Talk:Hulk/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Watch out for 129.120.244.214

This editor is slowly adding his singular POV to the article, and beginning to start what looks like an edit war. He outright deletes referenced entries, and ignores this discussion page. I'm all for improving the article, but before anyone make major deletes to sections of the article, it should be discussed here as to avoid an edit war. 24.9.20.149 06:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. He's doing a severely deliberate POV censorship. Is it JJonz again? Dave 16:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

& Now he's sockpuppeting the changes in. What an annoyance. --mordicai. 18:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sockpuppeting for that guy. I just agreed with what he was saying and made the change when I saw it was reverted. I was blamed unfairly because I made a change in the middle of an edit war and was accused of something based on no evidence bu coincidence that I happened to be here at this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.174.116 (talk) 19:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned on your talk page, you might want to create an account to avoid any possible misunderstandings. Why do you agree with that contributor's edits? As a rule, the deletion of properly referenced statements, especially in favor of unreferenced ones, is against the expectations of Wikipedia. --mordicai. 20:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The page is not perfect (as none of Wikipedia's pages are) but we need consensus based upon referenced citations. Not point of view editing. If you agree with 129.120.244.214, then let's discuss it here first. But include references and citations so we can review the information. Unfortunately, a number of editors use sockpuppets, to create faux consensus, even if you aren't one of them. Kontar 23:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:GuiltHulk.jpg

Image:GuiltHulk.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Destruction debate

CC of post at User talk:David A

The Hulk has demonstrably, confirmably, unquestionably destroyed enormous amounts property and created enormous amounts of destruction countless times through the decades of his comic-book stories. If you believe this is not so, please call for an WP:RfC. --Tenebrae 23:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Causing rampant destruction and general chaos all around almost everytime the character makes an appearance is one of the things he's well known for. In the Marvel Universe, it's pretty much the primary reason he's considered to be such an overall menace by the United States government and military.Odin's Beard 00:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I've said it before, I'll say it again. This article is a mess. It's one of the most OR, POV, and fanboy filled comics articles around. It doesn't focus on publication history, on cultural relevance, or even on it's origins in nuclear fears and jewish myth. Instead, it's become this overblown slop heap of amazing incidents of Hulk Smash, Hulk break stuff, and a big messy section on how different writers interpret the hulk into different personas. I called for an overhaul before, and I'm doing it again. I know I'll get shouted down, but the OR going on regarding whether or not he's ever caused destruction when NOT mind controlled, and with Hulk, anything but 'here hulk, soft fluffy bunnny', is mind control, is an absurd SYNTH/OR mess. Writers couldn't have done this story with the Thing, thoug hhe's nearly as strong; he;s not a mindless wrecking machine. They aren't doing it with Namor, and no other supestrong character's gettign this arc. it's because 40 years of Hulk Smash has established it. 4 rampages in 40 years? no one would think the hulk was dangerous, and readers couldn't be sold on it. Hulk breaks stuff, as sure as Spiderman crawls walls, and as sure as Flash moves fast. overhaul this article. ThuranX 00:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Hulk breaks stuff" bit is moved to its own page to accommodate you, and powers is a feature section on virtually every comic hero page. It's not remotely the worst article I've seen. Far less so than for most characters, and plot history is pretty much a given in that context. Reworking it with more foundation in its origins is a great idea, feel free to do the honour. Incarnations are likevise a very characteristic trait, but could also be moved to a separate sub-page. Actually reading the "childlike Hulk" stories in question, rather than your view how it "should" be, will present you with much the same portrayal as myself, that he was a misunderstood well-intended simpleton that consistently got attacked and smashed his opponents, but never intentionally threatened human lives, and was incredibly sentimental, loyal and affectionate. This incarnation actually existed, and is still considered the most iconic, like it or not. (Go to some torrent site and do what you deem acceptable) You'd also find that, with the possible exception of issue 400, in the 4-5 actual occasions when he did go on actual rampages, he was in fact under mind-control. This is not a lie, not POV, it what is shown, and what has been recently stated. The Hulk is played in the WWH because they "needed some smashing fun as a counter to the political civil war" to almost quote Quesada. Hulk isn't the Thing (and the Thing isn't anywhere near as powerful), he's a controversial loner whose periods of rage distances him from everything, and with everyone he cares about consistently dying around him, a curse on himself and any uninhabited property whenever he's attacked, but he nonetheless always helps to save humans when its needed. He's always been distrusted by much of the superhero community. The Thing is a part of it. The outsider angle, the ridiculous amounts of power, the angry outsider edge, the lack of trust between them, and the many millions of dead citizens he was responsible for, along with his wife and child, make the scenario possible. Dave 18:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

One question and one observation: Question: Which Jewish myth(s)? IIRC Lee is on record as say the Hulk stemmed from Stevenson's Jekyll and Hyde. Observation: As part of the publication history, presenting different writers statements as to their approach to the character is valid for inclusion. I'm not saying that there should be an in-story, issue-by-issue run down of what Banner reveals or Doc Samson finds out, but mention of what writers line Byrne or Slott (sp... and politely correct me is Slott hasn't touched the character) are on record as to their slant and/or what their editor wanted. - J Greb 03:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

There've been comparisons to the Golem by both Lee and other analysts of Lee's works. As for Slott, no clue. And I agree ... More writers o nthe record as to intent, less plot-crap. In fact, I wonder if the entire page couldn't be reworked in that way... Lead, Publication history, which would be what series he intro'd in (his own), how long Hulk ran, Restart of series, and side series. Then a history focusing on how different writers interpreted him, allowing for discussion of the various personae, and then other associations, (avengers, Defenders, etc.), powers (seriously shortened), other media, out. ThuranX 03:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

How about 'often', 'frequently', or even 'sometimes' rather than 'long' dangerous and destructive? As it stands it reads more as if the Hulk has been constantly so over the years, and that's probably not quite accurate. My favoured option would ne 'often' - that seems to sum up the level of threat the Hulk posed quite fairly. 172.203.44.11 19:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

However we phrase it, an encyclopedia needs to be contextual. If we're writing that a cabal of superhero leaders took this drastic action, after decades of stories having established these leaders as highly intelligent, compassionate, responsible people, then it's the article's responsibility to give an accurate framework for this action. An encyclopedia article can't leave a reader or historian or researcher saying, "Well, that doesn't make sense," or "That doesn't follow logically."

How about something like this: "The Illuminati, believing the Hulk to have finally become so powerful and unstable that he poses an unacceptable risk to the people of Earth...." --Tenebrae 15:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hulk has gone on 4 actual rampages over the years. Or at least ones that I know of. After being turned into a mindless state by Nightmare. After his body was left without his mind, by Doc Samson. After his mind was severely impaired by imbedded shrapnel from a grenade, and he saw it as a sacrifice to make him a target rather than allow the entire world to go to war. After he took a gamma-bomb to the face and went insane. The copy-Hulk controlled by Tyrannus also went on a rampage. Excepting this, and the villainous Gray Hulk, all the instances I recall are that somebody attacked him and he acted strictly in self-defence. The "Onslaught" event spliced his mind. In this deranged state he once "took over" an island for a few days, to signify a point to the army after they kept attacking him despite giving them a literal "line in the sand". So no, beyond the usual superhero battle property destruction while defending themselves and bystanders against attacking villains, the whole "Hulk regularly goes on unprovoked rampages" bit is basically an urban myth. If mind-control counted it would count for any hero forced to do something against his or her will. This was not the case for Superman when he took over the world, and this is not the case for anybody else.

Hulk has also repeatedly sacrificed himself to save many billions of humans or aliens over the years. Your zeal to classify him as an "anti-hero" or "villain" severely signifies that you're not matter-of-factly segmenting him between incarnations, which I modified. That you likewise simply categorised his seeking of justice for his people as revenge, likewise doesn't convey the more complex situation. So no "countless times" (math teachers these days...) only goes if you mean it in the same way as general comic-book slugfests. He's considered a menace because he's an outrageously powerful unpredictable loose cannon, and generally gets misunderstood, is mostly living outside of society, has been a major threat under severe external influence and got off on the wrong foot with the FF and Avengers during his earlier "gray/childlike Hulk mixture" days. The childlike and merged incarnations demonstrated great empathy towards human lives. The current Hulk was willing to let power-leeches drink most of his blood every day to keep his people safe. Dave 15:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Your love and appreciation for this enduring and often tragic fictional character is nice to see; literary characters often inspire this sort of zeal in their fans.

Your analysis is fine, but only that; someone else might analyze things differently. They might also have concern about your claims and your research style; for example, the word "unprovoked" never appears in this Wikipedia article.

In any event, the consensus of editors here takes a different view that you espouse. Please understand that Wikipedia works on the consensus of good-faith editors; pushing your own POV really is not right.

Your expertise in the character makes you a valuable addition to this article's editors. Please work with the consensus, respect other editor's views and take them into account, and, as they say of collaborations, 1 + 1 = 3 ... the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. --Tenebrae 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

To User:David A: Please do not make POV changes and claim you are making NPOV changes in the edit summaries. Just factual state what the changes are, as I have done. --Tenebrae 16:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually as far as I know I am doing NPOV changes, and not trying to push a POV. I'm trying to get rid of the completely unfounded view-pushing that he's an ongoing threat, rather than picking off the ones he's actually performed and matter-of-factly stating the cicumstances. Going by your own addition at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Notice Board#Ongoing discussions of interest you very actively and extremely POV try to goad and gather backers by claiming that I'm saying that he's only destroyed property on 4 occasions, rather than being limited to 4 life-threatening rampages due to mind-control. Except for the above I can't recall any occasion that went beyond the standard superhero slugfest of the villains being the actual threat, accident, or strictly striking at the attackers, while the instances where he defended others were very frequent. You're certainly no less zealous than myself in this respect, and my own changes were far more balanced in this regard.

Give me examples rather than strictly subjective opinion and you'll gain credibility (I always change my mind when given proper evidence to the contrary), but I have basically read every single issue since the Stern and Wein days, so I'm certainly taking nothing out of thin air. Misremembering perhaps, but otherwise no, so yes I've only seen 4 actual rampages and all of them in mind-controlled state. Of course it depends on what you qualify as a rampage, but to me that's intentionally starting to destroy inhabited property, rather than by accident when in self-defence or protecting others, and in all of those occasions he has been under severe external influence. This is backed by the current writer, who also actually checked through them. So far it seems like you're blindly embracing the urban myth or Bendis-style misconceptions (Bendis apparently didn't even bother to read the FF issues, given that the only things the Hulk actually did there was tear up an empty street and break the Thing's ribs) rather than actually doing actual check-throughs. Until then you just don't have a leg to stand on. References please. Several people embracing an urban myth likewise doesn't make it true until they show me a basis.Dave 17:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

to User:David A: I've tried to speak in good faith, but enough. Your now frankly disturbing love for the character is leading you to push your own POV with weasel-phrase qualifiers, overdetail and overwiting with which none of this article's other editors agree. Youare the only one making these additions. I ask you to stop. I suggested before that you call for an RfC if you think you're correct and the rest of us are wrong. Please don't force the rest of us into this position of several consensus editors againt one. --Tenebrae 16:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Weasel? After you've metodically tried to phrase everything from one single angle rather than my own more two-edged one. Consensus? After I've been here an hour before giving me the chance to make a case? After you've tried to bait backers by misrepresenting my claims? Also "consensus" is completely irrelevant if it's just a matter of "I feel like/believe this" rather than actual references. Good faith? When you haven't made a single solid argument by your own for your interpretation that he's an ongoing threat. Disturbing? Because any type of debate in any type of situation tends to get my brain working, and I don't try to traipse around the meat and grist (i.e. what's actually shown) rather than hollow phrasings, and you go overboard with trying to win support rather than the points. I have given reasons for my analysis, and can give more. You've consistently made them on far more loose grounds. Pot meet kettle. As for RfC I had never heard of it before I read your entry an hour ago, and was busy responding to your claims. I tend to fight my own battles, but I'll look into it.

