Talk:Hulk/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Sourcing help needed.

I've been trying to find a solid source for the material about Peter david leaving in '98 for a while. Here's at least one thoroughly independent bit of material about it [1], but that's not enough for a source in itself. I can't find that article online. can anyone with stronger google-fu try? It's also a fair piece of independent confirmation that the idea is out there, let's source it and be done. ThuranX (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a second call for sourcing help with this. ThuranX (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Using a ProQuest account I found among the bits: "Peter David, writer of "The Incredible Hulk" for nearly 10 years, quit last year, citing creative differences. One sticking point was Marvel's insistence that the Hulk revert to a more savage state. Byrne has said the Hulk will go back to his more primitive ways, but not all at once. The cover of "Hulk" No. 1 certainly touts the savage side: The cover blurb screams: "The jade giant like you've never seen him before! Bruce Banner .... forever in the clutches of his rage!"" Is that what you wanted? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be perfect! What's the info, I'll add it later tonight if you can't. Thanks David. ThuranX (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You pick the area you want. The {{cite news}} template for the info would be as follows: <ref>{{cite news|author=Radford, Bill|page=L4|date=1999-02-21|publisher=[[The Gazette (Colorado Springs)|The Gazette]]|title=Marvel's not-so-jolly green giant gets a fresh start and a new team}}</ref> No problem! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Evolution of Allure

Sexual Section from the Medici Venus to the Incredible Hulk

by George L. Hersey, MIT Press 1996

Has anyone used this source yet?

No, sounds interesting. got a link or locations it can be found? ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual title is 'the evolution of allure'. I'll look in my library for it. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming of article

I have to concur with User:Jc37 over User:King Gemini on this. Wikipedia style for naming of articles is not to have an indefinite article except for formal titles, and certainly in this case, the character is simply "The Hulk." The comic-book series and the TV series are "The Incredible Hulk", and they are separate articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Real world assessment of powers

This section may need cleanup, but it's a valid addition.

This is comparable to the book, A Doctor on Calvary, by Dr. Pierre Barbet, a French surgeon in the early 20th century who spent fifteen years researching exactly what happened to Christ during the crucifixion. (Author is apparently different than Pierre Barbet.)

A reference doesn't have to be an online reference. - jc37 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an awful comparison, actually, butNevermind. I added the material when the demands for real world coverage were strong, and they were accepted then, with consensus. It's far better than creeping fandom writing about the billions of pounds of mountain that were fought about at one long point in this article's history. Giving context to the powers is important, and it's a good source for such information. I'd already brought this to Tenebrae with some explanation, so let's leave it in until there's consensus to change it. ThuranX (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're adding in info about this, I've got a great book for a source called Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics - it focuses on the movie version of the Hulk, but its extrapolations are valid for the comics as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I already applied that to the movie's article; I laughed at the stuff in that book. That said, if I haven't added the stuff about the acceleration for his jumps (which I recall being the topic), then let's get that into the movie article instead; perhaps a cross-referencing link put into this article, linking to the powers section there? I'm open to any other applications of the material, but like including it. I seem to remember some particularly interesting essays a while back about Captain America and steroids, and wanted to use those in that article; I really enjoy adding this material, as I think it's an excellent example or direct examination of a less studied aspect of the form. ThuranX (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC}

Can someone explain to me the addition of this section? It's the first comic powers description I've see with one. Since none of it is considered "in-continuity," it's more of an interesting side note that a valid part of Hulk's list of powers. It's no secret that comic book abilities don't make sense, what's the point of spelling it out and offering possible realistic alternates? They still don't apply to the character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.34.2 (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

In short, because 'In-continuity' isn't what matters in Wikipedia. Real World content matters more; what sources outside the comic say about it. Hulk's been the subject of multiple scientific debunkings and explorations, and that's represented here. There are a few other places where it could be done, like Green Lantern's ring, which has often been called a 'wishing ring', or 'magic ring', instead of a scientific ring powered by willpower. Further, because of the Hulk's specifically reactive inspiration, in that he's created by the comic equivalent of a nuke, it's been revisited in the media at times. ThuranX (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

ACTUAL RESEARCH INTO THE POSSIBILITY OF A CHARACTER'S POWERS WORKING MAY BE OF INTEREST AND WILL ENHANCE THE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE CHARACTER BUT IS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT AS A 'POWER'. IF SOMEONE IS LOOKING FOR THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE CHARACTER CAN DO AND HAS DONE IN COMIC BOOKS, REAL WORLD RESEARCH INTO GAMMA RAYS IS IRRELEVANT. FOR INSTANCE, IF SOMEONE LOOKED UP BLACK LIGHTNING'S POWERS, IT IS IRRELEVANT TO HIS POWER DESCRIPTION TO LIST UNDER HIS POWERS THAT PEOPLE TYPICALLY GET ELECTROCUTED WHEN IN CONTACT WITH HIGH VOLTAGE. THE ACTUAL RESEARCH INTO GAMMA RADIATION IS SOMETHING TO NOTE AND AN INTERSTING FACT TO CONSIDER BUT ALTHOUGH IT RELATES TO THE CHARACTER IN THAT THE RESEARCH IS MOTIVATED BY THE CHARACTER, THE RESEARCH IS NOT HIS STRENGTH, RESISTANCE TO DAMAGE, OR ABILITY TO SEE ASTRAL FORMS I.E. HIS POWERS. -COLDBROTHA-

Simply put, the Hulk is altogether different than Black Lightning. The Hulk is one of the few comic book characters to acheive mainstream fame and poularity. People from all walks of life know who the character is, not just fans of comic books. That also means that the Hulk is one of the few characters that anyone outside of the comic book industry is going to take time to legitimately write anything based on a real world perspective. Since exploring the flaws and the science behind the fiction of the actual creation of the Hulk through gamma radiation was the intent, that makes it noteworthy in and of itself.Odin's Beard (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Coldbrotha, your attitude is noted. However, that's multiple writers specifically discussing Hulk's powers; Gresh et al, specifically address the cold war nuclear fears aspects of the character nad his powers, and then go on to examine said powers. It's quite relevant, well tied to the subject, and by your own admission belong in the article. Becuase it's the real world commentary and many people may be more interested in his list of powers, the real world materia lis positioned second, as a response to the character concept material. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

You are dense! It does not matter if Black Lightning is a potato or the greatest hero ever. The point is that HE WAS USED AS AN EXAMPLE.

FLAT OUT: If you say, "what are his powers?" A bunch of info on actual physics does not apply! It is valid information and interesting information but by the strictest definition of WHAT CAN THE CHARACTER DO/WHAT HAS THE CHARACTER SHOWN TO BE ABLE TO DO, actual facts about real world research is NOT a factor. I say AGAIN, IF YOU SAY WHAT ARE THE HULK'S POWERS, they are what they were written to be. Also, if some of you are unaware...THE HULK IS NOT REAL. HE IS SCIENCE FANTASY. That means that you suspend your belief temporarily and accept that someone can grow 2 feet and bench press a precinct. Real world explainations of SCIENCE FANTASY maybe an interesting tidbit but is UNIQUELY NOT HIS POWERS.coldbrotha —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC).

Please remember that internet etiquette normally lables typing in all caps as shouting...so please stop shouting so that we can discuss this reasonably. Now, I don't see anyone trying to pass off the real world research as his actual powers, but it does have a place as a secondary section within the powers. I'm reverting it for now, please give it a little time to see if a consensus forms to move it into a new section. Templarion 善意 06:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is for the section to remain. Coldbrotha simply isn't listening. He's insistent that he powers be removed, then he 'adjusted' to sectioning to remove context, so that he could remove for lack of context. The real world criticism is placed after the powers so that those who want to know what the hulk can do can find it, for those more interested, they can keep reading. There's no gain in sectioning, except to actively discredit the section as a step towards removal, which CB tried before. Multipel editors have stated that the section belong as is, so there's not much more consensus needed. ThuranX (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture section

"Reactions in popular culture" is a poor title for the section. At first glance, it's vague on whether it means people's interpretations of the Hulk or what exactly is being reacted upon. It's a very strange phrase that doesn't even come up on Google. The entire section discusses the Hulk's history and impact on pop culture, which is why "Cultural impact" would be a better fit. --Maestro25 (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it does NOT discuss his impact on pop culture, which indicates he somehow actively changes culture from the pages of a comic book, instead of how a real world culture reacts to the comic book, which my title gives. Cultural Impact, on the other hand, suffers from exactly what you suggest reactions suffers from, extreme vagueness. The heading as is is actually quite clear - what reactions to the Hulk are found in popular culture? Well, the counterculture embraced him, in its' protests of the war, and in terms of cultural alienation, asian americans found some parallels to the 2003 filkm, etc. etc. Reactions implied 'what do others see in it and take away?', not 'what did he actively do to the culture?' ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In the way you define it, "what do others see in it" is closer to "interpretations". How the counterculture interpret the Hulk, how Asian Americans interpret the Hulk, etc. How about a compromise with "Interpretations in popular culture"? --Maestro25 (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Character Biography

Why doesn't the Hulk have a fictional biography? The K.O. King (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He does. Just not in the traditional sense. It written in such a way that it isn't called a biography, its called a publication history. That coupled in with the characterization sections creates a detailed history of both Banner and Hulks historical highlights. Rau's Speak Page 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Then howcome Spider-man has a publication and fictional character biography? The K.O. King (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Because different articles can have different structures. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for more on the idea that not everythign be handled identically. ThuranX (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OH!! Gotcha. The K.O. King (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the Hulk has more physiological-thingamajiggers which ties in better with publication then stating of fiction (although honestly, it would be nice if we could get rid of all fictional bios, because it's the devil to try and keep them clean and concise.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde

The storyline appears to be little different to Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I think an encyclopedia article needs to explore this sort of literary comparison. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You aren't the only person to think of this, but few sources do much with that comparison. Some have used it in a general reference to the concept, but none that I've looked at so far really go into the depth needed to reflect it here. ThuranX (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Recognized" reverts

Twice now, the sentence "The Hulk is one of Marvel Comics' most recognized characters." has been removed, once for POV and once for lack of citation. I am going to remove it again. The statement is both unsourced and POV. In order to go back in, it needs to be reworded to lose POV and it should have a citation. As an example of how another article did this, check out Superman: "Superman is a fictional comic book superhero widely considered to be one of the most famous and popular of such characters[1] and an American cultural icon.[2][3][4][5]". That's not POV, and it's well sourced. – Zawersh 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And the sky is blue [6]. So, so, pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also not hard to find. So get hopping. ThuranX (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I find this is a common trait of wikipedia, it is split between the people who love to argue over the sourcing of the obvious, people who don't want to spend time proving the obvious, and the mugs who end up having to prove the obvious. I will let it bug me for a few days before I, as usual, move from the second category to the third, just because the people in the first are too lazy to do it themselves.

