your editing attacking other editors (as you chose to do here), it would be a benefit to all if you release the condescending tone you apply to your edits as well as the preaching. All editors should avoid POV, as per wiki policy, if we are to have an encyclopedia worth reading, and that rule applies to my edits as well. Thank you for your contributions, with the exception of edits like the one above, they have been excellent. 24.9.20.149 14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys, could you please take this discussion of wiki etiquette elsewhere? Like maybe ThuranX's talk page since 24.9.20.149 apparently doesn't have one. This talk page should be devoted to the Hulk, not slamming each other. Thanks guys. Oh and for my part, "Rampaging" is much better in terms of accuracy. --Kontar 16:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

Hey everybody, I don't know if you've seen, but Marvel is OFFICIALLY calling the Rampaging Hulk - "the Savage Hulk." It is named as such in the current issue of Gamma Files. So we can drop the Rampaging title. Kontar 00:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He's been officially called the rampaging Hulk in the past, but they've apparently changed it now. Not that either makes much sense. If anything the Joe Fixit version was far more savage, (cheerfully watching a well-intended screwball be condemned to Hell pretty much makes him pure evil) and the mindless versions were the automatically rampaging. Dave 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Recent Edits

recent edits by david A seem to have a great deal of speculation in them, and others use POV language. The expansions to the lists of allies, enemies, and so on include incredible amounts of WP:PEACOCK terms and POV. Jarella's is a good example - Kind, brave, Tragically, Pained him to this day... These are exceptionally POV, and the 'to this day' is recentism. A lot of this character list is way too expansive, in terms of both the sheer number and significance of the characters listed. Rhino would be jsut one example. Further, I'm wondering if this giant list belongs here at all. This isn't too far off of the 'Enemies of Character X' categories, which are regularly deleted. Further, this is a giant list, which is rarely a good thing on wikipedia pages. How many of these do we genuinely need, and how many could be incorporated into a better Character History section, one which perhaps avoids the extensive focus on the most recent storylines? ThuranX 02:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Too long and too much POV. Kontar 04:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jarella was extremely explicit with the whole kind and brave bit, given that she willingly sacrificed herself to save a child, and was unconditionally accepting, unless you want to go the "What is kindness? What is bravery? Isn't everything relative?" road, and the Hulk had an episode of intense grief for her during FF533-535, but you should naturally feel free to rectify it to be suitable. I made some rough draft improvements/expansions, that's all. Although I very much tried to keep to what's been explicitly shown about the characters: Mister Hyde had two issues devoted to making the point of unnerving the Hulk due to being a dark mirror, and it's hard to argue that Juggernaut wasn't portrayed as a bullying thug for most of his career etc, it adds flavor and brief information. If there are any other edits you think are inexplicable or out of thin air you could always mention them here if you wish. As for the Wolverine move from enemies to friends, he's most definitely generally an enemy, much more so than Thor, given that he's attempted to kill the Hulk almost every other time they've met. Claiming othervise would be far more POV than anything I put into it. He's also pretty explicitly shown as a psychotic mass-murderer who goes into killing rages where he'll kill thousands of enemies out of sheer bloodthirst, even in cases where they're completely outmatched and it isn't remotely necessary, but that's less important.

I also think we should keep the list as it showcases that Hulk has a much bigger and diverse enemy/ally roster than most are aware of, which is also helpful for any upcoming writers who want to do something cool with the character. Perhaps we should add some more obscure good friends like Crackajack Jackson?

As for the Galactus instance, from what I remember Captain America simply said that the other heroes should distract him before he killed the Hulk, but the latter immediately got up and wasn't even struck unconscious after the blast. That's minor damage. Dave 07:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the JJOnz reverts

I basically agree with the reverts in the general article text, and can see how the friends&enemies sections take too much room, even if I think they're concise and informative. If you wish to shorten the texts there or cut away some of the less important foes like Psyklop, that would be understandable, but I really don't think the powers section is overloaded. The Hulk has performed a lot of feats over the years, and I've strictly kept to very concisely describing the most relevant circumstances. It's also not standard wikipedia policy to cut away concise explicit references. It's understandable if you personally take the time to improve the flow of the text while keeping all of them, but simple cut&paste reverts just seem like vandalism, or at least laziness. Dave 11:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've now made an attempt to cut down the f&e and improve the flow of the powers section. Dave 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, this has turned really silly. JJonz doesn't listen to reason, gives no actual talk arguments, and resorts to crude insults when logic fails him. He's going against every wikipedia philosophy out there. In any case I've genuinely tried to improve the page, and generally try to be reasonable, but it's pretty hard when the other party doesn't take any time to actually improve the possibly inaccurate points, rather than lazily reverting everything, doesn't gives any point-by point arguments of why he think it's 'POV'/why unfounded sweeping censorship somehow isn't, and resorts to bratty obnoxious insults instead of reason or using the Talk page. I'm bored of this now, but hopefully we can get some editor to mediate. Dave 12:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed that JJonz had been banned for 1 day due to his vandalism, but then Fredrick day immediately did the same thing. Is there any chance we could talk about what we should keep or rephrase about the added material instead of this pointless non-argument? Dave 13:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually you will note that I immediately reverted my revert as I decided I didn't actually want to become involved in this situation. that's the start,middle and end of my involvement in the matter --Fredrick day 14:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok. My apologies for mentioning you then. I'm also pretty much done with it now, but if anyone would like to browse through the edits and re-insert the ones that are relevant with non-flowery language (which is the way I always write) that would be nice. I tried to be as thorough, concise and factual as I could. Dave 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

We can ,but I'd suggest EITHER talking things out here, or reverting over and over to your version, which it seems guarantees reversion back and escalation of hostilities. There's enough criticism of your edits on this talk page already, I'd suggest you picking up the ball and moving it forward here, instead of out there. ThuranX 14:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm completely bored of re-editing, so I'd much rather talk about it and then see what comes out of that, but think a lot of the powers section additions are very relevant references as such, even if the language was inappropriate. Please bring up the inserts I got wrong, that should be reworded, or you think should be kept. At least I think I managed to shorten down the friends & enemies section pretty well, and also put them in alphabetic order. Dave 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A rundown of those changes