As for your above phrasing I have no problem with "The Illuminati, believing the Hulk to be so powerful and unstable that he poses a potential risk..." that's neutral enough. What I have a problem with is only pushing one side of the story. I have no illusions about the "Gray" and "mindless" versions being villains, but I've also seen lots of heroism from other versions. Besides, the official current line is that Hulk has never taken the lives of bystanders when in his right mind (personally I'd argue that it has been shown to occur by accident on at least two occasions), and Greg Pak more or less word for word gave the same analysis on the matter as myself in issue 110. Hulk's status as an outsider seen as a potential major threat who consistently gets attacked without provokation by a military that's far less intelligent than in the real world, is just as much of a story convension to make the character work as "people don't die in most superhero slugfests", or "he's never taken an innocent life", which are the official lines. They don't quite make sense and are not supposed to. Dave 17:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(←)Some observations:

1. We should be avoiding, at all costs, putting our own analysis into any article. If an author or Marvel editor has gone on record in an interview, not a blog, and said "In this story it was my intent that the Hulk be...", then included that quote and cite it.

It's in one of the 3 "War Room" articles at Newsarama, as well as issue 110, but agreed.

1. Given the general status of the character, an attempt should be made to get this article to GA status, at the very least, and ideally to FA status. That means looking at the other character articles that are already at these levels and seeing what is missing here.

Yup. If it is necessary to move the incarnations to accomplish this that would be fine.

1. The publication history needs to be grounded in real world context. That means cites back to the people responsible for the comics as to why/how the character has developed and what themes are/were important. It also means that if in-universe aspects are going to be presented, they should be used sparingly and concisely on what is shown in print.

- J Greb 18:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed, but it will be very hard to reach the "whys" aspect. Matter of fact is something I strive for, but not always achieve (or at least frequently have to modify to get right), as is the case with everyone here I suspect, but that's why we're all needed to keep each other in check. Then we finally arrive at minimalistic neutral statements like the current one.Dave 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am relieved to see others finally see David A's writings as the POV analysis of a Hulk fan.

Certainly, that's why I have plenty of references for every single statement, while you continuously resort to petty, pompous, generalised insults, and general unproductive complaining to distract from the othervise mostly empty content.

I've never said he's a villian. Anti-hero makes a lot more sense, given his reluctant/accidental heroic nature.

Quote: In fiction, the anti-hero is the protagonist who is lacking the traditional heroic attributes and qualities — courage, idealism, fortitude — and possessed of character traits — ineptness, stupidity, dishonesty — that are antithetical to heroism. Typically, the anti-hero acts heroically, in scale and daring, but by methods, manners, and intentions both fair and foul, even underhanded and deceitful.

The merged, childlike and even the current incarnations have certainly shown plenty of courage, idealism and fortitude. The childlike version was stupid, but the very opposite of dishonest. Social manners are pretty bad for all of them, but the intentions are noble. The "Heroes Reborn" Hulk was an anti-hero or borderline villain (probably the former), and Joe Fixit was a villain most of the time, and occasionally an anti-hero. Switching alignment between incarnations is the balanced statement.

As for rampages, all I can say is:

The Hulk has gone on 4 actual rampages over the years. Or at least ones that I know of.

is as pure a statement of original research as it gets. David A, you are, as you have been for many months, writing an article which gives ridiculous glorification to the character.

So by your logic it's ok to just make up views of your own without any basis whatsoever, but not to quote the comics in question? OR is simply using plenty of references rather than make things up in your own mind? Ah, now that makes sense. It conveniently allows you to skip founding your points on any basis whatsoever and say any immensely POV statement you damn well please, because any ones with actual references are negated. Practical. Not to mention that issue 110 exactly mirrors my own analysis as the official line from the author and editorial. Regardless, I essentially agree with that it's better to simply avoid the subject than delve on it, as my latest edit created a good neutral state. The original matter of content was the sentence that presented him as an ongoing self-motivated threat to human lives. Officially, and historically he's always been under severe mental influence when this has happened.

As for "glorification" of the character, if you truly paid attention you'd notice that I haven't actually written much on the main page itself as it currently stands, just the 2 sub-pages, and all of that is very well-founded. Glorification by stating that I consider Joe Fixit was incarnated evil, and views of the merged and childlike versions based on virtually every appearance out there from a highly analytically inclined mind? Interesting interpretation.

I've tried discussing this before. I've been met by you, and previously, even by others, with rebuke. Now, at least, others can see it.

See what, given that the previous "discussion" (yourself making snide insults in every post you made against me) was about the "feats" and "friends and enemies" sections, not about this? And you still try to skip around presenting any meat whatsoever as a basis. As previously, my content is that if you make a claim that he's a consistent threat to human lives, without external control, you'd better back it up with examples, to prove that it's not just your own bias and imagination speaking. If you do I will immediately change my mind as always.

We need to find a way to make this article work, and frankly, what's going on now may be one of the most bizarre POV things on wikipedia...

You haven't been around much have you? I am not making wild claims like yourself. I am actually using a vast amount of references, and unlike you not just complaining and making wild claims without contributing anything of worth whatsoever. Hyperbole times a million anyone?

A hulk apologist. An apologist for a fictional character. The Hulk has gone on destructive tears repeatedly, even 'often' in the comics. to count only FOUR is absurd.

"Absurd" once again shows how incredibly POV you are on this matter. You simply assume that something is the case and are unable to consider any alternative. Your claims against me are completely unfounded, and given your glass house, you are in no position whatsoever to make them. I am not an apologist. I will gladly list you occasions when the Gray Hulk was a threat to human lives or behaved deplorably. I am stating that a clinical mental check-through reveals no occasions when the Hulk went on an actual rampage and destroyed inhabited residences without mind-control. It is entirely possible that I have a bad memory, but you have to actually provide some sort of proof, rather than empty babble. Self-defence against tanks and enemies with standard superhero slugfest accidental damage don't count any more than it does for Thor. Not to mention, somebody frenetically making a vilification attempt without a foundation would be worse than somebody seeing the bad and good.

Further, the standard for a 'rampage' as opposed to 'wanton destruction', or the comparison to 'reckless destruction of city downtowns/military bases/ natural features/Alien planets/fuzzy kitten factories' (ok, not that last one...) is prolific in the books; it's sort of the hallmark of the character: Hulk gets angry, ' Hulk Smash!' breaks stuff, breaks villian, 'leave Hulk Be' Hulk bounces away, stunned storeowners wonder how their State Farm agent will ever believe this, cut to the letters page. Switch abomination for zzzazzxxzxz (or whatever), or an alien bravo, or whatever the villian du jour is, and get an issue. To say that only four have occurred is absurd.

As previously, the problem may stem from different definition of rampage. Destruction of tanks or military bases as an effect of defending himself against attacking enemies is indeed a hallmark of the character. I've never claimed othervise. I'm saying that the only times he's been known to willingly threaten human lives beyond standard "monster punching me through a wall" superhero are the severely externally mentally influenced ones. In Future Imperfect an innocent did indeed die as an accident when Hulk punched Maestro into a building, and the latter was terribly wrought up about it trying to save the bystander despite opening himself up to Maestro breaking his neck. When attacking the Leader Hulk also accidentally killed Soul Man. It has been stated outright by Greg Pak that the official line is that he's never killed innocents except by accident when responsible for his own actions.

As regards improving the article, Tenebrae's solution neatly summarizes numerous discussion in the comics regarding the decision to fire off the hulk. However, we need to restructure this article, drop the fanboy stuff, and get on to making this a GA or FA. ThuranX 22:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The "fanboy stuff" is still generalised into even including information about the different incarnations, but yes, I agree that restructuring the page is fine, as long as we move the material you consistently find oh-so-offensive to separate sub-pages, as they do constitute highly relevant parts of the character. Dave 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

To User:David A:I'm sorry, but a consensus is not irrelevant. No offense is meant, but you don't seem to mind a consensus when the consensus is in your favor, such as having the consensus not to merge the Powers and abilities of the Hulk article back into the main article.

Hiya OB. These are very different situations. The merger (and split) were strictly about opinion/valid reasoning. The matter of the Hulk going on life-threatening rampages (by my definition above) needs to actually be proven before somebody can make the claim that he's a consistent threat to human lives, rather than a potential one the next time a gamma-bomb blows up in his face, Tyrannus hijacks his form, Nightmare destroys his mind, or Doc Samson removes his mind from his body. (Then again this extends to all other heroes as well, but with extremely few exceptions they're all far less powerful, and thus less dangerous, as well as kept under surveillance by some form of community, that can foresee and smoothly intervene when this is the case) All the "consensus" in the world won't allow you, me, or anybody else to simply make things up in their minds and present it as fact, regardless of if it is a subconscious urban myth shared by 3 people present. There is also the matter of completely misrepresenting my views when makign the notice, and that I had only been here to defend myself for an hour when Tenebrae made the decision that I had been "defeated", although we cleared that up with the last edit.

By your definition, a rampage in the Hulk's case consists of purposely causing destruction and endangering lives while under some form of mind control.

No purposely causing destruction and endangering or ending lives, and not strictly focusing on the assailant, or doing blunders. Going around wrecking buildings without provocation, or far beyond what is necessary. I very seriously can't recall such situations, and will acknowledge them if I actually get examples instead of insults and misrepresentations.

Recklessly engaging in superhero slugfests without regard for the value of property or endangering lives, to me, qualifies as a rampage whether or not it's in self-defense.

Being forced to engage in a slugfest due to being attacked and trying to defend himself and innocents from the attacker does not qualify as a rampage to me just because he's less glamorous than Thor. The official line is still that he's never intentionally or wantonly taken an innocent life outside of mind-control.

The Hulk has to bear some responsibility for his part, whether or not he's the one that starts it. I admit that the Hulk, for most of his existence and incarnations, doesn't go looking for trouble.

Well, except for Joe Fixit and the Heroes Reborn Hulks.

However, when trouble does find him, he almost always chooses to get into a brawl rather than not get into it with the likes of the Juggernaut, Thor, Wolverine, the United States military and so on and so forth. He could simply just walk away.

Do the people you talk about sound like the sort of people who would allow him to walk away? And wouldn't allowing them to run unchecked endanger far more lives? Should the other Marvel heroes simply ignore villains?

It wouldn't happen everytime, but he could try to avoid a confrontation. He either doesn't have the necessary intelligence and reasoning skills to avoid destructive conflicts, which is a definite possibility in some in carnations, or he simply doesn't want to avoid them, which is a definite possibility in others.