And as an aside, what is it with this article in particular that people are unable to count or even comprehend LEAD paragraphs. A lead section has four paragraphs. When you people make your 'POV removals' next time, try not to screw up the article in these most basic of ways, as when you do it means I have less respect for your motives in wanting the obvious spelled out to you like second graders, without doing the work yourselves. MickMacNee (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Prove that too. And as for your summary that we're all lazy, go look at who did the legwork to shape this article up. If I'd found a source for that that I felt wouldn't be conflicted, I'd have used it. ThuranX (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bit lost on your statement that a lead section must have four paragraphs. Is there a policy somewhere that says that? – Zawersh 00:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy that states the lead must have four paragraphs. It states it must have at the most four. WP:LEAD. And also Mick, some people could call you uncivil. So watch your mouth. Rau's Speak Page 11:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Four paragraphs for the longest articles, i.e. this one. But I see you have made a WP:POINT edit to restore the unbalanced and odd looking version. If you honestly can't find a source that says the Hulk is one of the most recognised of Marvel's characters, then I question your research skills to be honest. I suggest you start here: Marvel Comics. As for you Rau, I'll watch my mouth when people here ever put their own effort in to source what are obvious facts, rather than removing long standing text for the most banal of reasons. We aren't talking holocaust denial here. These people need to read WP:CITE and WP:POV, and think about whether they are doing anything worthwhile here with their lame revert wars, and even worse, dishing out warnings for disagreeing with them. Real good work. MickMacNee (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of their actions, you have no reason to be uncivil other than the fact that you are irritated, which is inadequate. Insulting others is no way to form consensus, in fact, it makes them disagree with you more. And the fact that you respond to accusations of incivility with more incivility raises a few questions about how much you respect others opinions. Rau's Speak Page 17:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not about to seek consensus on this issue, as I see that as an exercise in pure time wasting when there are far more worthy and contentious issues to resolve, you might as well open a debate on whether we actually need to cite the fact that the sky is blue. If these people want to be proud of their actions and stand steadfast by their opinions, then they can have their phyrric victory, it refects more on them than me. An as an aside, ThuranX identified and reverted my last edit specificaly as vandalism, so that's another policy he needs to read. That's all you need to know about his respect for others. MickMacNee (talk) 17:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

YOu reverted to your version after multiple editors undid it and used the talk, which you disregarded. that's vandalism. Finally, YOU can get up off your own "lazy editor" butt and do some research. BRT applies here. You were bold, you were reverted, and you didn't use talk, others did. You continued to edit war. Now go do some research. I looked in three non-marvel publications used as sources in this article ' Tales to Astonish, Comic Book Nation and Science of Superheroes. None of them made the 'most recognizable' statement. As the editor seeking to include content, it falls to you to source it. I went above my responsibility in reverting it out to try and find you sources in three damn books. Your turn. ThuranX (talk) 18:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I restored removed content that was long standing that through basic common sense clearly does not warrant immediate removal. If you want to get lawyerish about it, 1)Per BRD, the original remover was the bold editor, I reverted, it is down to him to open the discussion, not me. 2) My edit was not vandalism, never was and never will be classed as such, read vandalism. 3) The remover could have opened a discussion here before he acted, he did not, so if you want to talk about using talk pages, make sure you accurately refelct the order of things (plus you had reverted without using it either). 4) We have inline citation/POV tags for exactly this situation, have you or him ever used them before? 5) If you think this statement rises to the level of controversy to need an exactly worded sourced quotation, then I think you have lost all wiki perspective over what sourcing is for. Like I said, read CITE and POV. And to repeat finally, I'm not going to insult my intelligence by searching for something so obvious, if you want insult yours by continualy pressing the issue like this is a major problem, then that's your issue to deal with. MickMacNee (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Mick's last revision that was reverted actually didn't restore the contested line. It simply reformatted the existing text into four paragraphs, which is how it originally was. I've reverted it back to his edit; I think it does read better in that form. (Also: Rau, thanks for the link to WP:LEAD.) – Zawersh 18:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Shit. You're right. that was all taht Tbrittreid's mess. I thought I had cleaned it all up, but missed part of it. he had this "problem with Wikipedia changing his edits" to collapse things all over. I thought I'd fixed all of that, but I hadn't. Mea Culpa on the four paragraph thing. I'll restore it all back. ThuranX (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, Zawresh did. As for the 'most recognizable', ask DC Incarnate. Someone has asked for citation, so I think it needs to be found. ThuranX (talk) 19:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "The Hulk is one of Marvel Comics' most recognized characters", there was no citation or source for such a extremley POV statement. Hence it was removed. DCincarnate (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Just exactly who is of the opposite view that no one has ever heard of the Hulk, if this is such a POV assertion? This was a pointless removal. MickMacNee (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

And have you actualy ever read WP:POV / WP:CITE ? MickMacNee (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've just realised why a user called DCincarnate might think so though. MickMacNee (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It's catchier than "Marvelincarnate", and I read Marvel Comics more than DC. But wait, what does that have to with this discussion? You're being terribly immature and uncivil about this. People may be familiar with Hulk (particulary with the 2008 movie starring Edward Norton) but some may not be aware of Hulk's popularity within the comics. And a reference to such a statement would help. DCincarnate (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Some"? That's a nice personal opinion to justify a POV removal there. The irony is clearly lost on you, Marvelincarnate. MickMacNee (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

If Hulk is such an obvious popular character, then find a source for it. Simple as that. Don't be a prick, it will just get you in trouble. DCincarnate (talk) 18:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're telling me not to be a prick? Read TALK, CITE, POV and have a look at the wide ranging collection of inline tags wikipedia has. I have said it a hundred times now, I am not wasting my time looking for a source for something that clearly doesn't need one, especially not if the only reason it is needed is to disprove your personal opinion about what you think other people think. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, one, dude you are being a prick. Two, I don't think Hulk is one of Marvels most recognized characters, I think that Spider-Man and The X-Men are more recognizable. That justifies DCincarnate's argument.(changing his/her name is rude and a dick move) And three, it's been sourced, so I don't get why this is continuing. Rau's Speak Page 21:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities

We have an editor who has repeatedly made an edit regarding the hulk's power. This most recent of the same edit is representative of the content edit sought. I can't support this edit, for a number of reasons. One, I simply don't believe it's true, given there are past stories of Hulk losing strength as gamma radiation was drawn out of him. Two, the sources are both part of another wiki, the Marvel wiki, which, in addition to the general 'no wikis as sources rules', bumps up against the no obviously biased sources rules, and Marvel.com is unlikely to be truly neutral about that subject, given he's their property. Third, neither article actually mentions any of the comparative material implied. Heralds never mentions Hulk, and Thor only mentions Hulk in the context of the formation of The Avengers. For those three reasons, two of which are violations of policy (WP:RS and WP:SYNTH), I object to this being added now, ore ever, frankly. ThuranX (talk) 22:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. The same editor has attempted to insert the exact same statement into the Powers and abilities of the Hulk article. Due to edit conflicts, that article is currently protected and that is when the user attempted to add it to the Hulk article itself.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

While I am not the editor who initiated the passage (and have never so much as looked at the "Powers and Abilities" article), I am the one who most recently restored it (twice). We obviously have different definitions of "wiki source." Mine has been "citing a Wikipedia article" while yours seems to be "a general term for sites subject to fan postings" or something of the sort. In my well over a year and a half working on Wikipedia, I have never—until now—encountered "wiki" as anything but an abbreviation for Wikipedia. The edit summary for what appeared to me at the time to be the earliest deletion of the passage under discussion, and is by Odin's Beard, simply stated "unpublished original research" which seemed patently irrelevant and is NOT what is being said here. I now know that this wasn't the first reversion, but it was his first and there are no edit summaries on the earlier instances, in either direction. There was a succession of taking it out and putting it back in (not by me) and again with no edit summaries whatsoever. Then, after my initial restoration of it with the edit summary "Sources ARE given," Emperor reverted it, saying, "reference is a wiki, the rest is mentioned earlier." Again, these are simply not compatible with the earlier objection, and also note that this editor has in fact conceded the factual accuracy and relevance of part of it. My edit summary response to that was, "This IS the 'Powers and Abilities' section, so maybe the earlier mention is what should be deleted" (emphasis in the original, which I have expanded slightly here for clarity as I have more room to work with, obviously). Odin's Beard took it back out (as it now stands), now claiming that these sources are articles at Marvel.com, as if that makes them inherently invalid. I do not find that Marvel's own website is any more objectionable as a source than the comics themselves, which are cited as sources for this article well over a dozen times, including in this section, with no objections from either of you. Marvel may well be "obviously biased," but when the topic of the article is a fictional character and they are the creators/owners, that just doesn't strike me as a reasonable concern; to the contrary, I see it as what the courts call "best evidence." Is Marvel actually letting fans come in and alter those pages as they please (which is what calling it a "wiki" suggests; serious question here)? The only thing in the above postings I concede to is that, assuming that ThuranX's descriptions of the cited sources are accurate, the passage is invalidated by their not containing the information attributed to them. If true, THAT should have been said a very long time ago, but it wasn't. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My ,what a nice backhanded compliment/sly insult that post was. Go look for yourself and see, instead of attacking others. Marvel.com/universe is a wiki-engine based site, a wiki. Anyone can edit it. thus invalid for sourcing. You can't use a wiki to source a wiki, it's not a reliable source. ThuranX (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

My, what an evasion of at least 95% of my posting that was. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Because only 5% actually needed a response. Marvel.com/Universe is a publicly editable wiki; it is also run by persons for whom reporting on the topic is a demonstration of acting in their best interests, not neutral reporting by dispassionate journalists. As such, it is not a reliable source. As for the rest, the part where i'm probably a liar and Odin's beard is a jerk are really classy. ThuranX (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fact—I was defending myself, not the passage.

FACT—I said "assuming ThuranX's descriptions...are accurate"; that means I was making that assumption. As for "Idon's [sic] beard [sic] is a jerk," I have no idea where that's coming from. At least I do my best to get other people's names right. Besides, the way administration seems to be keeping a close eye on me and jumping on me with informal warnings with inadequate justification, if either of those were fair interpretations, they would have been at me themselves.

Fact—The reasons given for removing the passage kept changing.

You two definitely owe me an apology for assuming that I was the IP who put it in in the first place and restored it all those other times, and please don't say you didn't make such an assumption; the evidence is right there for everybody to see.

Fact—As we're dealing with a fiction that Marvel owns, using their official website as an information source isn't like, say, using the official Kennedy Family website (if there is one) for researching the JFK assassination. The Hulk does not exist outside of what Marvel does with him (licensed adaptations in other media by other companies notwithstanding; those are a separate thing and not canoniacal, as the existence of the separate article for them concedes), so the company's alleged biases aren't a relevant objection. Again, I equate the company's official website to the comics themselves. And I do not find it conceivable that Marvel's official website is wide open to editing by fans. Maybe this is something else, some special section on the side where the fans can have fun, but you are categorically saying they are one and the same.

Fact—I have never encountered the term "wiki" as anything but an abbreviation for "Wikipedia" outside this thread and the directly related edit summaries. --Ted Watson (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Fact: You're still ignoring the reasons. That's a shame, but I'm done talkign to a brick wall. As I have said repeatedly, Marvel.com/universe is a wiki-engine website. Anyone can edit it. Therefore, it's a crappy site. Further, anything done there is subject to Marvel's oversight, which means non-flattering material is likely to be removed fast, presenting POV based articles. If you're unwilling to read up on the concept of 'a wiki' over this Wikipedia, that's also not my problem. go look at the marvel site, note the Wiki-engine format, the attributions of fans writing it, and move on. Finally, adding new reasons to refuse the material is not the bad thign you make it out to be. ThuranX (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as things go, I don't owe you jack shit. I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to the anonymous IP that kept placing the OR into the article to begin with. As for your arguments to use Marvel.com as a source, as ThuranX says, it's set up in Wiki format. Literally, ANYBODY that signs up to the site can edit the character bios section. A lot of the bios do contain inaccurate information, some of them are severely outdated. The section describing Wolverine's powers in his bio at the site is taken word for word out of an old OHOTMU profile that was put out nearly 25 years ago. Aside from the general rule about not using other Wikis as a source, the fact that Marvel doesn't hold those that edit the site to higher standards makes it a crap site by Wikipedia reliability standards. Like it or not, that's the way it is and unless Marvel gets its shit together, that's how it's going to stay.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, the evidence is conclusive and there for all to see that I was the editor under discussion here. Period. As for Marvel's site, we're both right. It is Marvel's official site, with them posting their official news and such, while the character pages and the like are indeed subject to fan editing and therefore not a good source for Wiki. I apologize for my stubbornness in not checking it out earlier. --Ted Watson (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And yet, despite multiple reversions and clear edit summaries, you didn't listen. When brought here, you opened with hostility, and wouldn't listen to, nor examine the sources. When urged to do that, you countered with more complaints. We are NOT 'both right'. The citation was to a wiki which is unacceptable. Equivocations with unrelated material don't count. No one said jack about Marvel.com, but about Marvel.com/Universe, a very different set of webpages. You were wrong. ThuranX (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"Clear edit summaries" my @$$! I described in quite accurate detail precisely how they were inconsistent. I am done with you two. --Ted Watson (talk) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

well without a Powers&Abilities page just on that...how will the Hulk's power's be proven?(Real ultimate life hulk! (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Image copyright problem with Image:The Incredible Hulk 1 (May 1962).jpg

The image Image:The Incredible Hulk 1 (May 1962).jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

how would you estimate how the hulks power increases over the years?