Ok, I have a bit more energy/interest now, so I’ll do a rundown here to justify the validity of the additions, and allow others to pick them apart if they’re incorrect. We can always re-insert the good ones afterwards as a starting structure. (The reference links are all there and can be copied and inserted from my last edit) Since I've been called a ‘fannish flowery peacock’ for my writing style (it’s never happened before, but English is my second to third language), others can simply modify the language to a format they approve of, or insert new versions of any facts that I have got semi-wrong. That’s the way I’m used to handling problems in a reasonable collaborative manner. No territorial unjustified ‘delete’ vandalism/censorship/trolling, or ’yo momma’ quality retorts that only lead to bans, without adding anything of value, just everyone taking the time to try to improve the page, with solid given reasons for every change.

The Maestro covered under a rockslide isn’t enough ground to speculate that he’s dead, just because he hasn’t been seen since. In fact in the last image he appeared almost or fully grown/regenerated. A rockslide shouldn’t have bothered him in the least. Better to just mention that he was covered and hasn’t been seen/used by any writer since.

As seen in She-Hulk Iron Man developed his nanobots to inhabit the Hulk’s powers, and successfully tested them out on the Abomination, the U-Foes and She-Hulk among others. He didn't exactly develop them to kill or defeat the rampaging version. Specifying that seems valid.

This is one I need backup on, before re-inserting it: Black Bolt's voice defeated the rampaging/childlike Hulk back in the day, but the image I remember had the latter stunned but still conscious.

The Hulk’s various feats of strength and durability are also highly relevant. Why is the ‘surviving a ground zero nuclear warhead’ from issue 440 included, when we don’t know for sure if he simply leapt out of the dead centre, while the times he took a gamma-bomb and the Human Torch’s ‘nova-burst’ to the face without damage are taken away. (I’m pretty sure that he has withstood Torch’s 1000000 Fahrenheit nova-flame elsewhere as well, but don’t remember the issues. I also vaguely remember hearing that he withstood one during the Atlantis-Wakanda Kiber Island war as well. Is that true?) On the other hand in that issue Thor was given as 10x stronger than normal, and right before the bomb hit Hulk is still pushing him towards the ground with a single arm, and was only slowed down for 2 seconds by Thor’s most powerful lightning strike. Those seem more relevant.

Speaking of which, Thor also managed to crack Onslaught’s armour when rescuing Xavier, with much less effort. What made Hulk’s feat much more impressive was that Onslaught was in flux in the former case, and had now absorbed the power of Franklin Richards, stated as exceeding that of the Phoenix, and elsewhere as equal to that of a Celestial, enough to create a second sun. He also didn’t simply crack the armour, he overcame Onslaught in a competition of strength by pushing his arm upwards despite the latter’s best efforts to keep him put, and utterly destroyed the latter’s physical form, reducing him to a ‘cloud of energy’, while the assembled other Marvel heroes were shown as completely inefficient in comparison.

That Hulk withstood the Silver Surfer’s force-blasts without damage during their fight a few months later, along with those of a ‘’giant’’ (much more powerful than normal) Thanos, with only quickly healed burns, are also noteworthy as they both have an output comparable to extremely high-powered nukes. Hulk also stayed conscious when hit by a blast from a weakened Galactus during the Secret Wars, but might have been knocked out or even killed from prolonged exposure. He wasn't nearly as tough in those days.

The ‘stopping Juggernaut in his tracks’, ‘overloading the Absorbing Man’ and ‘breaking the Crimson Bands of Cytorrak’ bits are also extremely notable by Marvel Universe standards and should be listed somewhere. This also goes for manhandling pure adamantium, which even Thor apparently can't without the Odin-power backing him up. I only had the Ultron issue in my head, but I've heard that there have been other instances as well.

This also goes for holding together the continental plates (yes I know that’s preposterous, but so is everything else he does, including not being sent tumbling backwards through space by the counter-force of shattering that asteroid twice the size of Earth. Heck, tell that to Superman the next time he goes meteor pushing) of the planet Sakaar, which is technically far more impressive than holding up that mountain range.

Withstanding being pierced by a ‘Dog O’ War’s’ teeth, capable of destroying (likely secondary) adamantium in 7.3 seconds is also very noteworthy, as is the Maestro eventually healing from being blown to powder, which is even mentioned in the handbook. He took a blow from the Valkyrie’s virtually indestructible sword Dragonfang without damage while hunting Doctor Strange to revive Jarella, but I don’t remember it very well, so she may have used the flat of the blade.

It seems more appropriate to mention that he withstood Black Bolt’s whisper without damage in the powers section than in the ‘War Hulk’ section. (Btw: That’s easily confused with the time he served Apocalypse. Perhaps ‘warlord Hulk’, ‘Sakaar Hulk’ or ‘Green King’ instead?) In the ‘World War Hulk’ book we are cut off after this instance, but in the Iron Man crossover there’s also an image where the Hulk is clearly shown surviving a wildly screaming Black Bolt after this instant. (It also fleshed out the issue by showing the Hulk’s ship crushing a fleet of attacking empty Iron Man armours just before he landed on the Moon) We have no other clear gauges of his speed and fighting skill, except the ones listed in the handbook (roughly equal to Thor, Hercules, and Spider-Man), but they seem to make sense from several of his more ‘recent’ (up to 15 year old) interactions with them, so brief mentions about that would seem appropriate.

As for his other powers, his partial connection to the mystical world was a major plot point of the Heroes Reborn event. He served as a nexus to the other world, which Doctor Strange used to travel to it, and powered up his calm base strength (but he lost the rage-factor). The other-dimensional Hulk also made a big point about it when he visited from the future. Much later, in the ‘Dear Tricia…’ issue, Hulk was explicitly shown as immune to/acting as a sponge for most forms of dark magic, which was also used in his crossover run-in with the Darkness, but the latter case is less relevant. He also used his homing sense to locate Onslaught while burrowing underground, and reflected the gamma-ray blasts of the Galaxy Master.