The childlike Hulk didn't have the intelligence. The merged Hulk actually did try to avoid several after Doc Samson had a talk with him about finding alternate solutions, even pretending to get beaten by Talos. The current Hulk is very responsible and self-sacrificing towards his people, but is a complete ass for not demanding that the confrontations should take place in an isolated area without people's homes at risk.

Is the character a misunderstood "monster" in most cases? To a certain degree he is, but he's an extremely reckless one at the same time. Good intentions are nice, but that has to be balanced against the fact that his appearances typically result in lives being endangered and millions of dollars in property damage.Odin's Beard 22:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

True enough, but then he's always been attacked when destroying property, and he's consistently defended innocents whenever called to do so. You can call him incompetent but not rampaging in those situations. The Juggernaut-style (throwing buses with bystanders and toppling buildings just because he feels like it) actual rampages that I know of have all been under mind-control or equivalents.Dave 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the new wording with regards to Iron Man and Mr Fantastic's actions is excellent. Their concerns are now well summed up, without making a judgement as to the validity or correctness of those concerns, which I think is the correct approach. With regards to Tenebrae's comment about an encylopedia not leaving people saying 'that doesn't makes sense' - I definitely agree, but I would just note that with comic book continuity things sometimes don't and can't make sense, at least not without considerable analysis or OR, which is why perhaps the page should step a little further out of in universe descriptions than it does at the moment. For instance different writers wildly differing accounts of how many people have been killed in the Hulks rampages and that probably can't be resolved in universe, and it might be as well to note that different writers have recently written contradictory things on the issue. 172.209.226.50 19:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my intent. I should have done so from the beginning. My annoyance lay with the bland generalised unfounded claims, but unwisely choose to try to show two sides (as a very stupid way to show the inaccuracy of the previous ones) rather than simply remove all of it, which is the better course. Personally I think the illuminati had a very good point in sending him away from a clinical perspective, but perhaps not from a moral one. They could have planned it much better however. If the ship's power-drive was powerful enough to destroy a planet, Reed Richards and Iron Man should have created plenty of failsafes to counter the potential danger, but that's debatable, given that it could easily be said that the ship was too damaged to make them function properly or similar. Dave 20:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

{UNDENT} First, do not do what you did above to Odin Beard's comments. that sort of bizarre interruption is poor talk page etiquette. Second, I don't at all think you've been trying to do what you claim, or we wouldn't all be objecting to your repeated acts of OR, Synth and Own. Even here, you continue to analyze the intentions of characters by talking about them, instead of doing what's right, which is saying 'The writers opted to have richards and starks' ship destroy the Hulk's planet; a motive has not been revealed in the story yet, though multiple conversations have described the characters actions as accidental or unplanned.' That would be factual, Out-of-Universe, and avoid POV about whether Stark and Richards are evil, or Banner is avictim or Hulk is a victim and and and... ThuranX 22:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Do what? Answering point by point? It's the only way I can properly handle replying to several tracks at once. As for your suggestion above I have no problems whatsoever with it, and think it is excellent. It was the claim (or possibly implication) that Hulk is an ongoing threat to human lives, which I can't see any foundation for, that I objected to. I'm not always modifying in the most rational manner, but did attempt to make it as NPOV as I could come up with at the moment. In any case, I feel sort of bad about overreacting to yourself previously. It was 1 o clock in the night to me, and I had become annoyed at your previous insults over the months, but I still went a bit too far. My apologies. Dave 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It cheapens HIS comments. SImply bring them up and address them one by one in a considered, longer reply. Further, as the coomics have made statements that he WAS specifically considered a threat that got his green ass shot into space, claiming he's an ongoing threat is consistent with the comics. You are NOT attempting to make it NPOV; as I've previously stated, you're acting as an actual apologist for a fictional character. You need to leave this page for a while. You spend hours editing to make the Hulk look 'cool' as you think he should be, then you get mad when your edits are opposed as POV and OR. ThuranX 20:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it cheapens his comments. I think it means I actually make the effort to address _everything_ point by point, rather than a condensed mess, but apparently others function differently in this regard. An apologist would mean that I don't recognise the faults, but your reasoning goes along the track that it's only NPOV to strictly focus on the bad ones, but focusing on both means POV and 'apologist', while blindly inflexible 'vilification' is ok. To me only focusing on the negative ones, with far less references for this evaluation, is far more POV than anything I have done. I've also used more point by point issue references than anyone else relating to the character. I'm not trying to modify the character, I'm trying to correct blatantly false or one-sided claims to show several sides of the issue according to the presentations I've actually seen. Beyond the comics themselves my statements are also supported/mirrored almost word by word in issue 110. I get 'mad' because of your recurrent insults whenever _you_ were opposed to or disagreed with anything, with far less provocation than myself, and the very rude, and attention-goading misrepresentation, manner this was initially handled, along with your sweeping generalisations that 'I've' somehow single-handedly turned this page horrible with very few writings and moving sections which were implied to undermine a high ranking and needed expansion. However, after picking apart Tenebrae's arguments at my own talk, and NPOV modifying the phrasings on the Hulk page itself we came into an agreement that this was fully acceptable. Leaving the page would be considerably more warranted for yourself given your consistent history of trying to shoot down anything in the rudest way available, and seemingly far more one-track (few runs?) impression of the character. I've tried to deepen the insight into the character by the "Friends and enemies" and "Powers" pages, so I guess in those respects it could be considered that I've tried to show his 'cool' aspects, but without thorough references, or non-matter-of-fact. No. And most editors interested in a page do it to impart someo of their knowledge and appreciation for the character. I seem to use far more references for my analyses than most so singling me out is severely leading and yet again showcasing your own biases. Dave 21:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

(That said, I don't have the time for much hobby-editing any more, so I will probably severely cut down on Wikipedia contributions overall) Dave 22:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

To that end, I have rewritten the intro tothe Personalities section to reflect something more in line with my ideas diff. As you can see, I removed the repetitive origin/identifier material, substituting information about The way writers have altered him, with out-comments for references as to which descriptions are whom. This sort of lead, followed up on smoothly, could lead to a much stronger section. ThuranX 22:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it, but it should be clarified that the different portrayals are linked to different personalities, and it currently strictly shows his bad traits, and none of the noble ones (yes, I know that the Gray Hulk didn't have any), like loyalty, self-sacrifice, compassion, naivete, and recurrently protecting or saving countless (meaning some dozen billions all in all) innocents on multiple occasions. The childlike Hulk in particular embodied these traits. The "merged" Hulk was a noble idealist with a too large propensity to use force instead of strategy (though he managed to adjust this for a while), and an occasionally unstable mind, but was, for example, willing to let himself be tortured to death rather than sacrifice 50 innocent hostages. This should be signified for a balanced portrait, in conjunction with each of the currently presented variations. Dave 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, all that stuff about his 'noble traits' is your POV and your OR about what personality traits mean what. The different portrayals by different writers can be explored writer by writer, as in "Paul Jenkins' story took the Hulk into a more suspense style direction, relying on mood and character driven stories to expand the character. The storyline, which followed Banner's exploits as an unwittingly manipulated fugitive, explored the nature of government pursuit. During this period, the hulk was portrayed as A, B, and C. He did X, Y, and Z, especially when faced with the Abomination, and news about Betty. When Peter David took over the series, he employed the character Nightmare to dismiss Jenkins' entire run as a dream, inflicted on the Hulk by Nightmare. This effectively restored the series history, and the character, to the day David left the run." That sort of writing touches on the character, and the history of the Jenkins run, explains the non-retcon retcon, and so on. THe events in the middle can be expanded, the escription of the hulk expanded, but it doesn't delve into armchari headshrinking or fannish hyping of the Hulk. Finally, your use of 'currently' is an example of recentism which should be avoided. Not all recent events 'stick' in Comics, and the fast changing nature of the medium, as well as the particularly fast nature of this storyline, (weekly in multiple titles), is all the more reason to be slower and cautious. Such 'recentisms' are better suited to the World War Hulk page than here. ThuranX 20:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That you use noble traits within apostrophes again signify that you're far more POV than myself. He has shown these on several occasions. It's a well documented fact with just as much validity as your stated negative ones. The different portrayals writer by writer is a good idea, as long as it points out which incarnation did what, and if they were even aspects of the Hulk (the mindless Hulk wasn't) or if he was subject to mind-control. They should basically be handled as separate entities. 'Fannish hyping' I suppose would refer to expanding/severely improving the two matter-of-fact above-mentioned aspects of the character, or not actively _only_ presenting the bad, but the good along with it, which is completely nonsensical. 'Fannish' seems to be one of your favourite words to pompously and offhandedly 'shoot down' anything you disagree with. You yourself not 'fannish' for being interested in being here in the first place, or having a biased and inflexible perspective, but any attempt to improve (whether successful or not) the information/depth of the page, is 'fannish'. The 'headshrinking' was not something I introduced. It's repeatedly touched upon in the comics and an important aspect to the different incarnations. It's an extremely relevant aspect to the character, like it or not, but needs several explicit issue number references, rather than memory alone. Apart from this I agree that being slower and cautious is a good practise and that it should be clarified what happened to either modify or not modify the history. Though you've stated an own bias towards that the retcon should be ignored in the past, due to not liking Peter David's 'possessive' style, and it was a very major plot point with current reverberations, so trying to entirely sweep it under the carper is inadvisable. Regardless, more specifically, in this respect, WWH (and Hulk issues tying into it) and Hulk: Destruction currently establish that Ryker is still around, but Nadia and Betty's resurrection never happened. 'Currently' refers to the 'current' version of the page text, which strictly mentions your interpretation of his 'bad' traits (which I basically agree with) but no mention of the 'good' ones/'virtues'. That you have been unwilling to even admit that he has ever had any, speaks volumes. Dave 21:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Look man, the Hulk sometimes saves lives, sometimes he takes or ruins them. To ascribe them to 'noble traits' means that you're ascribing motive to him, and asserting that all of these are considered, deliberate acts. The waty different writers portray the hulk is meant to replace the 'incarnations', a word that doesn't really describe his personality shifts anyways, as he doesn't die between them. As to my use of Fab labelling, I'm not the only one doing that, I'm just the only one blunt enough to say so. You keep editing to ascribe deeper ethical systems to the character than can be supported by facts of citation. Your use of Rampage has already been agreed upon by other editors to be a minority POV, based in OR. I'm not the only one to say that you've done such a thing in more than that singular instance. You seem to think I'm the problem, and I should leave. I think you should stop writing this article as if it was a blog, or fan-page, and focus on the hings that would turn it into a featured Article.

As for Nadia and Betty, I'm not bothering. I've fought tooth and nail to explain that David removed it with a dream sequence narrative device, there was no editorial retcon. You want to tell the article from In-Universe, and that's not how to write an article. The content took years to tell, explored the character in new ways, with new themes, and needs to be reported on. That Peter david chose to ignore it and wrote it off is likewise important, because it explains how deeply intertwinced the two, David and Hulk, are.