Maybe he has gotten more powerful and faster ans smarter but...by what rate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Real ultimate life hulk! (talk • contribs) 22:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

not our job. wait for reliable sources. ThuranX (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

why do people compare the hulk with solomon grundy? and should we include that 1 picture?

i don't think he should be compared with him! also there's a picture where superman gets hit by the hulk and he says..He hit harder then any tornado i faced!...and should we include the picture where the hulk stops a blackhole with his hands? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Real ultimate life hulk! (talk • contribs) 02:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

None of this is important. Superman isn't 'canon', it's a promotional issue. And we don't need pictures of every dumb feat the hulk does. Finally, I remind the above editor that this isn't a Fan Forum page. ThuranX (talk) 02:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I am suggesting merging the powers and abilities page into this page as discussed here. We cover the basics at a high level and concentrate on the cultural impact of the character not how many cars he can toss or if spider-man punked him on an off day. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Support As a fan of the character, those facts are interesting tidbits. However, I don't see any real encyclopedic value of them. The P&A of the Hulk looks like a homage to the character, a testament to his physical might and, in my opinion, is designed first and foremost with fans of the character in mind.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"On the fence" at the moment, but the P&A article does have issues that need to be addressed:

• Images: Aside from the healing factor image, they only amount to decoration. The text in the article is more than sufficient to describe the particular points. The use doesn't meet the "significance" policy for non-free content use.
• Out of story context and references: All but nil. The article reads as a break down between recap paragraphs and lists of in-story "feat" examples.
• The few secondary source cites (6) are being used inappropriately:
  • 2 are used for bullet point, in-story examples. (currently refs #73 and 83)
  • 2 are used for feat examples in paragraphs. (currently refs #7 and 21)
  • 2 are used to create a quote. (currently refs #11 and 12) These are two separate quotes from Pak and should not be edited to imply that he said them at the same time, much less in the same interview.
  • 3 (#7, 21, and 73) imply more information than just the comic (primary source) listed. An implication that isn't followed through on.
• While the is a "fan site" flavor to the entire article, it's extremely strong with the bullet lists ("Miscellaneous" through "Lower-end power occasions").
• Also with the lists... is there a good reason for "Miscellaneous" and "Irregular abilities" being separate sections?
• A lot of the text is permeated with statements acknowledging "The Hulk's powers have varied greatly depending on the needs of the story and the whim of the writer." That's a good argument to distill this down to a list sufficient for an infobox., or for recasting this into an article on who the writers have viewed the Hulk's powers and chosen to depict them. And such an article would have minimal primary (comic book) sourcing.

- J Greb (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what I will suggest as a way forward, we clean-up using those points as a basis for action and then consider if the content needs merging/further clean-up? how does that sound? --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

The P&A was split out during the massive rewrite I did a while ago. I avoided merging it back because any and all attempts to clean it up and distill it to the encyclopedic were met with massive resistance, which is why I wrote the Powers section here as I did, heavily relying on citation and such. I am loathe to reintroduce much of the material at P&A at all, because I find it to be rabidly defended fan material defended under the 'inclusionist' mentality, loosely interpreted. There's really nothing at all there which isn't already covered here in much less }peacockish prose. I'd support a redirect, but anythign which is believes to truly warrant inclusion should be discussed first. I'm still trying to get this article back up to GA status, and fannish fluff will detract from that effort. ThuranX (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Unable to edit template

I am unable to edit the Template to remove "powers and abilities of the hulk" because it is locked to admin only access. Can someone take care of it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Done - J Greb (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Requests being made re P&A section from user talk pages

I'm copying this to here since it is a discussion that should happen on this talk page and not strewn across multiple user talks.

---

As far as I've understood the decision the content of Powers and Abilities of the Hulk was to be merged into the main article, or to quote "The debate was closed on 18 October 2008 with a consensus to merge the content into the article Hulk (comics)." The most reasonable and the least intrusive way of doing so that I can come up with is to add the most noteable examples of an ability as sources to previously existing statements, and adding a few forgotten abilities without affecting the flow of the text in section itself in a major way. Thus I'd very much appreciate if we could handle this reasonably and collaboratively without any acid. This is extremely far from excessive, and not remotely a whole insertion of the article, even if that was the actual decision. I made an effort to keep it as concise and informative as possible, but it is extremely tiresome to exert myself, take the result reasonably despite that it was a slap in the face of all the extensive work, and yet not meeting any willingness to budge whatsoever, regardless that this was actually required by the decision.

Something along this vein is the best I can manage at the moment, but help with improvements are greatly appreciated:

"The Hulk possesses the potential for near-limitless physical strength, depending directly on his emotional state, particularly his anger. This has been reflected in the repeated catchphrases "The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets," and "Hulk is the strongest one there is." His durability, healing, and endurance also increase in relation to his temper. Greg Pak described the Hulk shown during World War Hulk as having a level of physical power where "Hulk was stronger than any mortal -- and most immortals -- who ever walked the Earth." Pak went on to say that even then, the Hulk would lose to characters such as Galactus.

The Hulk is also extremely resistant to most forms of injury or damage, including physical, psychic, or environmental extremes, and is immune to disease and poisons. His powerful legs allow him to leap into lower Earth orbit or across continents. He also has less commonly described powers, including abilities allowing him to "home in" to his place of origin in New Mexico, and to see and interact with astral forms. He has been shown to have both regenerative and adaptive healing abilities, including growing tissues to allow him to breathe underwater, surviving unprotected in space without air supply for hours to days, resisting transformation of his physical form, and when injured, healing from almost any wound within seconds, including regenerating lost mass. Additionally he possesses longevity beyond that of ordinary humans. In some storylines his powers increase after absorbing large amounts of radiation, dark magic, or nexus-energies.

In some stories The Hulk has been shown capable of withstanding a ground zero nuclear explosion, comparatively powerful energy blasts, planet-shattering impact, as well as the 1,000,000-degree Fahrenheit "nova-burst" of the Human Torch, in one case combined with a full-power lightning strike by Storm. In other stories, he has been shown to be significantly weaker, for example passing out from asphyxiation due to being strangled by an ordinary python, or being beaten and knocked out in physical combat with Captain America. Over time, the Hulk has been shown to grow vastly more powerful from his origins in the 60s and 70s.

As Bruce Banner (and the Merged/Professor Hulk), he is considered one of the greatest minds on Earth. He has developed expertise in the fields of biology, chemistry, engineering, and physiology, and holds a Ph.D. in nuclear physics. He possesses "a mind so brilliant it cannot be measured on any known intelligence test".

In The Science of Superheroes, Lois Grest and Robert Weinberg examined Hulk’s powers, explaining the scientific flaws in them. Most notably, they point out that the level of gamma radiation Banner is exposed to at the initial blast would induce radiation sickness and kill him, or if not, create significant cancer risks for Banner, because hard radiation strips cells of their ability to function. They go on to offer up an alternate origin, in which a Hulk might be created by biological experimentation with adrenal glands and GFP.

Charles Q. Choi from LiveScience.com further explains that unlike the Incredible Hulk, gamma rays are not green - existing as they do beyond the visible spectrum, gamma rays have no color at all that we can describe. He also explains that gamma rays are so powerful (the highest form of light and 10,000 times more powerful than visible light) that they can even create matter- a possible explanation for the increased mass that Bruce Banner takes on during transformations. "Just as the Incredible Hulk 'is the strongest one there is,' as he says himself, so too are gamma ray bursts the most powerful explosions known.""

Thank you for any assistance. Dave (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Dave,

First off, this is the wrong place to post a proposed change to the P&A section of the Hulk article. That is a discussion that should be centralized to the article's talk page.

Second point, the result of a merge, any merge, is that pertinent information gets extracted from the article-to-become-a-redirect and added to the parent, if it isn't already covered. Damn near everything in the P&A article was covered in the P&A section in a succienct manner. The material you pushed into the P&A section, as well as the majority of the example here, is exactly the type of material that was causing the problem with the P&A article - an over done list of "greatest hits/feats".

And that leads into a final point, the articles here are not, and should be written in a fansite mindset. They shouldn't have sections that tick off each way a character has used a power, nor each time a plot element is presented to make the character look neat or cool. Material like that either belongs in a Marvel or Hulk specific encyclopedia (the Marvel DB springs to mind) or on a fan's website. For the P&A section though, keep to the minimal information: Lee commenting on the powerset he originally envisioned the character with; a rough indication of how writers have varied that (that is 1 high and 1 low point for strength, the same doe durability); critical commentary on how the Hulk's powers have been presented; possibly comments from other writers on how they've refined or revised the Hulk's powers; and possibly a point or two about the Hulk's minor "odd" powers (ie the homing instinct and the adaptability not related to durability).

- J Greb (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was just trying to be polite and mediating by going directly to you and Thuran, since you were the ones deleting any added references, rather than make a big mess out of it. Most people, including myself, prefer to talk things out in private rather than get forced into a major debacle. In any case, the alternatives would be to either make a list of unsourced statements, or to source them, and the decision was "merge", not "delete". This was the best middle-road I could come up with. Listing all the shown abilities is no different from the overall high-quality Galactus article. In fact it's the common praxis. If I was truly onesided and rampant about this stuff I would have tried to delete the mentions of Captain America and a snake defeating the Hulk, or being less powerful than Galactus, not simply non-intrusively including the other end of the scale. Dave (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

To a degree, I appreciate to find a middle ground/way, and if it were just you and I, or you and ThuranX, I'd agree trying to hash it out on user talk pages would be an option.

But, this isn't limited to two editors and it isn't a sheltered topic. And even if it were a topic that only you, I, and ThuranX were dealing with, cross posting to two talk pages does not breed a coherent discussion. As for sheltered, look at the additional comments made below by Cameron, Jc, and Chris. That speaks more to this being something to hash out on the article's (Hulk) talk page or a dedicated sandbox.

And on that point, this isn't the place to archive or experiment with article text. A sandbox off of your user space is more appropriate.

Again, I'm going to copy the added material from here to the talk at Hulk and amend down to this post. Any further discussion about the P&A section should be don there.

Thank you,

- J Greb (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

And copied in toto to Talk:Hulk (comics)#Requests being made re P&A section from user talk pages - J Greb (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

in-universe shite that nobody is interested in. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that flexible, decision/consensus-following, polite, and non-hurtful comment. I truly love spending a lot of time, and trying to be flexible regardless of personal views, just to have said great effort be repeatedly insulted by strangers out of nowhere, and try to adapt to their attacks. It never gets old. Really. Nice to be appreciated. Dave (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I find that a rather unhelpful comment. And honestly, no one is (or should be) interested in your opinion on whether anyone else is interested in the information. Whether such information is correctly sourced is all that should matter. See WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. - jc37 03:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, that's a fairly hardcore inclusionist position. In-universe fancruft can be perfectly-sourced and cross-referenced and still be inapproriate for a well-written WP article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a hardcore inclusionist attitude. The original page had 108 references. What I did here was to follow the decision to merge the most essential content in a manner that tried to be as non-intrusive and minimalist as I could manage, since I wanted to show respect to Thuran's wish that the section should not intrude upon the article itself. Any specific information is kept to the references. Dave (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I was really only referring to Jc37's assertion that "whether such information is correctly sourced is all that should matter", not to your comment. Sorry for any confusion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, since this has been moved here, I suppose I'll comment here. Thumperward should probably re-read the comment I was referring to, before making further (inappropriate) accusations.

The quote was:

• "in-universe shite that nobody is interested in."

So I suppose I should wonder how one gets from my explaining policy concerning whether someone may be "interested in" information, and whether something is "sourced". And fursther that the statement would seem to be more than a little uncivil.

It's a bit of a logical leap by thumper, I must say, though when I see it followed up by clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT words such as "fancruft", I suppose I might understand more clearly the goal. It's not about what I said, but perhaps instead something someone wants to argue about, and so perhaps was intentionally misconstruing my statement in order to make their preferred arguement, even though it had nothing to do with my comments.

I actually haven't personally decided about the content in question (except that if it's kept it direly needs cleanup), but if what may loosely be described as a "discussion" continues to have such as I have noted above, perhaps a discussion (of editor actions, as opposed to content) may be an appropriate next step... - jc37 05:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:J Greb#Hulk merger)

- J Greb (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC) - Transfer updated J Greb (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC). Please address any comments raised with regard to the P&A section below. Anything else added to my talk page that is related to cajoling, commenting, editing, fixing, bemoaning, bashing, or praising the P&A section is going to be point blank removed. - J Greb (talk)

Well, I was just trying to be polite and mediating by going directly to you and Thuran, since you were the ones deleting any added references, rather than make a big mess out of it. Most people, including myself, prefer to talk things out in private rather than get forced into a major debacle. In any case, the alternatives would be to either make a list of unsourced statements, or to reference them, and the decision was "merge", not "delete". This was the best middle-road I could come up with to pay respect to Thuran's wish to not have the section majorly intrude upon the rest of the article. Listing all the shown abilities with included references is no different from the overall high-quality Galactus article. In fact it's the common praxis. If I was truly onesided and rampant about this stuff I would have tried to delete the mentions of Captain America and a snake defeating the Hulk, or being less powerful than Galactus, not simply non-intrusively including the other end of the scale. Dave (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

the article already contains all the detail we require on power and abilities, all that in-universe well... crap.. is not required. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd also suggest some of the out-of-universe material could be left out - that last paragraph is actually using Hulk as a hook to discuss gamma rays and hardly anything in that paragraph is actually about the Hulk and none of it tells us anything new or relevant. Taking it all out would only improve the section. (Emperor (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC))

I have no objection. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The point is that the decision was "merge the content", not "inconspiciuously evaporate it against the consensus, because I hate it". Regardless of what I thought (that it should have been kept), or what you thought (that it should have been deleted), the decision was to transfer the content into the page, not evaporate it. Regardless that I've spent such a great effort on the original page just to have that repeatedly insulted, attacked and removed, I'm not using the hardcore inclusionist path of copy-pasting all the 108 references, I'm thinning it down to the minimum essentials, while being nearly as reasonable and mediating as I'm capable of.