The ‘limited reactive evolution’ bit previously mentioned here on the talk, seems pretty relevant since he consistently turn more powerful and durable, morphs between various differently capable forms, along with developing a powerful healing factor, while it took him days or weeks to recover back when Ultron blasted his leg. But most of the instances where he’s hurt at the beginning of the fight and shrugs off attacks toward the end are explained by that he’s simply madder then. The ‘developing a gland that makes him able to breathe underwater’ bit seems noteworthy at least, but surviving in space could just be he goes into a protective hibernation like the Abomination. Does anyone remember more explicit examples?

The friends & enemies section did seem in need of an overhaul, since it currently makes it seem like he has the least diverse villain roster in comics. Better to showcase all the major ones, to make both readers and writers interested. Also, why is someone like ‘Ravage’ mentioned while several of his older major villains aren’t? They should probably be put in alphabetic order, and it’s notable that several of his main opponents are considered as heroes, like Thor, Wolverine and Thing. Although I'm not quite sure if Thing should be listed as a friend just because they got along after the Hulk beat him up in Las Vegas.

The deaths of his mother, father (due to accidentally killing the bastard), Jarella, Jim Wilson, Betty and Caiera are arguably the big tragic events that have plagued him to this day, so it would be preferable to briefly explain them somehow. Jim had the AIDS mentioned. Jarella and Betty should be briefly expanded as well. These were the 3 he had an episode about during his Vegas rampage. The same goes for that it’s unclear whether or not Betty's resurrection and Bruce’s affair with Nadia were retroactively undone or not due to the ‘Tempus Fugit’ and ‘Hulk: Destruction’ story arcs. The Juggernaut doesn’t have arm-wrestling strength rivalling the Hulk, rather than roughly matching his base level, but does have mystic ‘’power’’ usually making him a roughly even match. The Hulk was only the Sentry’s ‘sidekick’ (talk about diminishing the character) due to a gigantic ‘retcon’ so that should be mentioned as well. There are also a few reality-controlling types more powerful, even if his claim to have the power of ‘a million exploding suns’ is correct. As opposed to the stated limit of 100000 super-soldiers/Captain Americas, which seems more in line with what we’ve seen, so it seems extremely uncertain to mention that he’s considered as the most powerful human being.

If I've forgotten any, just mention it, and I'll explain why I put them there. Best wishes. Dave 13:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This constant expansion of his 'powers' is really getting ridiculous. There's been as much, or more, 'power of hulk'-creep as Hulk's experienced power creep. Indexing each of his powerful feats isn't encyclopedic.I think that we really ought to revise the entire powers section down to 'hes really strong, and gets stronger the more angry he feels' and 'he heals fast'. Many of the Hulk's writers have sought to top the previous 'amazing feat' and so on. cataloging all the writers' top moments is pointless. His powers section is huge for a guy who basically gets stronger as he gets madder. we don't need the ten to fifteen paragraphs. That's for a fan site. Is there a way to bring it back to the more encyclopedic style? We can use a few examples in a list form... something like:"Over the years, creative teams have portrayed Hulk accomplishing some drastic feats of strength, including lifting a mountain(ref), Punching an asteroid 2x earth (ref) and Holding together two continental plates(ref)." The same can be done for Hulk's healing, and so on. But this whole every issue analysis is really fannish, and I think it shoul be trimmed. Given there's going to be a new Hulk movie in a year, lots of curious non-comics readers can be expected to check here to make sure they understand the background of the characters, and we should have an A level or GA candidate level article waiting for them. Excessive fan-geeking will not impress the masses, nor contribute the best in terms of giving good information. ThuranX 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind that. You could check out my last edit, and copy-insert the references you think are appropriate, in the listing format you suggested, or in brief summarising sentences. Still, this is a powers section, and the entire point of the character is that he's supposed to be completely outrageous in the power department, so several gauges of his strength, durability, healing, hitting power, speed and fighting skill should be there. Other Marvel & DC Character are also pushed upwards or have always been there, so it's nothing unique for the Hulk.

We could for example list the 'supporting a mountain range', 'holding together a planet', 'pushing down a 10x amplified Thor towards the ground', 'breaking pure adamantium' and 'stopping the Juggernaut' for strength in a sentence or two. 'Destroying a planet and Celestial-level Onslaught's body' for hitting power in another sentence. 'Withstanding a ground zero nuclear explosion (at least two reference footnotes after the phrase), Human Torch's 1000,000 Fahrenheit flame, and Black Bolt's planet-destroying scream (or Silver Surfer's similarly powerful blasts), for durability. The Vector-skinning and recovering from powder for healing. Also that all of his stats depend on how mad he is and which incarnation, along with that he has limited superhuman speed and is a rather accomplished fighter. We could cut down on the powers list for each incarnation to make room in the main section.

The more off-beat abilities could also be briefly mentioned in a single column or even sentence (dark magic sponge, limited homing sense, reflecting gamma-blasts, ability to gradually evolve himself, seeing spirits). I also think the friends & enemies section needs to be expanded upon to help understand the background of the character, as well as showcase that he really does have a diverse rogues gallery, and a few slight factual inaccuracies (like the Maestro, Iron Man & Balck Bolt tidbits) could be tweaked a bit. Dave 18:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So, since JJonz seems to revert any edits I do, no matter how minor or factual, would anyone else be willing to go through my previous additions and/or modifications and see which ones to insert in an appropriate manner? Thanks. Dave 14:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tense and Style

Does anyone know why the article still has a improper tense tag associated with it? If so, can we fix the problem and get that thing off of here? I'm not the best at grammar, or else I'd do it myself. Kontar 03:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