The Hulk has amazing potential to be a great featured article; Few other characters have been so laden with psychological themes as germaine to the character's identity and behavior as the Hulk throughout their history. Only in the past few years have writers examined the morality of heroes effect on the world around them in Most DC and Marvel comics, but Hulk's been doing that for decades, even if it mostly started out as a 'science gone awry' cautionary tale. Trying to reach that, by Out-Of-Universe descriptions of the chnging psychologies of the Creature and the Man, by citation of the various writers who've discussed exactly such larger man and world themes, and so on, can do a great deal more than the typical hero article, which spends far more time with a litany of when hero fought villian after villian. Aquaman's a fun article to work on, and I cleaned it up a bunch, but he's not as inspected, and written about, as the hulk, despite some vague 'leader under pressure' themes, and even the death of his son, so rare in comics, has had little commentary overall. Hulk's got a stack of literature, and it should be used here, instead of all this fighting about names of 'incarnations'. Hence I again propose to lead with a publication history, examination of early themes, switch into writers with long runs, beign sure to touch on things like the long run with his father's abuse revealed, david's long run examined, jenkins' run, and so on... bring in authors who've discussed his psyche, link to articles about the psychology of the Hulk and Banner, and go on and on and on. Finish up with links to the 'Hulk in other Media' article and a sumamry para there, and so on. I won't be replying for a day or two, hopefully others will weigh in and find my ideas valuable, I already know your opinion on the matter. ThuranX 22:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'Ascribing motive' when he's been explicitly shown saving several worlds. For example being furious at seeing the destruction Abomination had wrought on the Galaxy Master's request, and fighting determined to save the aliens, or showing great loyalty and compassion towards friends are all well recurrently documented, just as much as lashing out when attacked. He doesn't just save lives by accident, but because he believes in it. To include one aspect but not the other is POV and incredibly one-sided. The whole one-sided current vilification while characters immensely worse, like Wolverine are apparently ignored seems extremely twisted to me. As for quotations, Pak has said in Newsarama "Planet Hulk" interviews that he's exploring the heroism of the character. The use of "rampage" is still being discussed. It's hardly set in stone, and you still have to counter the logic of my reasoning to extend simple property-destruction while defending himself or others against villains to most other heroes out there, as well as the other mentions. It apparently doesn't matter if you can't even counter several of my points. Ignoring them quiet so to speak. I'm not writing this page like a blog any more than other contributors, and still haven't inserted much on it (well, I changed the completely inaccurate Maestro references, which had nothing to do with what was shown). I simply insert very well-referenced points in opposition to less well-founded ones you prefer and thus let go uncommented, and am consistently reasonable about compromises.

Ignoring Jenkin's run (actually it was Jones run that was definitely retconned, along with the 'devil Hulk') is not what I suggested. I'm saying that it should be mentioned afterwards that the above-mentioned aspects have later been referred to, and confirmed, as hallucinations. This is matter of fact/to the point.

I find the character fascinating because of the explicitly shown ambivalence and variety, and frequently almost poetic exploration of himself and interaction with/effect on his surroundings, as well as the very odd "unconquerable loose cannon loner who generally does good, but might do bad" aspect. There is a great gravity to the entire concept. If you are dissatisfied with "incarnations" wecan just use "personalities" instead, but there must be a very strong distinction. This is not real world schizophrenia by a long shot. All of them have actually been presented as virtually separate entities occupying the same astral plane. Actually you don't know my opinions on the matter, given that I don't mind (and haven't minded) your other suggestions. I do however mind a too one-sided heavily POV portrayal as a strictly borderline villain and not distinguishing between the villainous Joe Fixit, the no-nonsense idealist merged Hulk, and naive angry childlike Hulk. The distinction of personality should be made very clear in the text. As for being blunt the 'fannish' bit go both ways, as does the POV (which you still show much more of than myself), and also carries for your habitual usage of insults. I eventually take you to task for the manner you carry them as badges, others don't have the energy to bother, but mention it in passing. Your sweeping indiscriminate and ill-founded exaggerations of my supposed faults, when I've inserted more explicit references than anybody else, usually keep myself strictly analytical, instantly change my mind if somebody actually can prove their points, and probably know the character history better than almost any other contributor, with extremely well-founded modifications (which still have been quite limited on this page itself) is extremely uninformed and insulting, especially given that most every comic-book character page out there almost exclusively seem to have contributors who modify far less discriminately with far less basis. Again my arguments and points have thus far more or less proven solid, given that you haven't bothered to attempt to counter them, just played a demagogue. Dave 23:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Dave, one very, very strong suggestion, one that may be a very bitter thing to do: put the comics aside. Take the deep feeling you have for the character and direct it to an effort in finding the real world context, the articles about the themes and elements in the various series about the Hulk, and the interviews with the writers, artists, editors, actors, and so on about what they see in the character and wanted to bring out, that will do the character more justice than an article that is strongly framed as in-universe.

The intent of this article should not be an attempt to present a solely in-universe, authoritative bio of the Hulk. Nor should it be a soapbox to exonerate or condemn the character for his in-story actions. The former would be the purview of the Marvel Database Project, and the later that of a fan site.

This article is also not the place to present pet theories or conclusions, period. We, as editors here, don't have the luxury of putting "Based on X, Y, and Z, the character is..." or "This can be interpreted as..." in any for into the articles unless it is taken directly from a source, preferably a secondary source to establish context. And yes, that does cut both ways. And should be applied across the board. But we are dealing with this article, and dammit sir, just because poor and incorrect practices are applied elsewhere does not make them right when applied here. - J Greb 00:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I welcome the real-world context, but seriously, all I remember inserting into this main page itself is the explicitly mentioned (in the Mantlo and David runs) "child, teenager, adult" references, tweaking some glaringly inaccurate Maestro history, inserting a few very explicitly show character traits for Joe Fixit, ("sadistic" for having fun watching Glorian literally get dragged to Hell. The previous ones, or Thuran's own more one-sided writings on the subject are somehow 'more acceptable' according to himself). Objecting to showing a completely unfounded POV insertion/assumption that the Hulk is a constant danger to human lives and routinely goes on unprovoked rampages, (i.e. collateral damage when attacked by or defending others against villains) while this circumstance 'doesn't count' for regular heroes, as well as the simplified listing of him as an anti-hero in every incarnation, despite that the quoted definition and shown behaviour shows that this is highly debatable for the childlike Hulk and merged Hulk. The current writer has made the nature of the Hulk's 'heroism' a major explicit plot point during the last few years in the comics or interviews, however the Gray Hulk was not a hero of any sort.

A psychotic, thrill-killing mass-murderer (in the tens of thousands including scores of innocents) like Wolverine is also somehow listed as a 'hero', but Hulk should be singled out, despite this being far less warranted in two incarnations? Thus I really don't see the arguments of limiting the definition rather than listing all 3 ("Depending on the writer and current personality the Hulk has been portrayed as a misunderstood hero, anti-hero or villain over the years..."), alternately using the less specific superhero nomeration, as making any sense whatsoever. I'm not presenting pet theories or soapboxing, I'm trying to shut them down and maintain an even balance by strictly referencing what's actually been shown. We could always use something more closely akin to the handbook definitions instead if you prefer. ("The "savage Hulk" has childlike levels of intelligence and curiousity, with a longing for friendship and love, and prone to violent fits of rage...") Dave 15:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but since a good portion of this debate revolves around the number of "rampages" the Hulk has been on over the years, I thought I'd look up the term itself. According to the 2006 American Heritage Dictionary, rampage means "A course of violent, frenzied behavior or action". WordNet, software published by Princeton University, lists a rampage as "violently angry and destructive behavior" or "to act violently, recklessly, or destructively". Given these definitions from what I think most would agree are pretty reliable sources, I fail to see how stating that the Hulk has been depicted as going on only four rampges over the course of the character's existence is accurate.Odin's Beard 13:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

But by the "violently, recklessly, or destructively" definition most Marvel heroes would be classified as regularly going on rampages. It also implies an active pursuit on his part, rather than self-defence or defending others. Actually any sort of violent conflict would. Should the army be described as going on rampages for attacking him? That would actually be far more warranted. So I still maintain that we should stick to the active, and wantonly endangering acts as rampages, or we would unfairly single him out, while avoiding it for most other superheroes, and by extension heavily imply/"confirm" that it is far worse than what was actually shown. Dave 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As a complete outsider (but as someone who was asked to look into things), one thing struck me - isn't rampaging what the Hulk always does? Is there a better term for these four particularly frenzied episodes? Neil ム 20:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, rampaging is kind of a calling card in some ways. Spider-Man swings from weblines, Superman flies, the Hulk tears up the place, etc. It's just what he does.Odin's Beard 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, issue 110 and recent Newsarama comments make it seem like the official line is that Greg Pak and the editorial staff have read the same books I did and seen the same pattern. However well I've managed or failed I'm not trying to be POV, I'm trying to show a multi-faceted and very thorough portrait showcasing the character, but I still haven't written much on the main page itself, just built two sub-pages nearly from the ground up. Just because the urban myth says he regularly rampages doesn't make it so. Thuran's "lashing out in response to attacks" definition is much more spot-on.

In any case we should return to the point of an "anti-hero" or "hero" (no real life hero would ever call himself one, but I digress) nomenclature, going by the quoted definition above and various incarnations we should probably mention that he's been both a hero, anti-hero or villain from personality to personality. It's the most factual and NPOV alternative. Dave 19:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

My instinct is that Anti-Hero might be more accurate, and is certainly accurate at the moment. But equally my knowledge of the Hulk pre-Mantlo is fairly sketchy, and as I understand it, that's about the point at which the character took a far darker turn than had previously been the norm. Also I'm a bit uncomfortable with describing the Hulk as an anti-hero, when we descibe Wolverine, the Sentry and the Spectre, all of whom are vastly more murderous and on occasion far more insane than any incarnation of the Hulk bar perhaps mindless as heroes or superheros and the Hulk as an Anti-hero. Seems to me a proper approach should be hammered out and then applied to a whole lot of articles. ShinyShinigami 20:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As previously, going by the quoted definition, he's definitely been a hero in at least two of his incarnations, but he's also been a strictly malevolent villain, which should likevise be said. The balanced solution is to either mention all at the start, or just say that he's a "Marvel Comics character" to NPOV avoid the issue entirely. Alternately we could simply use the Superhero term. Given that even a character like Wolverine, who has far less of a claim to the title and has thrill-killed a thousand times more people, is accepted, it seems generalised enough. Hulk is even given as an example in the page. Dave 21:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, did I miss some stuff when I was gone for a few weeks! I would like to remind editors to please respect one another's views and the work that has been done on this article so far. For the record though, anti-hero is definitive, and the Hulk is a "rampaging" character- per his self-titled series - "the Rampaging Hulk." If Marvel calls him a "rampaging monster" then that's good enough for me (since they actually own the character). Kontar 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