What I'm trying to do is follow the decision to "merge the content into the article Hulk (comics)" and find a middle-road in a manner is as non-intrusive and minimalist as I could manage, since I wanted to show respect to Thuran's long-time tending to the page, and his wish that the section should not intrude upon the article itself. The alternative would be to simply make a lot of unsourced thin air statements, which seems less sensible. Any brief specific information is kept to the footnotes, and not to the article. Again, this is the conclusive decision on the matter. It's not honest to simply try to make it all go away due to personal biases regardless of this. Given that I'm struck much harder by this than you are, and am still making an actual effort to find a workable solution, even though it's technically grating on my nerves, I'd appreciate if you could be similarly flexible in the other direction. Thank you. Dave (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But we did merge all the important, non-in-universe/primary source based material. There simply wasn't much at all which wasn't already here in this article. This is rapidly going to become the same fight it always descends into: You love primary sources, WP:RS says no. You say it's so much better to use the comics, WP:RS and consensus says no. David A, I, for one, am sick and tired of dealing with you about this same exact topic time after time. You are wrong, we are right. Primary sources are a poor substitute, at best, for secondary sources. We have Secondary Sources, we would like to rely on them, and you object. We all know you hate the rules here at Wikipedia, we all know you think that this article is so much better when it's entirely centered on the In-Universe content. We don't. Get over it, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah, that's probably a misunderstanding. I love all references (the more the better ;) ), as long as they're kept completely matter-of-fact regarding what happened in a certain source. (I'm adamant on the last point) I usually like 2nd or 3rd part references better (unless the cited source isn't a literary essay/text/treatise, but rather "Wizard the Guide to Comics" and not as an author-quote, but theoretically as a false statement about a certain story), but see 1st part references as infinitely preferable to thin air statements/claims. It's not like adding a note at each of the ends of the preexisting sentences is going to hurt the article, quite the opposite. What I do have is a perspective that if no 2nd-3rd part sources are available to make a coherent article, citing 1st part sources is necessary as a fill-out. As long as both are available everything is fine. I also don't think the article here is much better when centred on in-universe content, simply that a mixture is fully acceptable, and that citing the statements is far preferable to simply making thin air claims. If you think too many examples are listed in each of the notes, that I can certainly understand. It's the reason several were included, to give you a selection which are preferable. But if you think it's fine to explicitly state Captain America and the snake through 1st source references, it should be fine to include the examples of superhuman strength, durability, healing, or other abilities as footnotes.

As for Wikipedia itself, I don't hate the regulations overall, I just don't think in a remotely bureaucratic manner, and don't have the patience to accumulate a paragraph-citing mindset, although I do disagree with a few of them when used in a non-pragmatic or seemingly manipulative manner. I tend to think in more pragmatic terms. I do however actively dislike the rampant use of sockpuppets (but then again, it may just be subjective experience in that regard), occasionally the ruling per exclusive committee when done strictly to enforce a personal agenda, the vulnerability to gatherings of editors who decide to enforce a certain 'attitude'/angle in more politically influential pages, rather than simply citing facts, and am not particularly fond of simultaneous deliberately manipulative (Not the mind-blank, lack of personal perspective variety. That happens to most of us) usage of conflicting regulations, when taking the initiative in insulting others is seen as ok as long as it's accompanied by citing regulations or done in a roundabout style, or when regulations seem to be applied extremely selectively to attack me specifically, but that's pretty much it. Dave (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

"I love all references (the more the better ;) ), as long as they're kept completely matter-of-fact regarding what happened in a certain source. " You can't stop yourself, can you? This statement of yours is admission of your problem. You love PRIMARY sources. PRIMARY. PRIMARY! We do not use primary sources! I do not understand why you are mentally incapable of grasping this, why when it's said again and again, you ignore it, or gloss over it, or change your approach to circumventing this, but you do. Your 'anti-bureaucracy rant' is at best irrelevant, at worst, intentionally patronizing distraction. Further, casting aspersions on secondary sources out of hand as likely to be false statements shows you don't understand how to write an article here, and probably haven't ever read the essays, guidelines and policies related to sources and the writing style here.

The implication that everyone else is seeking ways to insult you and cite policy to hide it and back it up shows a lack of faith on your part. As for 'Captain America and the snake', Whatever goes on at the Captain America page isn't necessarily a license to mimic it here. The Hulk's powers, as stated so far, are all backed up with reasonable citations. When you begin to bloviate, though, filling the section up with episode-by-episode masturbatory paeans to the character, you detract from the quality. This has been said many times. No one agrees with you, and you're not doing yourself any favors by bringing it up again and again and again. Stop trying to get your way here, you're opposed by multiple editors, as you are every single time you bring this topic up. I don't know why you think that revisiting this issue every few months will result in a change, but it's approaching Tendentious Editing. Please stop. ThuranX (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I oppose both proposals; the inclusion of ever feat of strength, which has been repeatedly discussed and consensus remains against it, as seen here months ago, at the forked page, and then again at the AfD, and the removal of more real world content. The Hulk is fairly unusual in the amount of scientific writing about the flaws of the character's origin, and this article can only benefit from reflecting that there is a great deal of real world discussion of the origin and gamma rays. If I had to explain why so much is written, I'd venture that it is because radiation is one of the most misunderstood parts of science, one that can cure cancer OR cause it, and so on. That the hulk embodies a bizarre reaction to radiation shows how misunderstood it is, and hes' a popular, widely known access point for opening such discussions. That some such discussions are framed around him makes the content relevant to both the character and the topic of radiation, but more so the latter in layman's terms. I'm sick and tired of the 'all the other superheros don't have it so why should this one' argument for removal, because the answer is simple, but unpopular to fanboys: We have the material to use, and so we should use it. IF other characters had the material, I'd encourage its' application on those articles as well, but adopting a not here unless it's everywhere attitude is absurd, and if applied more broadly would ruin all articles. Consider that argument put to all comic book articles when discussing awards received, or censorships invoked. removing either would sorely weaken the article, and not all articles can talk about either. ThuranX (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree about including the real-world context. If it's possible to find a similar mention about how most comicbook strongment completely defy all laws of momentum, strain tolerance, and leverage, that might be an idea as well.

I'm expanding a bit on warranting the references: Take the original "near-unlimited physical strength" for example (which I rabidly removed from the P&A page). Citing the possible sources of this recurrent claim from the Marvel handbooks by referencing the displayed upper limits (probing by the Beyonder, overpowering a Celestial-level entity, destroying numerous worlds by the shockwaves of his blows, allegedly holding a black hole, but I haven't read the issue myself, so feel free to remove if incorrect) seems warranted, but shorten it down if you prefer. The same goes for mentioning withstanding blasts comparative or greater than nuclear explosions. The Human Torch is by no means the highest displayed end of the durability scale, even if the python likely is the lowest. Absorbing radiation and similar, and actually being in space for hours to days without breathing apparatus are also noteable. I also still maintain that all the repeatedly displayed abilities should be mentioned, with an addition of "in some storylines". (Regarding the recent vacuum-survival, I also remember an old story in which the Hulk was propelled to Earth from another planet and seemed to do fine through Abomination-style suspended animation before he landed. Either right after Rocket Racoon, Counter Earth, or Galaxy Master + Abomination I believe. I also think it was the first comic in which the Hulk fell from orbit, but I'm likely mistaken) This is standard for all superhero characters, and I don't think a format similar to the above would cause a disturbance of the text flow. Dave (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

But you don't like Real World Content, because it contradicts your in-universe, primary citations at times, nevermind that those primary sources contradict themselves at times. You're proposing here the re-inclusion of the list of strength feats he's done, and proposing using such a list as the basis of adding other facts to the article, which violates WP:SYNTH. You're familiar with all of these policies, but you keep arguing against them, for a Fan-based article. Please stop. Please. ThuranX (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I like real world content, but like diversity to create a pattern, especially if the pattern is self-conflicting. That's the only way to highlight that there are different extremes available. As for the paragraph-quotation, actually I don't know about that one. I'm really trying to be flexible here, and follow the decision without making trouble for your article. Dave (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, look at your own words, you frame your argument in an in-universe fan perspective - it's just not how we write article or indeed think about writing articles. NONE of the things you mention are notable in the slightest, they are only notable in that fictional universe. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Just some general comment from what has been posted here and what wound up on my talk page (also here now) and ThuranX's...

• Cameron... a little tact would be a good thing.
• "But it/I had 108 cited references..." Of which 105 were direct from the comics for a recitation of, pardon me here, "What make the Hulk so Incredible." Of the other 3, 1 was a round about way of adding another feat and the last two were used to fabricate a quote. The nuts and bolts here is that a list of 300+ cites can be created from the comics for what the Hulk has broken, lifted, bent, punched, destroyed, resisted, ignored, recovered from, and/or survived. That or the 108 is over the top for points that can be made with 2-4 examples.
• The section, as it stands right now, covers the sub-topic fine. There may be good cause to include a point that the strength and durability have varied to suit particular writers and stories. That may, however, be more of a general point about characters in fiction.
• A short paragraph pointing out some of the powers given the character for plot expedience may also be warranted.
• The "Real science break the Hulk" stuff should stay, but as a separate section. It is relevant to the over all topic, but feels very out of place in the powers section.

- J Greb (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Question! without Proof of his powers&abilitis how will people know there true?(Real ultimate life hulk! (talk) 19:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

Proof is offered. The info in the P&A section of the article is sourced. A cherry picked list of the Hulk's "greatest feats" has little encyclopedic value. Such a page would be great at the Marvel Wikia.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Very impressive work. I don't think there's anything wrong with a separate article like this, because it's all sourced, and provides detail. It does not come across as in-universe, because Dave has properly written most of the material to emphasize the attributive and demonstrative nature of the it, with phrasing like "has been shown capable of withstanding a nuclear explosion", "There are examples of the Leader and Doc Samson attempting unsuccessfully, to measure the limits of the Hulk's strength", and "The Hulk is depicted with extremely high levels of superhuman stamina", instead of "He can survive a nuclear blast", "His strength has no limits", or "He has superhuman stamina". Kudos to Dave for this. However, there are a few issues.

First, there are couple of instances in which Dave relied on The Official Handbook of the MU for a source, both implicit and explicit. An implicit example is the mention of "fatigue poisons", which has no source. The source at the end of that passage only supports Hulk's survival of a nuclear blast, and makes no mention of fp, and indeed, that sounds like something Peter Sanderson often referenced in the OHOTMU. An explicit example is Cite #41, regarding his super-speed. As Asgardian has pointed out to me, that is not considered reliable as a source of definitive information. The individual comic book issues are far better as citations in which the assertions are demonstrated by example.

Second, the article needs to be trimmed, in terms of both little fourishes and peacock terms, and redundancy. The former includes things like "The cover stated 'Beneath one hundred and fifty billion tons stands the Hulk.'", and "More impressively", since, in the case of the former, I don't think a cover blurb can be said to be definitively reliable, and the second instance is POV. As for redundancy, the "higher extents of power" section is largely redundant, and not applicable to non-fan, general readers. For example, the upper sections already said that he can shift tectonic plates, and shatter an asteroid bigger than the Earth. Telling them that he can rip the High Evolutionary's armor or rip the "Flame of Life" is not only redundant, it's vague, because the general reader doesn't know what the Flame of Life is, or that the HE's armor is tougher than an Earth-sized asteroid. (I mean, is it? Hell, even I didn't know that!) Some of these, like his ability to rip adamantium, however may arguably be relevant. As for the "Lower-end power occasions", I think these merely demonstrate how depictions by different writers can vary, and should be incorporated at the end of the "Durability" section as a non-list, smaller set of examples of this fact. It would not only be less redundant and a better organization of the material, but it would be more out-universe by emphasizing writer inconsistency.