War Hulk or Green Scar

The question has been asked here if the section on the War Hulk version should be retitled to "the Green Scar" or some other name representing his origin and titling from Planet Hulk and the Warbound. The purpose of this would be to avoid confusion with the "War" Hulk of Horsemen of Apocalypse. What should this Hulk be called in the article? I agree that Marvel's titling would not be War Hulk. It should be Holku, the Green Scar, the World-Breaker, or any of the many names the inhabitants of Sakaar called him. 24.9.20.149 02:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As you say, the official titles vary between Green Scar, Holku, Sakaarson, Worldbreaker and Green King. I think the first and last were the ones most frequently used when directly addressing him (and they also sound sopmewhat less ridiculous). Green Scar was used for a longer time, and Green King is more descriptive about his position, so it's a toss-up. Regarding my other changes of that column, claiming that he's more cunning than the Grey or Merged Hulk is highly debatable, and he's definitely not shown as stronger than the (issue 440) present day Maestro or the Onslaught: Marvel Universe version. There are also other instances where it's highly debatable, but those are the most glaring. According to She-Hulk, which went more in-depth about the nanobots, they were designed/tried out to disable the powers of his various foes, and were successfully turning back She-Hulk to human form. Hiroim was explicitly stated to have (through meditation) trained the Hulk to simultaneously maintain both his intellect/focus and rage/power. I also think it's debatable that he's more resistant to telepathic assault/control than all previous incarnations, given that the 'rampaging' version was immune to the infuence of Xemnu, who arguably is a vastly more powerful psychic than Xavier/capable of effortlessly controlling millions of minds at the same time. I think it's better to stick to quoting what Xavier actually said. Dave 20:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The statement of the Green Scar not being more powerful than the Maestro or the Rampaging Hulk (who fought Onslaught) is FALSE. In World War Hulk X-Men, Professor Xavier notes that the Hulk's psyche was now more resistant to even his influence and later Wolverine recognizes that War Hulk's skin "is harder to cut" than ever before, and in WWH#1, Doc Strange states "He's never been stronger." In WWH#2 Spider-Woman states "The Hulk's stronger than he's EVER been." I can keep citing MORE examples, but I think you get the point. War Hulk is being positioned by Marvel as the most power version. 24.9.20.149 04:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But Wolverine never attempted to cut Hulk's skin in either instance. Doctor Strange wasn't present either. Spider-Woman wouldn't know squat. More resistant to telepathy I agree about, but nothing we've seen would indicate that the current version is powerful enough to push a Thor who is ten times stronger than normal towards the ground with a single arm, nor be able to fight and overcome a being with power stated as comparative with a Celestial. More powerful at a base level perhaps, but othervise highly debatable. The specualtion should be cut out. Dave 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right that Spider-Woman's opinion isn't as credible, however, if you don't realize why Doctor Strange's assessment is more relevant than yours, then you don't understand the character, nor the depth of his powers. I suggest you read up on Doctor Strange, the Sorcerer Supreme. If you do, you'll find out that Dr. Strange doesn't have to be "present." His powers of perception span the world, time, and multiple dimensions. I agree with the previous poster. Between Prof. X and Doctor Strange, the only better assessment you could have would come from Uatu, the Watcher, and I wouldn't doubt it if at some point in the series he chimes in that the Green Scar is the Heavyweight Champion of the Galaxy! :) (a little humor, since this page is getting too serious!) Kontar 03:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd technically agree with you that Strange should be the best assessment source this side of Uatu, but it still feels like the writer touting Hulk for the audience, since it doesn't make any sense given the enormous gap of displayed ability between the instances. This is getting a bit too serious though. I guess I got defensive after finding all my well-sourced edits repeatedly deleted. I'm satisfied now though. Dave 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd Disagere on two points. One, The Maestro is him LATER, not now. As such, he can't judge the future strength of the Hulk. As to Onslaught, It's also true that writers want their versions to be the most impressive. As such, judging him stronger than the Maestro is bad, Onslaught good. ThuranX 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I talked about the 'Maestro' of issue 440. His only appearance. Sorry about being unclear. Dave 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you disagree on only one point. But that point makes sense. There is no way to tell who is more powerful, the Maestro, or War Hulk. As you stated, the Maestro is a FUTURE Hulk, and only the Professor has met that version. In fact, this version could be the one that actually becomes the Maestro, since it has the closest personality to that version. But of course that is speculation.24.9.20.149 05:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. The comparative power is put in doubt enough to just say that this is a powerful incarnation and that's it. The merged Hulk was also likely more cunning given his genius level intelligence combined with the Gray Hulk's craftiness. Same here. It's a cunning incarnation, but anything more is speculation. Dave 15:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that "more cunning" is speculative and should be stricken, but War Hulk is without a doubt more powerful than all other "previous incarnations." There is a multitude of evidence stating this, as written above. The Maestro is not a previous incarnation. It is a future incarnation. Also, there is no evidence that the Maestro is more powerful than War Hulk. Nothing that the Maestro did in Future Imperfect matched the feats of War Hulk, except beat the crap out of the Professor. But here is one speculative note for you: the Hulk has NEVER been madder, whether Maestro or not. The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets. So the statement about being more powerful than all previous incarnations should stand.

But I'm still talking about the issue 339-440 present day incarnation with temporary brain damage due to shrapnel in his brain. He called himself the Maestro and pushed a 10x stronger than normal Thor towards the ground with a single arm. Onslaught: Marvel Universe 'Banner is shut off' Hulk is arguably the most powerful we've ever seen him, given that he overpowered a being explicitly given as more powerful than Galactus/rivalling a Celestial. If he currently had those levels, the Thing would literally be atomised by the Hulk flicking his pinkie at him, but instead the latter stood his ground for almost a minute. Token statements by characters unrelated to those events/to tout him up for the audience can't change that. It's similar to a tv announcer pumping up a 20 years retired old boxing champ, who is doing a final bout for money or charity, to get everyone excited about the event and forget that he's really not nearly as capable as he used to be, alternately an overzealous friend telling someone that he's "doing really well" for lifting 200 pounds after years of inactivity, when he used to push 600.