But anti-hero doesn't seem definite (in a completely generalised sweeping manner) going by the logic above, and I still don't remember him to go on (distinguishing) rampages during the Stern/Wein/initial Mantlo runs. He was presented as a Defenders, respectively Pantheon member at the times, with compassion, and loyalty, respectively idealism as referred motivations, but he's also been a strictly malevolent villain, which should likevise be noted for completeness. "Rampaging monster" is a selling 'coolness' moniker, trying to retrofit (but not retconning) the more 'innocent' past to appeal to current more gritty preferences, and correct in the respect that he has gone on several, but as far as I know, only the dangerous 'noteable'/'distinguishing from Superman being smacked through a building by Doomsday' kind when under some manner of heavy outside influence. It doesn't make any sense to me. Help to matter-of-fact check it up would be appreciated. Dave 15:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Whilst finding myself mostly in agreement with ThunanX ideas on rewriting the page in a more out of universe style I would say that I'd find it preferable to retain a somewhat in-universe description of the different versions of the Hulk, possibly as a sub-page. Depending on how the rewrite goes I suppose this might not be needed, but I think it's important that someone who only knows the Hulk through the general public knowledge of the character be able to look at these pages and understand the character they are reading about if they happend to pick up an issue of the Hulk from the last quarter century or so. I remember looking at this page a year or so ago, and finding it didn't even describe the Grayvage/Green Scar/Late Period Peter David Hulk in any real detail, and since that was the current version at the time I thought that was fairly poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShinyShinigami (talk • contribs) 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The sub-page sectioning of all major/very relevant/characteristic in-universe apsects of the character is one I definitely agree with, and have made some efforts regarding, to accommodate for the standards of dispassionate, OOU, A-level profiles, in the Captain Marvel manner. They should be available for those who want to get in-depth information, but not be displayed in the main one. Are there any other segments everyone thinks would be preferable to move? Dave 15:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this idea. This is just shuffling bad stuff around. Why move objectionable, poorly written material to another article? Instead it should be fully integrated into this article, as I've stated before. To move the In Universe INcarnations write-ups to separate pages again brings us into a fan-site structure. Instead, keep this article streamlined and straightforward. Hiding bad writing won't help this article get an A, GA< or FA rating, which should be our goal here. If we moved it, we'd get maybe a GA, and fail an FA for having split our material and keeping poor writing as a subpage. Instead, strip out the In Universe, and focus on the OOU. ThuranX 21:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Objectionable how? By you? Yes, you've certainly made it very clear that you're completely unwilling to compromise or revaluate your views an inch regarding the compromise. We've explicitly handled every single aspect of that previously in both the sub-page itself and here, and logic dictated that it was not. 'Poorly' written when it is severely explicitly referenced? Again severely POV. Singled out specifically in universe objectionable when it is strictly following the pattern of virtually every character profile out there, and doesn't interfere with this page in the slightest? It's not 'hiding' 'bad' writing. It's richening the main aspects of the character (friends, opponents, incarnations, abilities) for anybody who chooses to check out more in-depth information, while _compromising_ to clear the main article of this and make everybody happy. It's entirely optional, and there exist precedents. If you wish to visit the pages and make specific complaints about more references, without the very extreme deletion agenda, or *gasp* help out in this regard, that's fine. It's generally matter-of-fact, but could certainly individually be greatly improved. If you wish to make it more stremlined the section links could simply be provided further down the page.

I really don't see why you bother to remotely care about this? As you've stated outright your motivation in this is to censor the feats to avoid 'creeping', rather than seeing it as a consistent important component of the character history. And you're now taking the opportunity to revive this agenda, wantonly destructive of the work others have put into it, and ignoring that it's been thoroughly and successfully defended in the past. Dave 14:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with ThuranX. We should concentrate on a well-written, objective article relevant to the general-reader audience to which Wikipedia aims.

With all respect, I would ask User:David A to consider that his love for the character may not make him the most objective editor on this. Many other editors on this page seem to agree with this assessment, and I would ask David A. to please consider the consensus nature of Wikipedia. -- Tenebrae 17:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was disdainful enough. In any case I've still been more willing to compromise about the original (Suspiciously extremely small for this much fuzz. Talk about smelling blood) point of content, which, I should remind, was pulling in two directions not one (Although my original dumb option was simply to insert both of them, rather than remove it altogether. That should teach me to never assume that 1-2 sentences can be balanced without matters going ridiculously out of hand), but I settled in the centre, and have avoided deliberately misrepresentative and demagogue-goading (In a public attention-grab forum to gain 'support'/noticeability no less, though the editor you tried to involve was rational enough to state outright that you were trying to make a case about nothing, and that I was both reasonable, compromising and non-pov regardless of your claims) and recurrent enormously exaggerated broad accusation-lumping methods from Thuran.

I've consistently been able to argue comprehensively and rationally for my conclusions. They just happen to be ones you may disagree with, even in cases where people have been unable to logically disprove them (And it should be mentioned that I always immediately change my view if logically disproven. I have no problem whatsoever as long as my points are handled matter-of-fact) rather than avoid them and back-talk me wherever possible in private and public at first opportunity, which, you know, is by far more POV than anything I've done, so no you are not in position to 'decree' superiority or badge me as unreasonable, far from it. Heck, I just argued that the character should have an "occasional hero/anti-hero/villain" designation on top, how is that biased? I like the character yes. I suppose anyone who'd bother to involve themselves do. I've made an effort to help enhance its' depth for those who visit in areas I have a knack for, especially those who like the character. That's as far as my 'agenda' stretches. I never loose my ability to dissect matters unless I'm tired, interest or not. I'm actually very bored with this entire silliness.

In any case to return to some semblance of relevance, rather than repetitive defense against various diversions, I have no problem with consensus when it's strictly about opinion rather than facts. Facts trumph anything. The point is that we already reached a consensus about the P&A page, and this was even more extensively handled at the page in question. It has been very thoroughly validated. Trying to bide time until finding a better attack-position is just downright devious, and definitely not respecting consensus on the matter, rather than trying to twist it the other way around. As stated several times I hearthily approve of turning the page to the general reader-friendly mainly real-world oriented format. The problem is that if we completely butcher every in-universe aspect nothing would remain of the character itself. History extremely limited, incarnations allegedly supposed to turn nonexistent, despite that this is one of the character's most defining traits. Friends and enemies pages are very common among comic book characters, and add depth, and so on. Basically the best solution for everyone remains to make a factually correct, neutrally fairly and comprehensively described general page, following the style of other prominent characters with references to history both within and without as it goes along. _Then_ provide a list of "see also these related wikipedia articles" at the bottom, in the generally applied manner I've seen several times, to enrichen the content. There is nothing inherently 'badly' written about these, just things to improve if anyone feels like it. Wikipedia is the main source for all quick overview information, just as much for the afficionados as to the casual browsers, and take away all the things that make up the character, not just the merchandise, cultural impact and publishing history (which are obviously great in themselves) and it will not be informative about the actual character anymore, just a coffee mug. So the reasonable solution would be to move the incarnations to the "alternate versions" page, keep the friends&enemies page separate and ditto for powers&abilities. Then list them all at the end. It's the customary way of handling this while keeping the tone of the centre very compact and thinned-down. That's it. Now, I'd be grateful to User:Tenebrae if we stopped being sensationalists about this and hereforth handle it coherently, honestly, upfront, in proportion to the issue, in a non-forced stilted veneer, and tackle the points themselves one by one rather than avoid them or play for an imagined audience. With all respect I would also ask that Tenebrae please does learn to count to 3 rather than say 'many', and sincerely consider if all 3 in question (Including himself) have had trouble arguing for their sake on previous occasions. (Though I technically like OB) Thank you and best wishes. Now I'm going to sleep. User:Tenebrae just made me waste 20 minutes of my life. Respectfully yours. Dave 00:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that this will seems harsh, but I found this remarkably rambling diatribe less than coherent. I'm also sorry you find my attempts at civility, even in the face of someone who appears so obsessed about the character, to be "forced" and "stilted".

Three editors all disagreeing with your edits indicates a consensus. Yet you say, "Oh, it's just three. That's not enough. And they're arguing just for the sake of arguing". Leaving aside that accusation of bad faith, your choosing to disregard three serious, intelligent, and patiently articulate peers is not really cooperative or reasonable. Please think about this. And start a Hulk fan site -- you love the character, so why not? It'll be yours, and no one can nay-say you. Does that really sound so bad? --Tenebrae 05:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Tenebrae. You're basically saying tat you're the only one abiding by consensus and editing towards fact, and then you take some cheap shots at Tenebrae. Five days after his last post. I had to read that twice to figure it out. You assert that turning this into a real-world examination of the character, it's literary origins and meanings, it's cultural reflections and impacts, and it's publication and production history would be uninformative to the average reader. Likewise you assert that a lengthy series of discussions of each 'incarnation of the hulk, and when they recur, which is YOUR assessment of the character, (some may find the 'merged' hulk different and distinct from the 'professor', others find them Identical; some may find the brusque and guttural grey hulk of the first issue distinct from the refined, expensive tastes-having Joe Fixit, and others may see them as the exact same), and a long detailed fight by fight in universe history, would better serve the character. I don't see it at all. This is an encyclopedia. Let's make it one. ThuranX 05:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Parodies Section

Ok guys and gals, as this is an encyclopedia article, I would like to suggest that we eliminate the parodies section as it is blatantly trivia (and trivial). This is essentially useless information. I realize that many people have spent time on compiling all of this, but this type of editing is discouraged within wikipedia, and is lengthening the article. Eliminating this section would tighten things up quite a bit. I would cut it myself, but since it is a significant section, let's get concensus first. Kontar 04:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that the article would be better served summarizing the section into a section on 'Hulk and Pop Culture', one referencing the widespread idea of sudden turns in temperment, esp. into tantrums, being sorts of 'hulking out' and so on. I think there's enough comparison to Jekyll & Hyde and so on that we can get into a real examination of ways the hulk has reflected our culture, esp. fears of nuclear threat, and how our culture has in turn embraced Hulk's symbolism there, to make a solid culture section, one unencumbered by lists and inventories. If you do cut it, please paste it back here for strip-mining. Thank you. ThuranX 04:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Great idea ThuranX. Kontar 21:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Another vote for the culture influence section. Possibly with a few (very significant) parody examples within this context. It appears to be acceptable for the A-level Captain Marvel profile. Dave 15:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I gave it a basic rewrite, stripped out trivia, and as I myself suggested, have reposted and archived the triv here for strip-mining as needed. I thoroughly discourage reworking the entire list into thinly veiled listings using text like 'he's been parodied in family guy i episode x like a, y like b, z like c' etc. Hitting the high points is enough; perhaps SOME of those listings can be turned into citations instead, and then the rest disregarded. We also don't need every single instance of his being referenced; it is encyclopedic enough to simply demonstrate the breadth of Hulk's cultural influence. I would, however, love to get soem international references beyond Young Ones, to show HOW widespread his influence is. I'm thinking of Dev Adam 3, which massacres a few heroes for fun, LOL. If anyone can add somethign about that eithe back here or out there, great! ThuranX 23:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

AWESOME JOB!!! Kontar 05:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. glad that seems to have been easy... ThuranX 20:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I also like it. Important high points, like the MAD parody of the Superman/Captain Marvel financial conflict, are ok, but inessential listings less so. Dave 14:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Parodies section:

Below is a cut n paste of the Parodies section. I have archived it to preserve it, intact. This is here as a resource, please discuss above in section regarding the parodies.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• In an episode of Arthur, a boy named George imagines himself becoming green and huge and tearing his friends hoodie of himself
• In an episode of The Adventures of Jimmy Neutron called The N Men (which itself was a parody of X-Men), which was a spoof of several Marvel comics like Fantastic Four and the Incredible Hulk, Jimmy becomes orange, and upon becoming angry, became huge like the Hulk, however he bears a stronger resemblance to the Thing from Fantastic Four.
• In The Young Ones episode Summer Holiday, Neil (Nigel Planer) becomes angered after being insulted relentlessly by his housemates, and turns into the Hulk, throwing everyone about in slow motion.
• The television show Saturday Night Live uses the Hulk character in several sketches. In the March 17, 1979 episode hosted by Margot Kidder, Lois Lane and Superman hold a dinner. One of the guests is the Incredible Hulk, played by John Belushi as a rude and offensive boor. In the November 21, 1992 episode hosted by Sinbad, Chris Farley plays the Incredible Hulk in a sketch about Superman's funeral. Farley's Hulk protests the suggestion of his giving a eulogy in broken English but then puts on a pair of glasses and delivers an erudite, impassioned farewell. In the December 17, 1994 hosted by George Foreman, Tim Meadows appears as Bruce Banner, who repeatedly has laboratory accidents and then changes into the Hulk, played by Foreman, who proceeds to further trash the laboratory before asking for the sketch to end because of its boring repetition.
• The character Russell in the video game Bully has the most hulking figure of any character in the game, is the toughest character to take down during normal gameplay, has the mind of a small child, and even constantly refers to himself in the third person. Russell's catchphrase is "Russell smash!"
• The "Justice Friends" sketch of Dexter's Laboratory follows three parody superheroes. One of them is a Hulk spoof, The Infraggable Krunk, an overgrown muscle-man with arrested mental development that has a purple skin and wears green pants - reference to Hulk's green skin and usual purple pants. Also in episode: 047 or Hunger Strikes, Dexter turns into a giant green monster and rampages through the town's grocery stores in search of greens when ever he cannot find any vegetables. In this episode, he also says Banner's classic line: "You're making me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry", although he says "hungry" instead of "angry".
• In the television show Aqua Teen Hunger Force, the character Meatwad once dressed as "The Incredible Plum" for Halloween, painting himself purple, donning a Hulk-like mask, and telling other characters they wouldn't like him when he's angry.
• In an episode of Scrubs, Dr. John "J.D." Dorian daydreams of turning into the Hulk inside the hospital.
• In the episode of The Simpsons entitled, "I Am Furious (Yellow)", Homer - after holding in all his anger for an extended period of time - falls victim to an elaborate prank by Bart, ending with him falling into a pool full of green paint, tearing his shirt off, and going on a rampage. Stan Lee also guest stars in this episode, and even attempts to Hulk-out himself (claiming he "really did it once").
• There have been multiple references to "The Hulk" in the series "Family Guy": in one episode, Peter claims he transformed into The Hulk in a fictional evil rendition of Chuck E Cheese, after failing to get Stewie's birthday party set up there, before Lois snaps at him saying that can't be what happened. In another episode, Lois discovers Peter's hidden ability to play the piano as a professional player when drunk, and Stewie asks Peter to play "that sad little tune at the end of The Incredible Hulk" while hitchhiking away. In another episode, when Lois' younger sister Carol is about to have a baby, Peter and Lois go over to her house to assist her. In the absence of her husband, Peter wears one of her husband's shirts (which are of a much smaller size than his) and asks Carol to say "David Banner, I just slashed your tires” before ripping the shirt apart while mimicking the transformation depicted on the TV show. And finally, in another episode, Peter claims that "Jesus" will return to Earth and turn into the Hulk.
• In the deleted scenes of Scary Movie 3, as aliens descend on Earth, the character of George Logan randomly transforms into the Hulk and destroys them. Upon seeing this, President Baxter Harris (played by Leslie Neilson) attempts to Hulk out as well, but only succeeds in soiling his pants and is then forced to have his diaper changed in front of the other characters.
• In the opening credits of Mallrats, where everyones character is introduced in comic book form, William Black (Ethan Suplee) comic book has the title "The Bulk".
• The Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law episode "Incredible Hippo" features Peter Potamus becoming a Hulk-like creature after eating a bagel that Atom Ant had deposited radioactive bars on. It features parodies of Bruce Banner's catchphrase ("You wouldn't like me when I'm hungry."), the scene where The Hulk spins a tank around before throwing it in the 2003 film, and the credits are replaced with a scene where Potamus walks away while the musical piece "The Lonely Man" plays, a take on the usual ending of the live-action series.
• In an episode of Late Night with Conan O'Brien, Conan O'Brien gets teased relentlessly by his co host Andy Richter and goes through the cheesy 70's process of becoming the Hulk. Ironically the only thing that changes is his look and he does not get angry but starts to whine making Andy start to feel bad too.
• Mad TV had a recurring character called the Gay Hulk, who would turn pink instead of green and in one instance starts spanking holes in a wall in a very gay stereotyped way and when a scientist tells him to stop destroying the lab he explains he is simply "installing window box for flowers".

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rewrite.

The Hulk

The original version of the Hulk was most often shown as simple and quick to anger. His transformations were triggered at first by sundown, returning to human form at dawn, then later, by emotional trigger. Although grey in his debut, difficulties for the printer led to a change in his color to green. In the origin tale, the Hulk is shown divorcing his identity from that of Bruce Banner, decrying Banner as "that puny wealking in the picture". In his early stories, the Hulk was a naive character, and often shown as easily reacting emotionally to situations. Even in the earliest appearances, Hulk used the third person to refer to himself. The Hulk retains a reasonale intelligence, thinking and talking in full sentences. Stan Lee even gives the Hulk expository dialogue in issue six, allowing readers to learn just what capabilities the Hulk has, when the Hulk says "But these muscles ain't just for show! All I gotta do is spring up and just keep goin'!" As other writers took over representations of the Hulk, they reduced his apparent intellect.

I rewrote the introductory paragraph to a history of the character. rather than revert war, I'm posting here for feedback. ThuranX 22:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Where would this go? 'Publication History?' Kontar 05:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Character history, which is currently lacking. Some of what's currently in publication history is actually better served in character history, which is mostly spread around the 'incarnations' sections. ThuranX 20:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The incarnations should be kept in some manner. They're one of the character's by far most defining traits (although the Guilt and Devil Hulks may be unimportant, as they haven't been overtly active manifestations), and I'm not sure about the quote, rather than an issue reference, but otherwise I simply vaguely object to the simplified/one-sided character descriptions. I'm also still waiting for actual point-by-point rational and referenced validations in responce to my previous summary of similar points of content, rather than sheer opinion. It gets tiresome to be limited to the "Ok, this and this doesn't make sense. Validate it to convince me." "No I don't think so, and now I'm going to ignore it, so there." routine. Oh well, I'm tired of the entire silliness, so never mind. Dave 14:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article to reflect a more out-of-universe, real-world content based approach. I've had comments and support in editing from a number of editors, and I'm bringing it here for a reviewe before adding it, rather than a bold change, per suggestions during sandboxing. please review here: User:ThuranX/Sandbox. ThuranX 22:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to ThuranX and our fellow editors who took the time to comment on his newly inserted, sandboxed rewrite, which he began working on and soliciting comments for on Oct. 2. Some polishing will inevitably follow, but he took his time, asked for and got input, sought consensus, and blended various editors' viewpoints together on what was one bear of a big job. I think a round of virtual applause is in order! --Tenebrae 05:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"Original Hulk"?

I agree with this individual,ThuranX. For years I have been trying to come up with a term to describe the "original" Hulk. This is the one that Stan and Jack depicted during that brief period when the Hulk didn't have his own book but appeared in all the other Marvel titles. He was green but he wasn't stupid. He spoke in a gruff slang almost like somebody from Brooklyn but he often made a lot of sense whenever he opened his mouth. He was even seen driving a train in Fantastic Four 26(!) Some describe him as "Joe Fixit" but Peter David chose to make him gray. After the Hulk began appearing in Tales to Astonish, Lee came up with the explanation that the Hulk's mind became "clouded" and that's when he began speaking of himself in the third person but again, he still wasn't totally stupid. To solve all this I have chosen the term "Original Hulk" to desribe the Joe Fixit persona with the green Hulk's strength. What do you guys think?

In conclusion, where are the references to the characters that influenced the Hulk's creation? The Frankenstein Monster, the Wolf-Man(as portrayed by Lon Chaney,Jr.) and the Amazing Colossal Man (the source for "Jade Jaws"' origin)? The Batmaniac —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually he was pretty stupid. For example, in his first fight with the Leader's humanoids his 'sluggish' thought processes were mentioned. Although he possessed a considerably more asocial attitude, rather than the naive, friendly, sentimental, overemotional, simpleton he later became as his most popular-culture 'classic' incarnation. Dave 14:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Talestoastonish60.jpg

Image:Talestoastonish60.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

FUR added. ThuranX 04:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

"Famous" and "Popular"

I have seen several rewrites and deletions of the word "famous" and "popular" from the Hulk's article. Without question, the Hulk is one of the most famous characters in comic book history- period. Any argument is editor negative-bias. The Hulk's catchphrase "the Madder Hulk Gets the Stronger Hulk Gets" is also famous across 40 years worth of the character's history. To ask for documentation is as absurd as asking for documentation that Superman's "faster than a speeding bullet" is a famous phrase. No, Joe Schmoe American may or may not have heard the phrase, but millions of comic book readers over decades have.--Kontar 23:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You've made my argument for me. I'd accept that 'Hulk Smash!" is well known, but the other phrase is not. I've been working to bring this articel up to GA and then FA status, and so where I can, I'm removing fan based addons, and finding citations for others. If you can find citations for the cultural penetration of the phrase, add it back. Otherwise, do not. Consider this an official institution of the 'if something is controversial or challenged, it needs citation' premise of Wikipedia. Had editors not messed with the quote, I wouldn't have grounds for it, nor started this, but since there was recent disagreement, I'm asking for a citation. ThuranX 01:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As many editors have told you before, it is not up to you to accept or not accept an aspect of this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of concensus. The phrase does not need "cutural penetration" on the scale of the average person for it to be famous. Your logic is faultly at best, and POV at worst. There was no disagreement to begin with concerning that phrase. One editor had attempted to add another phrase made famous by the TV series, which is of course not canon to the publication history. That is a separate issue which you purposely used to invalidate the addition of the phrase :"the madder..." If OTHER editors agree that the phrase and it's fame is unwarranted, then it should be removed. There does not need to be citations on every sentence of this article and to act as if every instance that you disagree with should, does not improve the work that we are doing. Again, leave it to concensus. On another note, good job on the revisions to "character analysis." --Kontar 01:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Read up on WP:CITE and related policies, I'm well within policy, when there's editing back and forth, to ask for citation. ThuranX 02:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, let me quote it here: "This page is considered a style guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on this page's talk page." Regardess of you and your buddy Tene, this issue needs to gain CONSENSUS before reverting. Consensus needs to be drawn here, not on the main article. If the majority of editors agree, I'll leave it alone.--Kontar 04:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

A third editor has reverted you, and stated YOU need to find consensus now. I think the issue is settled. ThuranX 12:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Caption MOS

Just a reminder: Two editors have been changing User:ThuranX's edits and inserting non-MOS captions. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Uniform cover artwork crediting convention for style guidelines. Thanks. --Tenebrae 02:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Other media articles

The Hulk currently has two article, The Hulk in other media and Hulk in other media, for Hulk in Other Media. they should be merged together. Gman124 (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I can do this if we want.--Tenebrae (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

That is just messed up, these need to be merged now.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 18:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag, December

User:Rtkat3 has been unilaterally dividing up articles (this, Thor, Iron Man, I think others) without any discussion whatsoever on the articles' talk pages or on the WikiComics Noticeboard. He has been asked on his talk page to discuss splits and mergers there, and he so far refuses to do so. This split needs to be reversed so that a proper discussion can begin. --Tenebrae 18:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem lies in that if the text source is not aknowledged as set out by the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Summary style, it a violation of the Wiki Copyright Policy. This article should be reinserted and a proper discussion completed. -66.109.248.114 22:51, 2 December 2007 (UTC).