Overall, excellent research, Dave. Nightscream (talk) 00:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with a separate article like this the community disagrees with that analysis and if that red-link turns blue, it goes straight back to AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

this is a problem..now The Hulk is one of the world's most powerful hero's and according to the New Hulk movie trailer we might have too make hulk look like he is truely is the strongest person in Marvel! example if they deleted the Superman power's&abilities section...how many supporters will be Hulk mad? now if we don't make him look insanely powerful we fail marvel becuase on the game the incredible hulk:ultimate destruction they say he is the strongest superhero in Marvel and this is cannon becuase they were associated with Marvel so i'd suggest making him look like a beast! clearly Marvel said he is the strongest person in the Marvel universe according too Marvel(the cover says the strongest man of all time!)i think we should show some respect towards the incredible Hulk...forgive me im just worried about Hulk(Real ultimate life hulk! (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

Is this a joke? "make him look like a beast", this isn't newsarama. --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

this kind of power...[2]is what im trying make example of(Real ultimate life hulk! (talk) 01:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

This must be a joke. We have NO responsibility to not 'fail marvel'. We have a responsibility to focus on the real world impact and real world relevance of Hulk. I'm tired of covering this same old ground. ThuranX (talk) 03:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

well if you think its a joke well there goes effert into the drain well Hulk[3] is meant to be represented as mad or monster like and i think since WWH and his new games we should push ourselves further into the article then ever before! HULK![4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Real ultimate life hulk! (talk • contribs) 03:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not having a section purely on the incredible Hulk's P&A is equel too this>[5]...not recommended becuase people like too get into detail without a Power's&Abilities section on its own page it bores people...that equels=less people looking into the article and more people complaining...pleae at least show the basic's of his power.(HULK (talk) 23:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC))

So, your argument is that because somebody edited together a YouTube video of one story, we should tell every little thing the Hulk has ever done, and use ridiculous adjectives and hyped up phrases to do so? No. it's irresponsible. It's clear, from your name, and your writing tone, that you're a huge Hulk fan. Enjoy that, but don't think that translates into a qualification for editing here. We're not changing this article to reflect the desires of the fans over the needs of good writing and citation. ThuranX (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

well im saying people shoudl at least view basic example's of the hulk some here>[6] or here>[7] things like those im not the very good at finding reliable sources but its not up too me...just becuase the P&A section is gone doesn't mean its away for good...actually i saw a video taking stuff from this article just too show how powerful the hulk is! soo regardless of the section's deletion it is kinda pointless now...im just suggesting we put Basic example's(HULK (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

The P&A section is not gone, it's still here. the puff piece P&A article is gone, merged to here. Other editors ARE good at finding reliable sources, and we did so. A video produced by fans, taking info from here without crediting wikipedia per the GFDL License, is hardly a reliable source or solid counterargument for the inclusion of fan-frothy text. We have enough reliably sourced information, we do NOT need the bit by bit trivia. I'm done arguing this, you're not listening, just rambling about how great hulk is and how we're haters for not loving him like you do. ThuranX (talk) 05:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

well im not going to argue anymore since your getting mad...well here's a video>[8]...i know its from youtube but its actually from a Game where the people working with Marvel stating things about the Hulk...im going too try in a less arguement deal instead(HULK (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Look man, you're not going to get your way on this so you might as well just give it up. The way you want the P&A section of this article to read is along the same likes that the Powers and abilities of the Hulk article was set up. That article was created as a dumping ground basically because so many examples of "incredible" feats performed by the Hulk throughout various appearances over the years were overloading the section. Most editors that edit the Hulk article are fans of the character like yourself, but the consensus is overwhelmingly against the kind of article that you want this one to be. That's not very likely to change.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

well okay i will leave this article for a while but just in case you don't think that video is offical look here>[9]...i know im annoying and im sorry i just wanted some things too show up when i clicked the Powers&Abilities thing below the Hulk...since its un-expected deletion i felt like i got spammed...maybe i come back in a few weeks when things are working out?(HULK (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia isn't under the control of Marvel Comics, nor are any of the editors as far as I know. Everything in the Hulk article contains information taken from "official" sources, namely Marvel publications as well as other examples taken from other sources outside of Marvel's control that don't undermine Marvel's take on their own fictional character. The Powers and abilities of the Hulk isn't going to be recreated, the P&A section in this article won't be filled with a "greatest feats" list and I doubt it's going to change in a few weeks or a few months for that matter. For the forseeable future, the type of article you want simply isn't going to be a reality.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

J.Greb: Avoiding hyped-up listings is an understandable view. It is just a regular P&A section after all, so references should probably be kept brief, and I agree that the 3rd-level sources should be prioritised, but don't think that the rest should be completely ignored if these are useful to illustrate some claimed ability and/or the extent thereof, as long as there is a mixture, or does this diminish the quality rating? Some examples have been picked and spelled out in the text itself, so I don't really think that the endnotes are that bad. Are there some references you think might be worth keeping? Given that you tend to be more sensible than most of us, you do seem like one of the best choices to help hammer out some form of final outline.

jc37: Well, your input/efforts for rewording and/or trimming down the template would be very appreciated. Like Greb, you tend to be very levelheaded, and have excellent knowledge of regulations/what's appropriate.

OB: So, given that this is supposed to be a brief and non-intrusive regular P&A section, which references do you think are appropriate to insert/'keep'? What would be an appropriate layout?

Thuran: Well, I don't think it's odd that I take being called a "weasel", a "flowery peacock that should have a cherry on top", and many similar cases, as insults is a remotely long enough stretch to warrant that claim. (Although I tend to lose track/stray a lot, so "flowery" may be accurate) It's also a two-edged sword, as you just misunderstood some of my own (admittedly generally shifting depending on mood and experiences) viewpoints, including that I think "everyone" is seeking ways to insult me. As for the Wikipedia comments, yes they're diverting from the discussion, and no I don't like that, and have nothing to gain from it as this is messy enough as it is, but I tried to give an honest answer/clarification regarding my rather varied experiences here since you brought it up. The Captain America and Snake mentions refer to the current P&A section itself, and I have no problems with either. I just think a few other aspects should be included as well.

Nightscream: Thank you for the kind words, and you're probably right about that removing the handbook speed reference, and replacing it with that he's kept up with Sentry, Thor or similar would have been better, but the P&A article is dead and gone, except in the history section. Your thoughts regarding which parts that might be appropriate to work in, or improved and trimmed revisions of the one above would be appreciated.

Cameron: I'm not sure what comment of Thuran's that you are referring to, but the decision was merge, so as one of the former maintainers of that page, it's not particularly strange that I'd like to be involved in that process, but am attempting to show respect to not make the changes intrusive on the structure. I'm also not remotely inserting all of them, and am trying to be flexible regarding which should be included.

HULK: If you're a new user attempting to help out this is appreciated, but it's probably an inconvenient moment, so unfortunately you may be muddling the issue further than we are already managing ourselves.

If you're JJonz using his 51th+ newly-created sockpuppet and self-proclaimed major in communication/expertise in emulating shifting verbal styles, in his varied attempts to mess with anything I'm involved in, as yet another 'parody' of some self-perceived tendency of my own, for example by various insertions of very exaggerated Hulk-related comments at various pages I've been involved with to raise some form of negative interest, and using reverse-psychology to undermine some versions of my viewpoints, by making them seem sillier than they should be, just to give complete chaos a final push, and watch the fallout: It's a variation of a recurrently used theme, but very funny. We're all laughing. There must be better subjects to make into neverending hobby-projects and stalk paranoid. Dave (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hulk powers article merger discussion – Issues evaluation only area

Please insert anything off-topic into the section above and copy your matter-of-fact on-topic evaluations here. For reference, the article to be merged can be found here as it was right before it started to have sections compressed or cut out. Here as it was in an attempt to compress it, and here after edits to further shorten it down.

Since the talk above turned far too muddled and straying, I thought it may be an idea to attempt to handle it here in a more structured/on-topic manner. We probably need some concise clarifications in order to enable communication and find some common ground, but I'm usually not particularly good at that kind of thing. Also, the attempt seen near the top of the previous section is simply intended as a first template to be considered point-by-point and complemented with alternatives.

Here are the issues as I understand them: The decision was to merge the P&A article. This should be done in as concise and non-intrusive manner as possible. What do you think is an acceptable manner of doing so? Are you willing to modify the current layout in any manner? The purpose of a regular P&A section is to list the shown attributes of a character, the established extents thereof, and potential inconsistencies. Do you agree? Please explain. - Certain statements and/or claims in the section are currently unsourced. Should some form of reference be inserted to back each one up? - Certain shown abilities are currently unlisted. Should some form of references be inserted noting these? 3rd or 2nd source references should be prioritised over direct 1st sources (but according to the regulations contrasted if blatantly contradicted). Is it better to not use any matter-of-fact 1st sources whatsoever to back up statements, rather than include unsourced claims? Which, if any, of the suggested new sources/validations in the rough template do you think could be appropriate if properly refined/trimmed, or would you prefer some other mention from the old P&A page? Would you be willing to make an attempt picking out the most informative, and rewrite it into something appropriate? The real-world treatises should either be kept in the P&A section or moved elsewhere in the page. Which would you prefer? Are some 1st-source referenced abilities in-universe, and others not? If so why?

I'm a bit short on time, but think that's a start at least. Hopefully it should smooth out some form of communication. Please insert notable aspects that I've overlooked below. Dave (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

So starts David A's next tactic of record. When a discussion gets too clearly against him, he re-presents his initial premise, in a newer, more considered wording, in the hopes this will look like an attempt at cooperation. Then he gets everyone to jump through all the old familiar hoops. Then he waves them away, saying it's too muddled, there's too much tangential discussion, and we start it again. And again. And again. No, David, this technique is not acceptable. There is ample discussion above. Your request is against consensus. You argued against the merger, argued against any refinement of the other article, continue to argue that any evidence of anything the Hulk does is PROOF that we must include in this article, and you are unrelenting in your pursuit of a fanboy styled article. I don't know why you cannot accept that sometimes, consensus is against you, but you are clearly unable to do so at a basic level of your being. Unfortunately, it's not my 'job' as a wiki-editor to accommodate your emotional frailties and rules-lawyering, and system-gaming ways. I'm so tired, and exhausted with this stuff. It's why my contributions to wikipedia are trailing off. Over and over, I must make the same arguments to you, over and over consensus is demonstrated, and yet, you insist taht you can infinitely re-open any discussion to find a new consensus, the moment the old consensus is established. You seem to think that by closing the previous section, you make it an 'old discussion', and so assert we are due for a 'new discussion'. I'm tired of fighting you about this. Please stop and move on. I really think that a WP:TE complaint will be the only way to stop you from it, and that means a topic ban, in most cases. I believe you CAN be a good editor, and would like to see you do so, but I cannot assume any good faith about yoru attempts to argue the same damn shit over and over. ThuranX (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty straightforward, since that's the only way I can make sense of my thoughts and impressions, so if I say something I mean it as far as I understand at the moment, and yes I’m genuine in my endeavour here. Like jc37 I don't think the above is remotely coherent, and reasonable enough to be considered a 'discussion', so I'm trying to straighten out the mess so everyone can tackle the actual issues without any diversions in a manner everyone (including myself) can understand. Besides, do you honestly think that I enjoy this? To just put up with having acid repeatedly spit in my face no matter what I do even though it's incredibly annoying? My 'grand master plan' is that I'm trying to find some way to get through to you, find a neutral means of describing perspectives I can't make sense of as is in a coherent matter-of-fact manner, and if I let you continue to wail at me without retaliation, maybe you'll calm down, see that I'm serious, and appreciate and respond to that.

I mean, if I repeat some of my firmer viewpoints/perspectives you state it as some form of insincere 'tactic' and in a misrepresenting or misunderstanding manner. (We don't even have available "Speech" training, and apparently list as the most rabidly honest nation on the planet)

If I try to take in something else and re-evaluate, then this is a deceptive tactic as well. You (and others) recurrently insult me through very condescending and usually unfair terms, and if I take offence it's still 'bad faith' on my part.

I'm trying to be reasonable, rein in my temper/irritability, and find an acceptable mild solution, rather than just moving the article text, but you call me a 'rabid fanboy', and say that you're 'tired' of reverting my edits? Right, because I've made so many of them the last year. Reverting 1 editing attempt in 5 seconds is immensely easier than making an effort to revise it, much less writing it in the first place.

I attempt to be polite by first taking up the issue personally, and making an effort to make the merged text as non-intrusive as possible to not mess with your structure, but am attacked by Cameron, try to still be polite even though he's attempting to provoke me by following me around being heckling and offensive, and you threaten to charge _me_ of harassing you.