I'd also argue that Hulk reached a higher level when ripping the Flame of Life in half, and was around the same level when empowered by Franklin Richard's pocket-universe/stopping the Juggernaut in his tracks and overloading the Absorbing Man, but they're up to interpretation. Then again, these may have been too temporary instances to count as actual incarnations. Future Maestro is anyone's guess, but his base strength was twice that of the merged incarnation, due to absorbing huge amounts of nuclear radiation, with proportionate increases with rage. However, you're right that he's a future, not previous, incarnation. Dave 21:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like ThuranX, I'm not going to argue with you about highly temporary instances of empowerment. Those are the same as Captain Universe possessions, or the temporary DEPOWERING that the Hulk has had several instances of. If you include temporary instances of non-characteristic empowerment, then you should also state the times when he has been depowered or weakened. Of course you wouldn't do that. And as a result, neither should be referenced here. They are events, not characteristics. War Hulk's abilities has been consistently developing for over 2 years now. Kontar 03:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with that logic, since, as we both noticed, these were specific instances for either the rampaging or merged Hulk. I.e. if we're talking about base/'calm' strength (due to being empowered by the warp core explosion) he may very well be the strongest (well, either him or the Banner-less version empowered by the 'Heroes Reborn' universe, but he also couldn't get stronger with rage, so I concede the point. Although he probably should get his own short profile section). However you'd have to give me that beating Thing in 30-60 seconds doesn't compare with overpowering Onslaught or a 10x stronger than normal Thor.

The reason it took so long was because he wasn't striking back. When he did, War Hulk dropped the Thing and almost killed him with one strike. He dropped Ares with one strike. He dropped Doc. Samson with one strike. He dropped She-Hulk with one strike. He dropped Hercules with 3. He broke both of Colossus's arms with ease. But if you haven't noticed, he intentionally is not killing anyone and even giving them the chance to surrender. War Hulk has been holding back the entire time. Also, it was War Hulk who held an entire planet together with his bare hands without "the assistance of leverage," "shrapnel in the brain," "turning off Banner," or some other boost. But enough of that. I'm done with the "who's stronger." This entry is no longer useful to the article. By the way,since you are so good at citing individual instances of the Hulk's power, it might make sense to create a new page highlighting those instances instead of detailing each one in the infobox. Something like this: [1] Kontar 04:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah, both Thing and She-Hulk seemed to cause serious damage to his face, although it healed quickly. Even normal Thor can shatter planetoids with a single strike/equal to Hulk's usual level. Hulk demonstrated at least 20 times that strength through pushing "warrior's madness" Thor down a with a single arm. I'm not willing to say Hulk is currently even stronger when Colossus managed to even briefly grapple with him. Onslaught had power enough to effortlessly create a sun/star, which is also waayyy out there in the power department. The only things even remotely comparing so far is withstanding Black Bolt's scream, and holding together Sakaar. It feels like the writer is either touting Hulk up, or genuinely believes it's the strongest Hulk has ever been, but comparatively speaking it frankly isn't, not close, just likely the strongest he's maintained for an extended time. Regardless, we're stuck to dull repetition of ourselves, and have both had our say so never mind.

To get onwards, creating a sub-section feat page isn't a bad idea. I've already severely improved/expanded the friends&enemies one, but given previous comments I'm not sure if it's considered encyclopedic, or if me adding 5-6 of them would be sufficient to keep it alive long enough.

Should we mention his 1-2 time oddball powers in a single sentence at the end of the powers section? Something in the vein of: On a few occasions the Hulk has been depicted with additional abilities, such as reflecting gamma-blasts,(reference) adapting to grow gills, (reference) acting as a dimensional nexus,(reference) being immune to/acting as a sponge for dark magic, or having a limited homing sense.(reference) However these abilities have not been further referred to outside of their introduction. Along with a short general The Hulk has also been able to survive in space without breathing apparatus for extended periods of time,(references) and can increase his overall power by absorbing nuclear radiation.(references) Could I get a go for these inserts, or are they counted as extraneous? Dave 19:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Btw: Shouldn't the Hiroim meditation training change be kept? I mean it was said outright that the Hulk's rage was making him a danger to his surroundings, so he had to learn to 'be of two minds', i.e. keep his intellect/clear head and rage separate/maintain them simultaneously. Dave 16:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving of "Power & Abilities" and "Incarnations" to separate sub-section pages?

Building upon Kontar's suggestion to create a separate Hulk Feats page, moving overcrowded sections seemed to work great for "Friends & Enemies", and would follow the precedent of Powers and abilities of Superman.

This would allow the space to create a brief additional 'Oddball/Unusual/One-time Powers' section listing the gills, nexus, homing sense, gamma-blast reflection, and dark magic sponge seemingly temporary abilities, as well as the suggested feats section, without running the risk of each separate part being too short to warrant a page on their own.

The incarnations section is also in need of a certain expansion, since the 'Heroes Reborn Hulks', and the states in-between 'Merged Hulk' and 'Green Scar' aren' covered. Although the current version seems to be a maturing of the HR and Tempest Fugit/House of M personality, which both incorporate characteristics from 'rampaging' and 'grey' Hulk, so perhaps mentioning that would be enough? Dave 14:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Savage Hulk NO LONGER strongest version

This has been confirmed by Xavier, Dr.Strange, reed and Iron Man. Current Greyvage Hulk or green Scare would wipe the floor with Savage Hulk like a green tissue paper on his bottom. Savage hulk is NOT the strongest version of Hulk. Stop putting on page people!