This was split a month and a half ago [1]. It's not urgent. Now, why should we remerge this content? Hulk is one of the few comic book characters with the lengthy 'other media' representation to deserve a separate listing. If the other article were converted into a brief prose form, it might be worth re-integrating, but as it stands, that would inflate the page above the 40K value which usually is needed for GA status, which is where I'd like the page to go. Perhaps if you can sufficiently rewrite the page to fit within the space available, it would be a better candidate for merging, but as both pages now stand, i'm against such a merge. ThuranX 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Not saying the split is a bad thing or a good thing, but just that it was done "under the radar" as far as discussing it with the Comics Project and seeking a consensus — as we are, indeed, doing now. This kind of discussion cannot hurt; what's to hide?

A month-and-a-half is not like years; it's very recent. --Tenebrae 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I remember some sort of wikipedia policy of Being Bold. I think it is a great idea, and they help out the articles a lot. The wikiproject is to make sure that the qualtiy of the article goes up or stays where it is, not to determine what can and can't be done to comics articles. User:Rtkat3 did nothing wrong and I don't think anything needs to be reversed.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Devil's Advocate... Bold is nice, to a point. Generally that point is when a particular edit or type of edit is viewed as controversial.

That being said, there are two things to keep in mind:

1. For an article with a very active edit history, having this come up a month and a half after the fact doesn't sell it a "controversial". It may be a case that discussion of "Should we fold this back?"
2. I don't remember any discussions coming to the consensus that all splits need a discussion. I remember some that touched on the splits tending to be touchy in that some of these cases will wind up with the split being reversed as not being necessary or sustainable. This doesn't look like one of those cases. - J Greb 04:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I recall now that when I saw what Rtkat had done, I thought that it was good for me, and the article, as it meant that I didn't have to be concerned with that section when I was doing the rewrite. ThuranX (talk) 05:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm removing the tag, this topic's been dry for weeks, I think we are in favor of keeping separation. ThuranX (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

GA again?

Is it worth submitting this for a second GA review? Thoughts here please? ThuranX (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

No. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Did we do everything that was mentioned in the first review?Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 15:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My rewrite removed the In-Universe style, included numerous citations, removed the 'behavior' and 'personas' sections, and the 'other media' section has also been reworked, so yes. Woudl the IP like to clarify his 'no.'?ThuranX (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If everything that was said to be done, has been done, then do it. and GL.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 22:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait for a few more thoughts onthe matter beforer doing it, and I'd like to hear the IP's response, but thanks for the support. ThuranX (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Up for GA review 12-28-07. ThuranX (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Top ten most intelligent fictional characters

According to BusinessWeek, Bruce Banner is listed as one of the top ten most intelligent fictional characters in American comics. Smartest Superheroes Bookkeeperoftheoccult (talk) 09:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Marvel has been quoted here in the context of another article, I've decided to include the 'unmeasurable intellect' quote that's been the subject of prior conflict. Even though they are just quoting Marvel's hype, they've taken it outside the CoI of the publisher, into the larger mainstream. I think that's acceptable for covering it now. ThuranX (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Red Hulk

Will there be a new article about the Red Hulk or will Red Hulk info be put into this page? I propose that a new article be written, as we don't know if the Red Hulk is the original Hulk or a brand new Hulk? In January 2008, the new Hulk #1 Comic will come out with a Red Hulk on the cover and the secret identity of the Red Hulk will be a mystery. If it turns out to be Banner, then just move the info to this page, if not keep it on the other page. That way nobody will know who the Red Hulk really is, until Marvel reveals who it is for real. Thomas Hard (talk) 00:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

We'll wait and see. If it's a new hulk, odds are it'll get some sort of new article, possibly a Hulk (John Doe) and Hulk (Bruce Banner) split will be needed, but we have to wait, and decide with consensus. If it's Banner, or an unrevealed situation, then we can add and build it here until we have enough to really step out into a new article. Further, if the character is, over time, revealed to be nothign but a footnote in the history, we may have to address it here, noting a short lived offshoot in the publication history, and then briefly in the character history. Let's be patient, and not jump the gun on this. I've just nominated this for a GA Review after my massive rewrite, and would like to see it pass, and stay at that level of quality. Thank you for bringing this up here in advance. ThuranX (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

This article has passed the good article assesment. It is a well written article, with plenty of illustrations. My only complaint is that you need just a few more references, but there were still enough for it to be passed. Congratulations! RC-0722 (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WOO HOO!!! I'd like to thank all the editors who helped me out in my massive rewrite! ThuranX (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well done! --GentlemanGhost (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Well done! Doczilla (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Belated congrats! 204.153.84.10 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As per David Fuchs, the article is no longer a Good Article, and has been delisted. ThuranX (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Do individual editors get to unilaterally unlist articles, particularly (a) those that have just undergone a review/promotion and (b) without engaging other editors in significant discussion or sending the article to review? This looks like an emotional overreaction, IMHO. --ElKevbo (talk) 12:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Any editor can de-list an article at any time to fix it. Consensus isn't needed for that. Once an article is felt to need cleanup, it's no longer Good. Further, David Fuchs unilaterally declared it a fail, therefore, it must be delisted, and I've opted to recategorized as a fail base on his assessment. You'll note that Peter Symonds agreed, and assisted in correctly coding the fail. ThuranX (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverting my changes

Honestly, what the hell. I'm adding critical commentary and sourcing. You do not own the article, and frankly, it really doesn't pass GA standards as it stands right now. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

First, it DID pass the GA, so you can take that up with the reviewer. Second, I'm not claiming ownership, and wasn't the first to revert your changes, and my work on this article was ably aided by a number of other editors. Third, Your only new source is Stan Lee's own explanation, and your writeup is one rife with laudatory phrase such as 'Flush with success' and making cliches seem fresh. Finally, much of what you're adding is covered already in the article and well cited using sources which don't have a conflict of interest. It's very easy for Stan Lee to talk himself up in hindsight; Hulk was a great success. Stan may be the Man, but he's also highly egotistical. Much of that's deserved, but he sure doesn't shy from any of the attention, or from giving himself more. I specifically avoided using biased sources in the work I did rewriting this article, because I didn't want such poetic license being taken when I knew there were good factual sources out there more distant to the situation. ThuranX (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)PS - One final note, the categories of the infobox are regrettably standard for comics pages, and there's been too much arguing about their content. If you want to eliminate the alliances and so on, take it up at WP:COMIC. As for the powers, all those powers have been substantiated, and consensus seems to be that all powers should be remarked upon in an article, used once or not, and any remarked upon can go in the infobox. I'm not a fan of this, as some writers give idiotic powers as Deus ex machina/Macguffin style writing, and then it becomes 'canon'. This is an instance of holistic writing, rather than analytical, but then, we have to rely on others' interpretations and our citation, rather than calling a spade a spade. I'd be open to pursuing a discussion on getting consensus for using the iconic public view of the Hulk as the basis list of powers (strong, nearly indestructible, and healing), and noting others in a second paragraph noting the occasional powers used in various storylines (surviving in extreme environs like space and underwater), the astral sight, and so on. ThuranX (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to be a dick by taking it to GAR, but it has almost *no* sources about creation and *no* context about the creation of the character- it's not comprehensive. As for using the creator to talk about his own work, there's nothing wrong with that- Batman has whole blockquotes from the creators. I'm still looking for stuff about Kirby, but you're impeding improvement of the article. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not impeding anything. I'm trying to make sure that a GA passed article stays that way. Using Stan Lee's words can be fine, but rebuilding the entire section around him is not. Further, in your previous edit, which was reverted by another editor, you removed gigantic sections using numerous sources, which hardly seems like improvement, it's usually called blanking. I include in this your bizarre commenting out of the Grest and Weinberg materials, removal of multiple citations, and your elimination of the split between Banner and Hulk. None of this suggests improvement, and with three editors reverting you, I'd suggest you approach this in a more cooperative fashion. ThuranX (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

If it stays in its current structure, this will never pass FA. It's called improvement, and if that rocks the boat so be it. But reverting to a previous version on account of "that was what was passed as GA" is no help. David Fuchs ^(talk) 23:11, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then, I guess that's that. Consensus be damned, full speed ahead. I'm gonna walk away now. ThuranX (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

David - ThuranX has a valid point: The article just passed GA, what you're edits are doing is moving it backwards in some respects, and editing this article has always been contentious. Please stop and think about that and work with others on the talk page before being bold.

ThuranX - Step back, take a deep breath, and please refrain from biting. David also has a valid point. Others have also pointed to this article as barley and GA... IIRC the quote from one was that he was "embarrassed" that it was a GA given its current state. Even with out that impetus to refine and improve the article, the goal should be, as Dave alludes, to get it to an FA state, not just keep it as is.

Specifics re the last two edits — [2] and [3]

1. That's a nice expansion of what was there, however... two concerns.
   The first is minor, but relatively important in a major rewrite: proof reading... or spell checking (Google has a free tool bar add on for browsers that does a real goo job).
   The second is the tone. What you've posted reads as either fannish or overly prosaic.
   — "Buoyed by the success of the Fantastic Four, Lee began to conceptualize a new superhero."
   Is it possible to restructure that so that the quote, either from Lee or the biographer, is present and it isn't the article ascribing the reason to Lee's actions?
   — "However, primitive printing techniques left the Hulk's skin tone vary in color; in some panels, the character appeared almost black, while in others the grey took on a greenish hue."
   "primitive" is a value judgment as well as dismissive. The phrasing that was there, which was cited and valid better covered the "why" and the person involved.
   — "Despite positive reactions from college-age readers,..."
   Both versions of this cited item are suffering from spin that needs further clarification. What was there puts it as the letter to Kirby was a reason that Lee moved the character around after cancellation. The current version casts it as too little too late.
2. As per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a capsule of the article. That's what it is right now. There is no justifiable reason to add the note "add a little more on cultural impact to lead when section is developed". The lead is developed and covers the significant notes. Fleshing out those points is what the article is fore.