You bring up various inaccurate accusations, which I try to honestly respond while still being as non-provocative as possible, which is hard for me, and you interpret it as that I'm trying to divert the discussion. (Which is the absolute opposite of what I'd like to see, but I have a hard time finding a way not to lose track and digress if other issues are brought up)

I attempt to straighten out the mess that was moved here and gradually turned completely incoherent and off-topic (and I would have tried to initiate in a more structured manner if I had known that it was going to be general discussion) by listing the actual points most of us (including myself) have thus far been unable to stick to, so we can all clarify our viewpoints of the issues at hand in a far more easily comprehensible and structured manner, and you interpret it as some manipulative scheme (which somehow isn't 'bad faith'. Come on, I'm add, Asperger, and slightly bipolar, tend to handle most things in a straightforward manner, and have a raging dislike of calculated deceit, so I'm not exactly the deliberately manipulative type). NO it isn't! I'm trying to find some way for us to stick to the issues, and hammer something out, not just stick our heels in the ground and yell at each other.

I don't think that you're doing this deliberately. I think that you're similar to myself, i.e. honest but paranoid, rational but irritable. I think you do have a completely skewed perspective of myself however, and need to make a similar effort to be clarifying, civil, and flexible. That's it. Regardless, all of this off-topic inaccurate accusation crap is completely beside the point(s). We're just wasting pointless energy on matters that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. This isn't some point-scoring battlefield situation, and no I'm not playing some kind of game. I feel a compulsive obligation to follow through on handling the fallout, find some way to communicate without losing track, and then move on. An honest evaluation will evidently not be reached by yelling 'Shut up!' 'Go away!' 'Submit!' 'Rabid dog!' or 'My way or the highway!' at each other.

Couldn't we all just use that section to do brief clarifying listings of our perspectives in the relevant issues, and stick to that kind of approach, without any distractions whatsoever? (Reminiscent of J.Greb's more matter-of-fact attempt above.) We haven't even had a genuine on-topic discussion of the issues yet, so I tried to give us a more structured environment for handling that, and actually hammer out something concrete not from intimidation and accusations but a rational treatise of the actual issues? That's it, that's the 'calculated master tactic’. Vainly mediating does not equal devious. I am turning far more annoyed and frustrated by your considerably more extreme treatment of me than the opposite, but am thus far managing to rein it in even though it's grating on my nerves, since it's obviously unconstructive, and jc37 rightly chided me for losing it in some instances lately, but am figuratively at the verge of repeatedly hitting the wall in frustration from just getting a lot of yelling and off-topic insults. Now could we get past all of that, take deep breaths, and handle this civilly and rationally?

This isn’t some game, I’m genuinely trying to get through to you, past any categorical hang-ups, but am not particularly good at communication, and don’t know what it would take, as virtually any attempts at re-evaluation, flexibility, civility, etc whatsoever are thus far interpreted in a negative manner and apparently yield unexpected backlashes. Just stop yelling at, inaccurately accusing or trying to intimidate me, and give simply sticking to the issues themselves a shot. Please? I’m usually not an unreasonable type once I’ve calmed down and evaluated a viewpoint. If you have good non-hostile and reasonable arguments that are spelled out clearly and civilly, and you give me a chance, I will attempt to take in what you have to say. Ok? We need some form of neutral ground here. It’s not a matter of trying to ignore the ‘discussion’ above, it’s a matter of trying to make sense of it and for once actually stick to what the matter is about, and assemble this in one place, since we haven’t properly handled and clarified it yet.

To start with something concrete, and what the heart of this matter is about, most statements are currently not sourced. Are you opposed to validating them as such, and if so why? Or is it simply a matter of the ones I suggested? Could any of them whatsoever be ok by you, gauged individually? Which of the suggested references do you think could be acceptable if you modified them in a manner you prefer? Or do you have some alternate suggestions? For example, if it’s the potential ‘feats’ angle itself you have a problem with, rather than simply backing up all the statements, the “virtually unlimited strength” claim doesn’t necessarily need the overpowering Onslaught, or handling the force of a black hole instances. It could just as easily just use the Beyonder probing, since that spells it out loud. That would be a valid viewpoint, and non-categorical case-by-case evaluations would be great. Also, do you think that virtually all of the displayed abilities should be listed, or just a few? Dave (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

my answer in full. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See, this on the other hand may count as both harassment, snark, and distraction, but I haven't given up hope on you either. You’ve proven yourself to be quite honestly dedicated, not simply the "Yet another endless JJonz sock" my own paranoia initially thought you to be, so hopefully you’ll turn reasonable eventually. Dave (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Other editors have every right to point out that you are trying to start the same argument to get your way since the above section is showing a strong consensus not to include what you want.

As a very, very strong suggestion — let the topic lay for a reasonable amount of time. Yes, consensus can change, but hammering at it the way you are is disruptive. Read the WP:TE link. - J Greb (talk) 20:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm completely lost. I'm trying to make us break free of the damn distractions and finally have an actual discussion, since I don't think we've handled the points related to the matter, just a lot of off-topic opinions and pre-determined generalised suspicions, that's what I'm trying to do. I can barely even make any sense of the HULK back-and-forth (We still haven't tackled if unsourced text should be sourced or not for crying out loud! It's not about my version, just about finding some version *tears his hair*), and it feels like you're saying that it's fully acceptable for anyone to take shots at, heckle, or have a go at me, even through extreme ways such as the picture above, but any time I attempt to defend myself you berate me for it and cite regulations. For example you just deleted a lot of my text, but when I did this in a much more minimal manner entirely through accident through overlapping edits you immediately made a point of it. I just appear to be some general boxing tool without any rights whatsoever, and no matter how much I try I won't be afforded the effort to even discuss the actual points case by case. The merger is supposed to be now, not later, and I _really_ want to move on beyond it, not have to hang around for several months.

It should also be noted that I'm most definitely not saying that my version is definite, or trying to be unreasonable, i.e. it's not POV-pushing as you claim in the link above: I'm asking for input regarding whether we should validate the unsourced comments through some 1st party references, and insert listings of more established abilities. I'm not saying "We must include the Onslaught feat". I'm saying "can anyone tell me whatever we should insert there". Ok? Not just completely ignore the issue. Just hammer out something. Make your own better streamlined version of my draft, whatever, just do something, not say "we will categorically censor or oppose anything whatsoever that you do, no matter what you do, even if it's to insert a comma". This lack of response is really driving me nuts.

Ok, how about this then. You can all continue dissecting the matter in a separate, non-muddled section, a few weeks or something whenever you have the energy. I definitely don't for quite a while. Dave (talk) 20:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

in the Power's and abilities area should we include his amazing jump and Thunderclap?

i think it would help! and dude who put that Galactus stuff? ThuranX maybe? i mean reely...times change! and whos this pak fellow? Jump ability>[10] and Thunderclap>[11] i mean we should add these powers! and please take out that Galactus thing...its just insulting considering the Hulk craked a Celetreil's armor! and Fantastic four even keeps Galactus at bay! don't be rude like that...this is about Hulk not Galactus!(HULK (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Greg Pak isn't part of Marvel and isn't a Source! he just had a discussion! he is a reviewer and nothing else! this isn't offical>[12] why is it even in the "Notes" section? it is a personal opinion not a fact! a topics board or un-offical forum! take that Galactus thing out!(HULK strongest one there is! (talk) 21:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC))

Greg Pak, as the article states, or at least once did, wrote World War Hulk. that puts the end to that whole section. ThuranX (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I can clap my hands together really hard or jump. It's the Hulk's strength, however, that makes these effects dramatic. They're ordinary physical acts made extraordinary by his strength, not seperate superhuman abilities.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

i don't care how cool he can make the Hulk look after what he said! Greg Pak just dis-appointed me! Marvel why did you let him get away with this? and i still don't think Galactus should be mentioned in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Real ultimate life hulk! (talk • contribs) 03:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying you don't care about citation or sourcing, you want the article your way? No one here let Marvel or Pak 'get away with this', and Marvel didn't 'let him', they PAID HIM. We've explained that when a writer of the comic says stuff about the comic, it may be notable, we've found that that quote is, so it stays. For your further information, regular editors of this page are not going to justify to you every part of the article. As for your other comments, I remind you, Wikipedia is not a place to discuss how cool or not cool things about Hulk are. ThuranX (talk) 08:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It feels like this is someone trying to make fun of us, me in particular. There is no reason why such a supposedly young reader would not know who the current Hulk writer is if he is reading the book, and his perspectives and actions don't make sense except as an incoherent parody of my own. Could you just leave us be please? This is hard enough as it is. Dave (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think real ultimate life hulk is mocking you, he's just quite young and enthusiastic about the topic. If, however, this is really an attempt at insulting you, he's making himself, NOT you, look the fool. David A, if this turns to be the case, I can assure you that I would be right there with you, calling for a community ban, as would, I'd like to think, most of the other editors opposing your goals regarding the powers of the hulk in this article. ThuranX (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. Dave (talk) 19:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I disagree with you, and wish you weren't so persistent, but you're not some kind of asshole who deserves baiting and hassles, if that is the case, which I state again, I do not believe is RLUH's goal here. ThuranX (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a "powers" section. Briefly describe his abilities (he's really strong and durable) in a "Characterization" section and indicate that his powers have fluctuated over the years. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with that. One, it's in the Comics MOS to include such a section. That's a weak argument, only mildly better than OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but there is a guideline for it. Second, if we remove the powers section, David A. will point to the absence as proof we didn't merge his article back in, and will whole-hog cut and paste it in, bringing us right back to a year ago. Third, and most importantly, there is significant outside coverage of his powers which I strongly feel relates to the character, and shouldn't be lost, which would occur if it wre all merged to characterization. ThuranX (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem is we're focusing on unhelpful fancruft here when what a casual reader needs is a basic, comprehensible description of the character's powers, with additional analysis by reputable secondary sources. We don't need a list of "feats of strength" cited by issue number because then there's no real-world context. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

And that's what we have right now, "a basic, comprehensible description of the character's powers, with additional analysis by reputable secondary sources." That David A. wants to inflate it, and can't stop bringing it up, isn't good reason to throw the baby out with his bathwater. ThuranX (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But see this isn't quite the way I think. I'm not trying to distort or inflate anything, I have something close to a 'Mark Gruenwald mind' i.e. I love finding ways to gauge the upper limits and displayed natures of virtually any characters that I'm involved with. I fundamentally see the entire point of all Powers & Abilities sections to display these "exact displayed extents of power" without any exaggerations and inaccuracies whatosever, and have gravitated more towards displaying/finding both upper and lower extremes since someone suggested it on the old P&A page. I'm manic on the "don't lie about anything" issue. Hulk is also the character who has the whole "shiftinginterpretations of power-level" most built-in to his character. Well, I understand that Captain Britain has an even greater inbuilt power-shift nowadays, but traditionally speaking... As for lowest extents of strength, I vaguely remember an issue with Havok and Polaris, in which Hulk was severely straining 'just' to support a few hundred tonnes or so, but there are probably more extreme cases. Dave (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

But in his own book at the same time, I suspect you could find examples of hulk handling great feats of strength with ease. The vagaries of writers are myriad, and trying to form a perfectly consistent theory of the situation based on in-universe materials is going to be nigh impossible. We are far better sitting on the Out of Universe coverage. ThuranX (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

My original idea was something in the vein of that the more references we managed to assemble the more reliable the pattern would become, as for example 6 accurate story references and 2 RPG classifications of Galactus+, or even Celestial+, level upper power degrees would actually place the absolute limits around there (I think one of the recent mostly excellent Fantastic Four issues featuring the Black Panther had the latter mentioning that his oft-mentioned "Galactus contingency" involved using the Hulk as a willing power-source to overpower the devourer, which actually makes sense based on these sources), but that the greater amount would usually place him slightly above Thor and the Silver Surfer in terms of raw power only, and a few others, penned by Chris Claremont, Joe Casey, Jeph Loeb, Joe Kelly, and even Kurt Busiek have basically just handled him like a green-painted human weight-lifter possible to injure or even defeat through extremely banal means, but that probably turned too disorganised and hard to follow, so I suppose that I mostly agree, although I still think that it's preferable to use references for the statements. I gave it another shot at the end of this section. Do you think some of this version, based on the current P&A section could be useful?