We know that, but so could Bannerless Heroes Reborn Hulk, and the other 2-3 occasions mentioned above briefly put Hulk way past the current version. I think you'd agree that he's currently couldn't take Galactus' lunch money, as in the Onslaught case. We solved that argument by agreeing that these were too brief to count as actual incarnations. Dave 17:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I may have to eat that statement. Hulk is currently set to slug it out with Zom, who is more powerful than Dormammu, who is more powerful than Mephisto, who is equal to Galactus. It took the Living Tribunal to stop him, so we've got another Onslaught-level fight brewing. Dave 10:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is complete WP:OR. You'd need some fairly neutral sources to back all that up. This is getting tiresome, reminding everyone that the page is NOT a fanboy reserve. Find the writers and editors discussing this stuff. Get quotes. Stop analyzing the in-universe stories for clues. Since each writer primarily writes for the quality of the story, each writer's version and interpretation of the capabilities changes. Get some neutral souces, please. ThuranX 11:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Aren't the stories themselves just as neutral as writer making an open statement through interview rather than his work? That said, I think Zom being more powerful than Dormammu was covered in the old Marvel Universe handbook, beyond being too much to handle within a comic. Dave 14:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COMIC's got a standing opposition to citing the OHTTMU. I keep saying this, and you keep ignoring me. Find good citation. Find editors making statements. Find books where the character is analyzed. Do the research, don't just point to panels and say, well, it takes X strength to do what the hulk does here, so this version is XYZ strong. The moment you personally go make the comparisons between real world measures of the force exertions needed to achieve certain effects and tie those to the actions of hte Hulk, it's OR. The moment you start a continuum of strongest to weakest based on feats occuring in different comic, indiffering titles and/or under different writers, you're getting into OR again. Find a neutral source. Find a Reliable Source. Or jsut do not add the information. ThuranX 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I just keep thinking that it doesn't make any sense that stories checked and passed by editors, or a handbook scrutinised by, and with stats written by, the executive editor, somehow should 'count less' than an interview in this case. Or that a writer should automatically be correct in the most extreme cases of contradiction. I.e. a character barely manages to lift an automobile and the writer says he's the strongest ever, even though he/she clearly lifted a house in an earlier occasion. Or Zom defeats Dormammu and is listed as more powerful than Dormammu, but an explicit interview has never been done about it. Alternately an independent book is automatically counted as more verifiable than what the editors themselves have written. It's two extremes, and I can't quite synch up to either one of them. Can you understand why I find this policy rather odd under these particular circumstances? In any case I have no intents to add the Zom reference on the Hulk pages themselves. Dave 08:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I misremembered. Zom was listed as far more powerful than Dormammu's sister Umar, who is almost his equal. I'll check it up. Dave 11:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but it doesn't really matter. Citation and reliable sources count. Assumptions don't. I recognize that in extreme contradictions, notign the discrepancy is allowed, per the ideas behnd critiques of sources. Further, sources which dismiss all opposing evidence aren't often 'Reliable Sources'. Further, editors foul up all the time. I'm asking you to go find interviews and stuff, OUT-Of-Universe content, to back up the edits you'd like to make. if it really is so simply obvious that this Hulk's the strongest, then it should be easy to demonstrate that via articles about the change. Old CSNs might have interviewed the writers, look into it. Wizard might've covered it. but check into it. a guy who lifted a mountain and split planets before is hard to top. That this new hulk punches giant asteroids into bits is good, but not like splitting a planet, which I believe was earlier attributed to one ofthe other versions of Hulk. Without citation, this talk page will go round and round, with many dismissing any non-Peter david contentas dbious, and others insisting that Peter david's a hack, and some OTHER writer made him stronger. Further complicating this is the fact taht IF David's return means that all the stuff since his left was retconned out (A separate but now related section), that has bearing on the strength issue, as any feats done in those stories which was potentially greater no longer'counts', but should be noted as having been retconned out. that means there might be more, earlier articles about those arcs. GOod Luck. ThuranX 06:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

(New row, due to border constraints) The editors screwing up point is one I'll buy (though that can translate to interviews as well), although I still don't agree that an independent analysis book is automatically more reliable than the handbooks. Regardless, both these views are irrelevant, given that I have no intents to do anything further than what's already been written at the Powers and abilities of the Hulk page. I.e. simply list the feats as shown, or possibly add 1-3 references. I already agree that this version is stronger than other incarnations, and let the readers themselves judge whether or not he briefly reached higher levels against Onslaught & warrior's madness Thor. Regarding the runs after David left, most of Jenkins' is apparently still there, as shown in Gamma Corps, and I don't remember any significant Hulk feats during either his or Jones' tenure, so it seems to be a non-issue at this point. Dave 22:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

BAWW! Savage Hulk still STRONGEST ONE THERE IS. He may not have the same base level strength as WWH but Savage was more quickly, easily angered and as MORE impressive, "impossible" feats to back it up that he's still the most powerful incarnation of Hulk. HULK SMASH!

Heh. I like you, you're funny. Pretending to switch between two extremes. Dave 12:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls, thank you. ThuranX 19:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if laughing at the non-malicious ones qualifies, but point taken. Dave 08:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we move on to more pressing topics- like how to improve the page? Yes, there are many FANS who love purple pants and illiteracy, but the bottom line is that Marvel (in-Universe and out) have stated repeatedly that the Green Scar is the most powerful. Period. The text has relayed it, the editors in interviews have relayed it, response letters to fans from Marvel staff have relayed it, and several Marvel characters have stated the fact over and over again. There have been several verifications and citations listed. GET OVER IT PEOPLE. This is an encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Sorry to sound so abrupt, but the talk page is wasting space now. 24.9.20.149 18:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Especially since we're basically all in agreement. ;) Dave 22:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Innaccuracy in the article about the Hulk (comics)

The article says, "The Hulk (real name Dr. Bruce Banner in the comics but Dr. Robert Bruce Banner in the Television Show),"

This is not true. In the comic his name is Robert Bruce Banner (But he goes by "Bruce"). In the TV show his name was David Banner.