Btw: I'm currently sort of fond of/stuck on an idea to handle all P&A profiles segmented into "Highest extents of Power"/"Lowest extents of Power" similar to what was briefly seen on this page, to give all writers and readers a usually very loose scale to place the characters within, not strictly including the Hulk. For example, state that Thor has withstood blows from Surtur's Twilight Sword, has supported a mass around 1/8th of the Earth, and can get 20x stronger than that if he really wants to, but also include that another storyline had him knocked out by an ordinary handgun. Silver Surfer's profile currently states that he can withstand the full forces of a black hole (which would make him absolutely invulnerable to anything whatsoever, Galactus definitely ncluded, as we're talking singularities here, and is extremely debatable as it was literally portrayed as a gateway to another universe rather than a force of infinite pressure, but I digress), but could also include that he's been injured by immensely less severe assaults, and even unable to break the grip of the Black Panther. Hulk is hardly the only character with severe inconsistencies, even if the extreme fluctuations are here additionally due to the whole intentional "as powerful as he needs to be depending on his temper" aspect. Does anyone think that might be a worthwhile start notion to suggest for additional development in the WikiProject Comics talk? Dave (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

alright im back...im more calm as i was before i know i was being a fool but...how can you be sure this Greg Pak[13]is the real greg pak? i see his name changes from Greg Pak too GP in the middle of the supposedly offical talk...but i noticed you still haven't taken Galactus out of the article...there's a reason why Galactus has his own article...also didn't Hulk crack armor of a related creature like Galactus before? and i think Thunderclap should be here...for reasons that it effects things like other superhero's even if they can fly lightspeed and can do amazing things...man am i tired(HULK strongest one there is! (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC))

his name changes from Greg Pak too GP in the middle of the supposedly offical talk - Ok, this has gone far enough, assuming good faith is one thing but I think you are just taking the piss. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

okay...how about i promise too leave for good? how does that sound? im think im over-doing statements...man i sound stuiped! well don't worry about me im just gone a bit crazy! see'ya...my last words here is"This is sparta!"(HULK strongest one there is! (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC))

That's odd. I once wrote a story which among other things featuring a particularly obnoxious troll hacker with a tendency to use phrases borrowed from popular-culture at inappropriate moments, and whose final statement was just "This is Sparta!", but going around looking for and reading through my stories seems too ambitious even for JJonz. Dave (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Could an adaption of this version be acceptable?

"The Hulk possesses the potential for near-limitless physical strength, depending directly on his emotional state, particularly his anger. This has been reflected in the repeated comment "The madder Hulk gets, the stronger Hulk gets." His durability, healing, and endurance also increase in proportion to his temper. Greg Pak described the Hulk shown during World War Hulk as having a level of physical power where "Hulk was stronger than any mortal --and most immortals-- who ever walked the Earth." Pak went on to say that even then, the Hulk would lose to characters such as Galactus.

The Hulk is resistant to most forms of physical and psychic injury or damage and is immune to disease and poisons. He has been shown to have both regenerative and adaptive healing abilities, including growing tissues to allow him to breathe underwater, surviving unprotected without air in space for hours to days (yet still needing to breathe), resisting transformation, and when injured, healing from almost any wound within seconds.

His powerful legs allow him to leap into lower Earth orbit or across continents. He also has less commonly described powers, including abilities allowing him to "home in" to his place of origin in New Mexico, to see and interact with astral forms, and growing more powerful from being subjected to intense radiation, or certain mystic forces.

As Bruce Banner, he is considered one of the greatest minds on Earth. He has developed expertise in the fields of biology, chemistry, engineering, and physiology, and holds a Ph.D. in nuclear physics. He possesses "a mind so brilliant it cannot be measured on any known intelligence test".

In The Science of Superheroes, Lois Grest and Robert Weinberg examined Hulk’s powers, explaining the scientific flaws in them. Most notably, they point out that the level of gamma radiation Banner is exposed to at the initial blast would induce radiation sickness and kill him, or if not, create significant cancer risks for Banner, because hard radiation strips cells of their ability to function. They go on to offer up an alternate origin, in which a Hulk might be created by biological experimentation with adrenal glands and GFP.

Charles Q. Choi from LiveScience.com further explains that unlike the Incredible Hulk, gamma rays are not green; existing as they do beyond the visible spectrum, gamma rays have no color at all that we can describe. He also explains that gamma rays are so powerful (the highest form of light and 10,000 times more powerful than visible light) that they can even create matter- a possible explanation for the increased mass that Bruce Banner takes on during transformations. "Just as the Incredible Hulk 'is the strongest one there is,' as he says himself, so too are gamma ray bursts the most powerful explosions known."" Dave (talk) 20:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

and we needed yet another section on this from you because....? what's wrong with one of the two existing sections? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Because I find it easier to follow, since the topic has turned so convoluted, but ok, I've moved it up to the last section. Anyway, do you think this one is better? Dave (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. It was moved back. Apparently it's not acceptable to undo it. Dave (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

So at this point, David A., is it safe for all the rest of us to assume that until you get your way, you're going to keep this up, day after day, week after week, until we all get so sick and tired of your behavior that we all flip our shit and get civility blocks, or we all go petition an admin to give you a topic ban, since it's clear you absolutely refuse to accept consensus is against you fucking with the article, or any other comics related articles, in any fashion? Move on, move away, but you can't stay here, David. Multiple sections, with multiple people telling you no in a section, then saying no again in the next section? Then you have the gall to refactor other editors' comment to make your comments look better received? Go away. ThuranX (talk) 04:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I'm trying to adapt my thinking to some form of adaption which might be acceptable, and looking for input on if it is, and I have very limited time for Wikipedia at the moment, so I chime in when I find it. After all, just saying: "We'll reject anything you do on principle, no matter what it is" and attacking me, rather than commenting on what is wrong and what is acceptable with my suggestions isn't a discussion. I mean, has anyone even bothered to look through the latest attempt? The only thing I've done there is add a few issue-references, without any comments whatsoever, as well as a few unlisted abilities. That's it. References to unsourced thin air sentences should be helpful. I really can't understand why any of this would upset anyone. I mean I'm the one taking a lot of crap, diversions, and in one case apparently even deliberate trolling to divert from the topic, and am still trying to get some semblance of communication, and have been very flexible in trying to work out some form of solution. The reason I'm getting frustrated is because no matter what I do here, it seems to yield extremely strange and disproportional backlashes that don't make any sense to me. Take the latest for example. Cameron complains about the new section I made (due to all the troll's diversions and general unrelated attacks making it impossible for anyone to sort out new content), so I took it away, but then got a complaint from J Greb who undid this change, so there's no pleasing anyone it seems. Couldn't you just say which modifications you might or don't appreciate, and if so, why? That would seem like the right way to handle this. Just give me some input and clean answers basically. Honest evaluations free of any prejudices if anything in this version might be worthwhile. That would be satisfactory. Dave (talk) 19:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You're violating standard talk page behavior, and you know it, by altering the organization and sequence of comments. Doing so looks like you're trying to edit the argument into some agreement with you, whether or not you intentionally are. Further, we have responded, over and over and over and over and over to your edits. Your edits are all of a similar nature: You want to include individual issues as citations for various abilities you, and only you, feel are incredibily relevant and notable and just have to be there. All other editors oppose this, for reasons already covered, including lack of secondary sources, the inherent conflicts between writers, and the general non-notability of a 'power' used once in a 40 year publication history. You just don't want to acknowledge all this. You continue, even above, to insist that primary sources are better than secondary, which shows a lack, at this point a willful lack, of understanding the nature of writing this sort of dispassionate report on the topic. I'm tired of explainign this to you, I've been forced to do it for over a year. The only hope you have of winning this is outlasting all of us, or driving us all nuts and gettign us to leave. Our NEXT, and not only, hope is to get you banned. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cultural impact

I removed this section for discussion, after BOZ added the information, which he sourced to 'Review of Superman on the Couch: What Superheroes Really Tell Us about Ourselves and Our Society. By Danny Fingeroth By James R. Fleming'.

The insecurity and anxieties in Marvel's early 1960s comic books such as The Amazing Spider-Man, The Incredible Hulk, and X-Men ushered in a new type of superhero, very different from the certain and all-powerful superheroes before them, and changed the public's perception of them.

1. Most of this was integrated into the article's publication history, if about how the creators worked or the real world implications thereof, or in the character sections if an analysis of the characters.
2. This may be considered plagiarized. The original reads "In that respect, the self-consciousness and anxieties of such early 60s Marvel characters as Spider-Man, The Hulk, and the X-men can be seen as having ushered in an entirely new breed of superheroes that were quite unlike the virtually infallible and all-powerful superheroes that had come before, a breed of superhero that served to completely shift the superhero paradigm and the manner in which the public perceived and incorporated them."
3. This is the reviewer's personal opinion formed as a reaction to Fingeroth's essay; Fleming's qualifications are not evident, and I'm not sure using a review as a soapbox makes for much of a reliable source. I'd rather get Fingeroth's direct opinions from the book itself.

I'd be happy to see Fingeroth's work integrated, but to create a cultural impact section might pull us away from the GA we've been working towards, as they seem frowned upon, and for that reason, such materials were integrated before. A final note, it seems to me that I've seen the Jason Fleming writings pushed somewhere else in the comics articles on Wikipedia and it was removed there too.ThuranX (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

shrug I copied that text from Spider-Man after Peregrine Fisher added it (I did not read the original source), so if you're considering it plaigarism you may want to speak to him. I had thought that starting a Cultural impact section would actually bring this one closer to GA, since such a section was expected (and expected to be expanded) for the Spider-Man article to pass GA, and is included in Batman, Superman, and several other similarly FA & GA articles. But, that's just what I'm thinking, and I'm only one guy. :) BOZ (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll mention it there, but I think it would be a bit of O.C.E. to justify including it here too when it looks that close to plagarized. The Cultural Impact of the Hulk is represented in a number of sections, but most explicitly in the In Other Media section, wherein the character's effects on the counterculture, and asian-american cultures, and such. That aspect of the character hasn't been ignored at all. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Creation

Taking a cue from the Arts good article Gregory House, I've added a section about the parallels to Frankenstein's monster, with further information added. This new structure also matches up with that of the Batman article. A gx7 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please check the GA reviews this article has had, the intergration of all that into one section was a positive, and doesn't need separating out, which seems in this article to lead to fragmenting and in-universe creep. As such I've reverted it. ThuranX (talk) 11:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Since all of the content was abjectly real world, I don't understand the reference to "in-universe" and have reverted your removal. This seems to be relevent, well sourced material about the creation of the character, so I'm baffled by it's removal. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

For one, the new material in the 'frankenstein's monster' section is SYNTH, relying on the contributing editor's personal opinion regarding similarities, as well as the extrapolation of intent in the battle between the characters, which would need the issue writer's statements to support a desire to reflect Lee's inspiration. Without that material, there's no reason for a subsection. I could have compromised on the 'creation' section, but since all the 'new' material is a SYNTH violation, I prefer keeping the creation material in the context of the character's history, and think it ought to be restored. ThuranX (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK so we are in the D of WP:BRD and I have to say Cameron Scott's last version (based on A gx7's earlier additions) [14] looks good to me and is the kind of thing we should be aiming for. (Emperor (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

I like the Frankensteain stuff. It seemed to work best when it was part of the 1.1 Concept and creation section, although I think "Parallels to Frankenstein's monster" subsection should just be a part of its parent section. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the material were in one creation section, that would work, but there are no 'parallels', we have Lee's comments on his inspiration, which isn't an outside critic paralleling the two, but Lee describing his thought process. This is further a problem because the 'creation section introduces the idea, then only part of that material is shunted off to a separate section. It's all material from the creators about their thought processes, and belongs together, except for the bit about Hulk fighting the Monster, which is really a SYNTH addition in the context of that as an intentional parallel. For that to stay, we'd need 'Writer X had Hulk fight the monster, in a story he intended to highlight the similarities' or some similar demonstration of intent from the writer. ThuranX (talk) 04:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The fighting the monster part is no good, I agree. I think the Frankenstein stuff fits better in a concept and creation section than in a characterization part. It seems like its the first thing that should be read, for the (rare) reader who doesn't know anything about the subject. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX said : For one, the new material in the 'frankenstein's monster' section is SYNTH, relying on the contributing editor's personal opinion regarding similarities, as well as the extrapolation of intent in the battle between the characters, which would need the issue writer's statements to support a desire to reflect Lee's inspiration. Without that material, there's no reason for a subsection. . It's in the reference I cited: "He owes a lot to that particular modern myth," Parker said. "Look at the first appearance of gray, flat-head Hulk. All he needs is bolts in him somewhere and he's the Frankenstein Monster. Even Stan and Jack always acknowledged that. Of course, he's also Jeckyll and Hyde, but he's closer in appearance to the Monster and the theme of man meddling with forces beyond him and loosing destructive force upon the world."

I just listened to the commentary on my copy of the Pilot episode DVD and it contains this line by director Kenneth Johnson that confirms the connection I made: "This is a piece of course inspired by Mary Shelley's Frankenstein when he finds the little girl at the lake"

I also agree with Peregrine Fisher in that the Frankenstein information is a lot more relevant to the concept of the Hulk than his characterisation throughout the comic's history.

I don't mind if all this is under the Creation heading but I feel that given the strong influence from Frankenstein's monster it would be helpful to have a special subheading as well.

Does this satisfy everyone?A gx7 (talk) 06:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I think the subsection isn't needed and makes it read oddly as it effectively goes over territory covered earlier. So I'd suggest integrating that into the main section (rather than just removing the section). (Emperor (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC))

agreed - someone want to take a run at it? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As it stands following Cameron's 'flows better' edit, I'm good with it, but need to clarify A gx7's deliberate baiting of out of context material. I said the quote you pull out of context in clear reference to the bit about Hulk fighting the Monster, and you know it, as you DELIBERATELY expunged the prefacing "as well as the extrapolation of intent in the battle between the characters, " to that quote. Stop playing that off as me demanding stuff about Lee's intentions in creating the character. Bad faith is bad. ThuranX (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, okay, I'll change it to contain your entire sentence. Sorry if it gave the wrong impression. A gx7 (talk) 09:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Powers and Abilities

My addition to the Hulk page was removed by a chap named Cameron Scott, but so far he has failed to explain exactly why he did so. My addition to the P+A section simply stated that Hulk's one "vulnerability" is that he can be made weaker when calmed down. This has happened in various comics and so is accurate information. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantwearingdoom (talk • contribs) 11:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It's been removed for a few reasons. One, you're violating WP:SOCK, using multiple accounts to try to make it looks like there's more support for your edit than there is. Two, Using one instance of an idea, citing a comic book for it, is not enough. Hulk has been stopped in other ways - Magic, Drugs, being knocked out cold. That his opponents have used the tactic of defusing his anger to allow other methods of defeat to work is also different than that alone being the defeat itself. ThuranX (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that once again my addition to the page was deleted by Cameron Scott. Whereas last time, I was quite put out over it, that was simply due to him offering no explanation for deleting it. This time he has pointed out what it is about it that he feels is wrong, and I can see his point.. so no hard feelings, the explanation was all I wanted.Pantwearingdoom (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason it's removed is becuase the statement suggests that there is absolutely no way of overcoming the Hulk by force and it's not accurate. There are examples of the Hulk being knocked out via magic based attacks, like a blast from Thor's hammer, being punched out by the Juggernaut, weapons that drain gamma radiation from him, which is also something the Silver Surfer has done in the past, etc. There are even a couple of pretty lame ones, such as losing consciousness after being squeezed by a python or being knocked out after being hit in the head via a truck by Spider-Man. The Hulk isn't invincible, he has limitations. The article is supposed to detail the character overall, not try to hype him.Odin's Beard (talk) 20:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

recent edits

The Hulk's ranking as a popular superhero constitute real-world notability, not an appearance of the hulk in other media. As such, I've restored it to the lead, where it serves to summarize the notability of the character. Similarly, the 'range of hero to anti-hero, without citation, should probably go. ThuranX (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

“Thank God his pants stayed on.”

While there are obvious artistic reasons that the Hulk's trousers always stay intact even if he grows to many times his original size, I'm surprised this article contains no mention of this phenomenon.Legitimus (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The physics of the transformation

Has there ever been an attempt at 'explaining' the physics of it all? Problems start with the Hulk having several times the amount of mass than Banner, which has to come from somewhere - or the Marvel universe abandons the Conservation of Mass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.225.191.85 (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There has been some amount of criticism thereof within the comics, but that's a primary source, and crediting the same comic that says gamma rays give superpowers not cancer with any sort of 'reasonable' explanastion's absurd. I do not that the Choi article cited does mention that gamma rays can create matter in minute quantities, and I think that tidbit's in the article. ThuranX (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.32.94 (talk) 03:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

character bio

the hulk page needs more detail. Look at the spiderman wiki page. that should be the model for all characters. this page is too much about the history of the character rather than the character's history.10-17-09 mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.32.94 (talk) 03:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

If you still believe this please cite specific examples and what you are looking for. I should be able to provide both suffice information as well as references for anything I provide. I believe that there is a hearty helping of information on both Hulk and Banner (I'm probly going to add some on Banner based on the events of the Son of Banner comics).

Grimbear13 (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Characterization and Character Bio

Does anyone feel as though the Characterization portion of the article is serving as a Character Bio? I kind of feel that it should be retitled as such (ie Characterizatin and Biography). And should that be the case I was planning on adding information about recent events of the Banner character from the events of Son of Banner. Detailing how now the character is proving his intellectual superiority by reverse engineering some of the most advanced technology made as well as many characters realizing Banner is more of a threat than the Hulk ever was. Please provide input.

Grimbear13 (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see section above. This article made it to GA Status with this format, rather than a 'Character Bio' which it had before, and which was inordinately long and fannish, lacking any scholarship. The current page includes the material you refer to, in a short form which doesn't place undue weight on it which often comes from Recentism issues. Thansk though, and I hope youcan find good ways to help this article. ThuranX (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

A characterization section is exactly what an article like this requires as it aims for GA and above (see for example, Superman. If the concern is that you feel it is a "Fictional character biography" masquerading as a characterisation section, then the solution is not to rename it and let it bloat with plot (that'd be a step backwards in this articles arc of improvement), but to try and trim the text down so that it focuses on the remit of the section (rather than telling the story of his life) - it does need more work but it is getting there. (Emperor (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC))

Indeed, it is starting to get bloated with plot and needs work. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Connection between The Hulk,The Wolf Man and The Colossal Man

I used to own Stan Lee's ORIGINS OF MARVEL COMICS and I remember Stan's making a comment about having the Hulk's early trans-formations only occuring at night was the consequence of "...throwing the Wolf Man in..." as one of the influences in the Hulk's creation. Indeed, I would wager that Lon Chaney, Jr.'s Wolf-Man had a greater long-term influence on Stan Lee and subsequent writers, than Stevenson's Jeckyl\Hyde. One can hear an echo of Lawrence Talbot (the Wolf Man's human alter ego)within Banner's tortured monologues.

Another influence, this one perhaps via Kirby, is the AMAZING COLOSSAL MAN a late 50s sci-fi flick that featured an army colonel who was "trapped in the heart of a nuclear explosion". The military was about to test a "Plutonium Bomb" when the colonel noticed a small plane had landed in the testing area. You can guess the rest. The key difference is the P-bomb had turned the colonel into a giant whereas Banner became a superpowered subhuman...MARK VENTURE (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What needs to be done

What do we need to do to get this article back to GA status? I'd love to help but am unsure of what areas it needs to be improved upon. --  Grimbear13 ►Talk  16:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting it up for a GA review, honestly. We actually fixed up a the vast majority of the objections which took it off GA, but since then, there has been a bit of plot creep, though it gets compacted often enough that it may not be an issue. this article's got excellent real world connections and citation... it should pass again fast, esp. given that at one point, David withdrew his objections to the GA status. ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay how do we put it back up for GA Review? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimbear13 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Betty in Family

Why is Betty Ross not listed in the family section of the page? She is Bruce's only wife, and to my knowledge Hulk only married Caiera. I don't believe Jarrella and either of them were ever wed. But I believe at least Betty should be listed under family. Thoughts? --  Grimbear13 ►Talk  19:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Superhero or not? (formerly Cubanlinx1's comment)

Hulk needs to be listed as a Marvel Comics a superhero as thats what he is. I feel I have a really strong case to back this up. He isn't a villain, an anti hero. hes a superhero. Bottom line. I know Im probably new to this whole Wiki thing, plus Im an amateur with the net so forgive me. I feel hes similar somewhat to the X-Men. X-Men obviously they are mutants, Hulk is a man monster. Both defending those that need defending even though the general public hate, fear and despise them. Come on, for gods sakes you have even the likes of Wolverine and Gambit of the X-Men listed as super heroes when especially in the case of the former, hes know to have killed a large no. Gambit has also recently killed as Apocalyse's Horseman of death. When a portion of Wolverine's past came to light in the 1980s/90s when there was an explosion of popularity with characters looked at as anti heroes (for example, Spawn, Punisher, Azrael). Im a massive Wolverine fan but why isn't Hulk listed as a super hero when Logan is? Plus Hulk is one of Marvel's flagship and popular characters thats also marketable. Check out the recent stories of Planet Hulk, World War Hulk, Fall of The Hulks, World War Hulks you see the bravery, sacrifice, and heroism of Bruce Banner. Even go back as far as the Pantheon storylines and Secret Wars, you know what I mean? Bottom line i feel Hulk doesn't get the props he deserves. Hope I done the it the correct way in registering my post for discussion. I'm new to this. (Cubanlinx1 (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)) (username: cubanlinx1)

Hulk is my favorite comic character, hell he's my favorite character in anything. However I have to disagree with listing him as a super-hero. Yes he saves the day most of the time, however he is the same as another one of my favorites Godzilla. Both have been known to save the world, but in the process cause tons of collatoral damage. Also both have been known to rampage and be the villian character. In the Hulk's case it's because he cannot control himself. The fact that he's not in control is what stops him from being listed as a hero. I do believe anti-hero is the best description of him. Though he has saved the planet countless times he also will rampage (not always unprovoked) but that ruins your crediblility (ha making him incredible) as a hero. --  Grimbear13 ►Talk  19:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The topic of whether Hulk is a "superhero" or not needs to be discussed more thoroughly here as numerous editors have been warring over it recently. Until a unanimous decision is made, I believe the term should be left out of the main article. Khaotika 18:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

[undented and refactored]Hulk isn't a superhero, but Juggernaut, Magneto and Sabretooth are perfect Marvel Superheroes, aren't they? It is a matter of intelligence, because:

• Juggernaut (supervillain / one of X-Men arch-enemies)
• Magneto (supervillain / one of X-Men arch-enemies)
• Sabretooth (supervillain / assassin / serial killer / mass murderer / one of X-Men arch-enemies)
• Venom (Eddie Brock) (supervillain / serial killer / mass murderer / assassin / one of Spider-Man arch-enemies)
• Sandman (supervillain / criminal / Spider-Man's enemy)
• Morbius, the Living Vampire
• Deadpool (assassin)
• Silver Samurai
• Mystique (supervillainess / mercenary / assassin / one of X-Men arch-enemies)

etc., are listed as Marvel Comics superheroes here, just because sometimes they worked along true heroes, acted like anti-heroes or pretended to be good guys. But Hulk (not his savage or his grey version), was an Avenger, saved the world several times, was one of the main characters in the Snes' game Marvel Super Heroes , and even so, En.Wikipedia is the only place in this universe where Hulk (at least when controlled by Banner) cannot be called superhero.200.227.70.150 (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I undented and refactored the above 'heading'. We dont' need the fourth comment to be a new section. The above IP editor's argument is that since WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. we can crap up this article. No, we strive for better here. This article was a GA rated article for a short time, and strives to be one again. Adding a repeatedly opposed and well argued against characterization of the character would NOT be in the interest of improving the article. And of your list, Morbius is a nearly classic case of an 'anti-hero', someone who appears to be villainous to readers but who turns out to have a good moral core, though lacking any bombastically heroic means of showing it. The rest are more or less villains, though Deadpool is a difficult case. That some writers have done stories and arcs in which Magneto, Sabretooth, Venom and Sandman have done good things, the characters always return to type, which for them is 'villain'. For Hulk, it's 'outcast and loner', which doesn't land simply along a linear good/evil axis. Because this ambiguity exists, it's long been consensus on this page to NOT include 'superhero' in the article's lead. ThuranX (talk) 06:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur with ThuranX. Where there is substantial disagreement, pull back to the most inarguable term, which in this case is "fictional character." Can't argue that he's a fictional character. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about to write at the article that Hulk is a superhero or not. You can write whatever you want on there. I'm just want you to realize that, if that scum I listed above can be listed as Marvel Superheroes, I think Hulk can be too (because he wasn't).200.191.154.136 (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

As a category inclusion, yes, he can be included. Categories have much looser rules, and if he was for a time seen widely in that light, as the company's own promotionals have been cited to say, that's probably enough for categorization, but not as a tag within the text of the article itself. ThuranX (talk) 04:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)