66.134.65.66 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Greg

THen why dont you change it?Phoenix741 17:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The talk is getting a bit long

Particularly due to myself I'm afraid. Shouldn't we severely cut down on the less relevant topics? Dave 09:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Like make an archive?Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 11:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what alternatives that are available, but they would be stored in previous edits. I just though it might get a bit hard for readers to navigate the page. Dave 11:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone who knows how (i.e. not me) should set up a bot to archive the page, or do it themselves. That's what should be done. Gscshoyru 11:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, then you want an archive page, I am not sure what the "offcial" way to make it is, but I just make a page called (in this case) (Redlink removed by ThuranX, Links at top of page) and then just cut and paste the discussions that are not taking part anymore. I am sure there is a bot somewhere that you can sign up for that does it automatically, let me look into itPhoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 11:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Dave 11:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I archived through June, which reduces things somewhat. After WWH is over, we can archive all the jjuly through end of WWH in archive 4. I also removed the redlink Phoenix put in, because there are already archives at the top of the page, and they should all be handled in one format, for ease of finding ,etc., etc. Thanks. ThuranX 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does the Hulk's power and abilities warrant a separate article?

The section in the current article seems to describe all of his abilities. The separate article is just a list of individual feats. Why does the Hulk warrent a separate article about this? I did not think it was Wikipedia's job to list every single major feat. Should his lowest showings be listed as well. What about lists for every single character?

There shouldn't be. It should be incorporated into this article. ThuranX 03:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The article in and of itself is nothing more than the original content of the powers and abilities section of this article copied and pasted onto a blank slate. The whole thing strikes me as a bit fanboyish really. Over a year or so ago, there was a similar page for Namor and, aside from being completely unnecessary, grew to become an absolute mess with editors trying to add just about every major physical feat the character accomplished. Same thing will happen to that article if it's around long enough.Odin's Beard 13:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

This entire article needs an overhaul to bring it into line with other, similar articles. All the 'persona' crap can be worked into the fictional character biography, or, preferably, given the editorial guidance and writers who use each type, even the publication history. The personalities are undercited and overblown write-ups, and the level of fanboyism in this article has been rising steadily. ThuranX 14:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX, I would suggest AGAIN that you cease with the condescending tone towards the work of other editors. Disagreement is natural, but calling other editor's work "Crap" is not respectful. Yes, the personalities are undercited and you can help by finding the references, but that is your opinion that they are "overblown." I disagree. The Hulk's multi-personality disorder is the defining point of the character. Without it, there would be no Hulk. If a "non-fan" were to pick up the Hulk and read it today, he/she would be absolutely confused, since the average person is only familiar with the Rampaging Hulk. This Wiki article would clear up that confusion. The Hulk is complex character, even though his powers are not. The purpose of the new powers page was to shorten the article, make it more encyclopedic, and reduce some of the unneeded details here. Similar revisions and outgrowths have been done to Superman, Batman, Iron Man, etc. If you have a problem here, you have a problem there. If you don't agree with the other Hulk powers article, then go to that article's discussion page and make note or correction there. This article has been improved by removing that greater amount of detail. Not only the "powers" section, but the supporting cast section as well. 24.9.20.149 03:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that this article needs a major overhaul. Further, I stand by my opinion that there is no need for that article, which serves to list each and every incident of somethign that might be considered a different power, change in power level, and so on. Finally, I invite you, again, to register for an account, so that you can always be contacted. Thank you. ThuranX 04:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the fence about the powers article, but the multiple personality stuff really does need to be in here - perhaps separate headings for 'Guilt Hulk' and 'Devil Hulk' is going a bit far, but the Hulks many incarnations are now a cornerstone of the character - in order to paint a good and useful portrait of the character the article needs to a least clearly detail all the main incarnations (ie Banner, Fixit, Rampaging, Merged, and the current Green Scar version). 172.188.152.101 09:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Like with the "Friends & Enemies" section, I was told that it was better to expand his powers into a separate page, since the section took too much room here, and since a precedent exists with Powers and abilities of Superman there is no basis for just wiping it out, unless you wish to extent the favour to all similar articles.

It's not just copied and pasted. It's expanded, reworked/improved in terms of sentence structure, segmented, and every single statement has been referenced. Hulk has had a rather complex displayed set of powers, and a lot of work was put into creating the page after I was given specific instructions to do so here (by Kontar I believe, and I don't think anybody made a counter-point when I asked). No additional comments have been inserted strictly beyond what's been displayed/explicitly stated (at least not as far as I'm aware, but rewording any you find is of great help), and the shorter section displayed here is all that's necessary for those who choose not to click the link. It's currently up to the personal discretion/choice of each individual visitor whether they're interested or not. If you wish to edit out apparently proved incorrect aspects like you did with the Black Bolt scream, that's fine, but not to censor it thoroughly.

Hulk, Wolverine, Spider-Man, and Captain America are arguably the most recognisable characters in the Marvel stable, and many far less so have a list of feats (referenced or otherwise) in their respective powers sections. If you'd like to create similar sub-section pages for your own pet characters, that's great as well.

As for the "fanboyism crap" insults, the incarnations bits are pretty much spot-on as far as I'm aware and recognising that the character has a rich history on several levels is just natural, though I've agreed that we can thin down the main article by focusing on the essentials, and moving the more complex sections, including the incarnations, elsewhere for whoever wishes to go a little more in-depth. Dave 14:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto, for the insults- it needs to stop. In any case, the whole idea was to improve the main article. And it has been improved. 3 sections have been shortened (although 2 of them need summaries)which makes the article much tighter. The personality section's length and content is fine as it is, however, it does need references. I don't agree that the personalities should be listed under the biography or some kind of publication chronology. I don't see how that would improve the article. Finally, I'm not going to comment on the seperate powers article here, because this talk page is supposed to be about the Hulk article, not the powers article. I will discuss that issue over there.... Kontar 00:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The Savage/Rampaging Hulk is not "child-like"

It's been a common misconception among the Hulk's readers that the Green/Savage/Rampaging Hulk was "child-like." Anyone reading the stories featuring this version will see that this version of the Hulk did not act like a child at all. He is more accurately described as a simpleton. This version of the Hulk was mature enough to have a relationship with Jarella, for example. This version of the Hulk often displayed wisdom and the sophistication of insight, like in Hulk Annual #8 when he explained to Sasquatch how selfish he was for disturbing the Hulk just to see who was the stronger of the two. Even a recent story written by Paul Jenkins featured this version of the Hulk attempting to find a mate... not what I would call a "child-like" desire. The Hulk has been described as "child-like" by his enemies and by characters who have never particularly cared for him, like Iron Man. This is part of one of the Hulk's central themes, that he is a misunderstood monster. Darin Wagner 12:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

He has been referred to as the child or "id" aspect of Bruce Banner's full character, and was generally behaved and was treated like a child by the Defenders. I sort of see your point about Jarella, but it was Banner in Hulk's body, or as himself, who actually romanced her, the rampaging Hulk had a similar puppy-love relationship as that of Atalanta and Ajax. In any case, I've now reworded it to "temperemental and naive simpleton" with an additional "id"/"child" mention. That should work. Dave 19:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In repsonse to that, the Hulk is actually generally child-like and it is not so much a misconception. You had one example a of writer to justify your claim. One. And it so happens to be Paul Jenkins (I didn't really like his run on the Hulk anyway), who likened the Hulk to a gorilla. On his part, considering that Bruce Banner has MPD, that's pretty stupid. And I am going to point out that the characterizations on the Hulk is purely dependent on the writer. If a considerable number writers depict the Hulk as child-like, then he is child-like. Again, on Bruce having MPD the Savage Hulk is another personality, one which stemmed from the memory/moment when his father killed his mother. Evidence that the Rampaging Hulk is child-like. And I would liken his relationships with Betty Ross and Jarella as similar as to crushes. You might as well say the Gray Hulk is not "like a ager" bcause he's too destructive. As for Iron Man, he is right now very controversial, but in the past (which I think you're referring to) they've teamed up and fought side-by-side, and at one time was considered a "friend" (Seems pretty caring to me), until of course now. How else could he have joined the Avengers. His misunderstanding is more towards the fact he is an angry child (Which is really the theme of the Rampaging Hulk) and wants to be alone. Some of the Hulks you're describing can't really be characterized as the Rampaging Hulk, such as the one now (he's the Green Scar). The Rampaging Hulk is akin to a learning-impared child full of anger, with beast-like tendencies. By the way, until the Planet Hulk storyline, the Hulk writers sucked. Now there's a better explanation. Uglyguy2006 16:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Paul Jenkins' "horny gorilla out to date his cousin" bit and contradictory psychological retcons rubbed me the wrong way as well. The man has stated outright in an interview (about Captain Marvel I believe) that he has zero respect for continuity, and used Civil War as a platform to state that instigating wars with foreign countries by assassinating a few dozens of their citizens is a good and laudable thing to handle conflicts within. Essentially turning Iron Man from the worlds greatest philantropist (and somebody I completely agreed with about the registration justification, in the respect of handling superhumans as accountable police officers, rather than enforced drafts of innocent teenagers to kill for the government) into an "ends justify the means" war criminal, and later mentioned that anybody who disagrees with these methods is automatically "uninformed". Can you say severely OOC? That said, I very much liked the Ryker arc, as well as the Abomination story. In any case some of his retcons have been put into serious question, possibly including the "professor". Dave 19:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I gave three examples that clearly demonstrated that the Savage/Rampaging Hulk didn't act like a child and was therefore not "child-like." The Savage/Rampaging Hulk may have had his own version of english and was not very articulate, but he in no way demonstrated a child-like level of maturity. He didn't pout and he didn't throw "tantrums" the way a child does (i.e. laying on the ground and screaming). Again, he did manage to have a relationship with Jarella, which is not indicative of child behaviour... since children tend to regard the opposite sex as "gross" until they start puberty. (Even after the Banner persona lost control and reverted back, the Hulk still had genuine, deep feelings for Jarella that were not merely "puppy love.") Peter David did attempt to describe the Hulk, through various characters, as "child-like" during his run in order to tell his stories, but the printed facts remain. The Classic/Savage/Rampaging Hulk was never truly "child-like" to anyone but his enemies (like the Leader) or supporting cast who did not understand him... which again is one of the Hulk's central themes as a character. He is a misunderstood monster-hero. The fact that he joined the Avengers (for albeit less than 3 issues) is irrelevent except to reinforce the misunderstood theme. I liken the Savage/Rampaging Hulk to Forrest Gump in many ways, who as a man was not child-like except in his innocence, and, while a simpleton, still managed to say some very profound things... just as the Savage/Rampaging Hulk did during his run during the late 60's, 70's and early 80's. Darin Wagner 21:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This entire conversation is forumish in nature, does not contribute to the article, and relies upon your own interpretations with a severe dearth of citable sources. Please remember to focus on the article, not on how cool various writers and issues are or are not. Thank you. ThuranX 21:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't even know why it got this far, anyway. Uglyguy2006 14:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. These are all good points that make for a genuinely fascinating discussion about the nature of a popular end during literary character, but this isn't the forum for it. This isn't to say we needn't discuss terminology, but perhaps we can be more succinct and find common ground -- such as a word or phrase without the evocative connotations of either "child-like" or "simpleton". Could we refer to the Savage Hulk as "slow-witted and instinctual in nature, with occasional moments of naive insight"? That might be too long, but you get the idea -- just the facts, ma'am. --Tenebrae 00:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current "temperemental and naive simpleton" with an additional "id"/"child" mention is balanced enough. Different writers have approached him differently. Both the child and simpleton aspects have come into play depending on perspective. However I'm pretty sure we don't need to insert a horny gorilla addition. ;) (Kidding, kidding) Dave 16:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

• Intro is partly in-universe and its 1st line is totally confusing.
• Too many subsections of the "Behaviour" lack citations to comics and are totally in-universe.
• 2 sections are empty.
• Other media has too small 1 or 2 line subsections. Vikrant Phadkay 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)