- J Greb (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

In regards- I don't think the lead is entirely developed, because the comprehensiveness of the article is lacking. It doesn't have anything on how the character was received (has been, whatever) and it doesn't talk about the conception of the character. Das Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

David, I personally like your contributions and you are definitly molding the beginning of the article into a more engaging lead in to the main portion. That said, per Greb's statements above, I suggest your research those statements such as "buoyed" & "despite positive reactions" to conform with WP:RS because that will strengthen your intro whereas leaving as is leaves it open for criticism. Which is, coincidentally, a forte of some for the Wikiproject Comic.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 02:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is, coincidentally, a forte of some for the Wikiproject Comic. - Could you clarify this sentence? I think I've missed it's contextual reference. - jc37 23:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Some WP:COMIC member specialize in criticism, not critique, is his point. On the other hand, you can be a non-member of WP:COMIC and just screw up articles. His comment isn't inaccurate though. ThuranX (talk) 23:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, yes indeed that is my point. I actually appreciate both David and your contributions on this article, you each bring specific elements that enhance the article. That said, WP:RS is the key. On a side note, yes Jc37...yourself notwithstanding, there is an element of intellectual elitism among certain elements of this project...at times. It would seem. Regards.Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 00:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Ha. That's an understatement. If the elitists could be bent to doing some real scholarship, and the fanboys bent to understanding that criticism and analysis mandated for true GAs and FAs, we could really crack open Comics and GAs, make a hell of an omelet. ThuranX (talk) 00:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Wow, what's going on with GA recently? First it broke the track record for shortest timespan between listing and delisting on the same GA, and now this? I'm afraid to say that 2 lines of comments isn't even a review. Plus I spotted an image without fair-use rationale. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

(See top of page.)

PeterSymonds | talk 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

that's a waste of time. An editor has voiced complaints, there must therefore obviously be problems which need to be fixed, and the article rewritten entirely, before such a thing is worth anyone's time. ThuranX (talk) 21:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, your call. It wasn't a request for review, more a request for consensus to avoid the problems that the article's gone through in the past few days. However, please note that you didn't remove the article from the GA list, so I've done that. Hope all goes well, PeterSymonds | talk 21:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Azs a matter of fact, I did remove it. Soem vandla must have restored it, thinking this was a Good Article when it's not. ThuranX (talk) 22:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, stop it. If you want to pout or mope, go do it somewhere else. I'm sorry that you feel hurt right now but acting childish is not going to fix anything or win you any friends. You've put too much work into this article to let it go to waste just because your feelings are hurt. --ElKevbo (talk) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. I like your work just fine, and an administrator's opinion on anything other than interpreting policies is not automatically more important than anyone else's. Thuran, this petty behavior will accomplish nothing, and may even get you into trouble (your "retirement" notwithstanding). 204.153.84.10 (talk) 23:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the article is actually not at WP:GAR; is this intentional, or a malformed nomination? Either way, one, indeed, does not need to utilize WP:GAR to delist an article (per WP:RGA, “feel free to be bold and remove it.”) You may wish, however, to have concerned parties clearly list their concerns regarding the good article criteria here (conversation above wanders) so those who are so inclined can work towards improving the article. Alternatively, GAR is a good source for third-party input. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed the 'reassessment'. There's nothing to reassess. There's no being childish involved. The rules for GA are quite clear. If an article does not meet the GA standards, it must be delisted. I followed the rules. And I know I'm right in my actions because David Fuchs said that the article should fail, and has not objected to my actions in supporting him. As such, these actions have consensus, which is clearly not needed anyways. There's nothing to discuss here. As for the quality of my work, the delisting speaks quite clearly. ThuranX (talk) 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I made no statement about the article's quality. I made no statement about whether rules had been followed. I am an uninvolved third party and indifferent in all regards. I will state, however, that comments above clearly indicate that there is not consensus and you may wish, once emotions have calmed, to enlist constructive criticism from other editors through the aforementioned venues. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 23:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Such a process was completed prior to the GA review the article underwent. Clearly, all those editors and processes failed Wikipedia by passing what consensus now shows to be an obviously inferior article. It's that simple. ThuranX (talk) 23:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, I find the comment you left on my talk page really disruptive [4]. Why is my comment considered interferring? Furthermore, ThuranX has blanked the the GAR page [5] when it's really clear that more than one editor has concerns about the delist. Lastly, ThuranX, being a primary author of the article, should refrain from listing/delisting this article due to WP:COI. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You are interfering by challenging David Fuchs. He has established a new consensus by saying there is a new consensus, and we should all be working to make this article GA or FA worthy. For some reason, no one but me can accept I was wrong to think I'd done a good job here. I, for one, am eager to see all those extraneous citations blanked, and more In-Universe content added. I'm sure that paragraphs full of why Stan Lee is so great, combined with these other edits to come, will help create a powerful FA article about the Hulk. ThuranX (talk) 16:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You've progressed beyond whining and you're now being downright disruptive. Take a break and come back in a few days, please. --ElKevbo (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not disruptive to advocate for the position that AN/I and all the editors here think is right. No one's said anything against David Fuchs' actions or methods, so clearly, it has consensus. Good for him, and good for the article. ThuranX (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thuran, you're acting somewhat irrational here. I shouldn't have edit warred with you in the first place, but your offense that the article wasn't as good as you thought it was is clouding your judgement. I said it could be delisted since it didn't meet the criteria, but I am much more interested in improving the article than cutting it down- how you determined I was going to fill it with cruft is beyond me, but the article is currently a disorganized mess. I'm modeling what I'm trying to do after FAs like Batman, but evidently editors can't stand that the in-universe info is going to have to be cut down and moved to a new section. I'm perfectly willing to collaborate here, but you have to stop walking around with this chip on your shoulder. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

So much GA drama this week. People must be bored after reviewing articles, eh? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear David Fuchs. You edit warred and asserted that YOU supersede consensus. You were given a free pass on the matter at AN/I and here on this talk page, where only my horrible behaviors, like inviting you to talk and explaining, were attacked. Now you assert that iv'e got too muc hin-universe material. You should go look at the diff between what it was and what it is. The version that existed before your unilateral 'no consensus needed' editing started removed ALL in-universe material, giving it a Real World context. All GA and FA articles for Comics do NOT have to look the same, and the entire project benefits from varied writing styles. I know you'll ignore all I've written and don't care, you're right and I'm afucking idiot who can't write shit, so I'll end this simply. You're a fucking idiot. ThuranX (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

And the character History is in the fucking Characterization section. ThuranX (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, watch your language. You're stepping over the WP:CIVIL line. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 02:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been asked to look into this before things get out of hand (or further out of hand).

The first thing we need are for the most active editors of the entry to take a step back - there is too much finger pointing and reverting (and general edit warring) going on and nothing is going to get fixed by going down that route. I'd suggest those active editors take a break from editing the page and focus their energies on coming up with a plan on the best way forward here on the talk page. I think we all want to improve the article - the dispute is merely over the best way to do that, which in the big scheme of things is a relatively minor issue and isn't the kind of thing we want to lose good editors over.

So the plan of action is fairly straightforward:

• We draw a line under the above (and connected edits)
• We reduce the editing of the article (especially by those who have been edit warring on there)
• We discuss how to improve the article (and do so in a clear and calm manner)

We can take steps to make sure things don't escalate but I think we'd all prefer it if the regular editors of this article and other more "independent" editors could all sit down and work out a way to set this back on track for nominating for GA. (Emperor (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

I concur with Emperor. Majoreditor (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I continue to oppose any GAR. There is no need for any such action, David Fuchs will tell us when we are at GA and FA, he doesn't need a process to strip them, he doesn't need a process to award them. ThuranX (talk) 15:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thuran, while it has been awhile since I've seen a nice and good internet meltdown, you would do well to listen to Emperor - he's a good, level-headed fellow, which is a big part of why he was named a moderator. You're heading towards doing yourself permanent reputation damage on Wikipedia, if not an eventual blocking. I'd suggest a step back, take a deep breath, and come back in a few days or weeks or whenever you can get your head together. Be the better man. BOZ (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WHy should I be the better man? David Fuchs is the admin, and one on the short list for ARbcom replacements at that. Yet I can't help but see that everyone continues to fault me completely. ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Such finger-pointing is just not constructive and isn't going to help fix this. No one editor has final say on anything. I'm sorry that you feel that way but it isn't going to stop everyone else from trying to improve the entry with an eye on getting it up to GA. You seem intent on some online/Wikipedia version of "suicide by cop" (metaphorically speaking, of course) but rather than pushing things until you get blocked I think we'd all rather you took a break - from Wikipedia or just by taking this entry off your watchlist. However, I think most of us would want all interested, enthusiastic and knowledgeable editors, like yourself, involved with any improvement efforts but you are going to have to let go of the imagined slight to your knowledge/editing skills so we can move things on. (Emperor (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

There's no 'account suicide by admin' intent here. I'm simply following the consensus by administrative fiat instituted by David Fuchs, and supported by Emperor, who called for the regular active editors to leave. Why can't everyone see that? Can't you see that he knows everything better than we do, without asking, reading or talking about it, and doesn't have to apologize? Until someone makes him apologize, I see no reason for things to change. And why should they? He already MADE consensus. A consensus of one, against three. Why isn't anyone willing to say one thign abvout his actions? ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

One possible reason "no one" is saying much about my changes is because I'm not the one acting irrationally here. I admit I shouldn't have reverted the first time without explaining my actions; however, since then, you've been running around saying that somehow my actions constitute a "fiat" and then continue personal attacks and edit warring, especially over the GA status, which I never touched. Go ahead, I'm not going to bother with this article anymore; I've got plenty of other articles I can work on/am working on currently. I've admitted my mistake, and am moving on. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not faulting you; quite the opposite, if I was in your shoes, I'd be just as upset. You have every right to be, in fact. But you're going out of your way to attract attention, and the way you're going about it is likely to attract more negative attention towards youself than anything else. I think it's a testament to the fact that people around here actually do respect you, because if any other shlub were acting in the exact same manner, they already would have been blocked or worse. You've made your point, I've seen some people start to listen (didn't someone revert the article back to your last constructive edit?), now is the time to calm down before you implode. I'm just trying to offer constructive criticism. I don't know much about David Fuchs, but the way he has treated you so far hasn't pushed my opinion in the positive. That's why I say to be the better man. BOZ (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict): although what he said just now doesn't hurt my opinion of him. Time to forgive and forget on both sides before it really gets ugly again. BOZ (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Again you are misrepresenting what I said - I am in no way supporting his actions. What I'm saying is that everyone needs to take a step back so we can actually get things fixed. You have raised the issues about David Fuch's over on the admin board, which is the right place to deal with that.

What I want to do here is build a consensus on the best way to get this article up to GA status (and everyone's voice counts equally, no matter how you feel about it at the moment). (Emperor (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC))

In light of David Fuchs above reply, I've refactored the section below. I will, however, point out that if He'd just up and said he was wrong to begin with, none of this would have escalated. As for his full reply, he still can't stop lying. I didn't make the first revert. I didn't make the second revert. I made the third revert, and I invited him to the talk where I was fully rational. I made offers of Small steps and consensus. In short, I did everything right. He's walking away now, and that's for the best, because while I have never claimed OWNership, nor acted like it, I DO know the history of the article, and what consensus was. As for his fiat consensus, I stand by that, because only an admin who WAS asserting would insist repeatedly on reverting back, not talking about it, and when finally talking, insist that he was doing right no matter what. All that Aside, I would welcome him back if he could just talk about it like I tried to do. Unfortunately, that's too hard for him to undertake. His input on my powers edit, and the infobox would have been welcomed, if he had been civil and so on. I have found this entire situation to be too ridiculous to handle. All that had to happen was civility and fairness and following rules. David Fuchs refused that, escalating at every turn. Anyways, I'm going to keep working on this article. I got it to GA once, and since the person objecting and failing it never bothered to attend the GAR, fully explain his objections, and has left the page, perhaps the rating can be reinstated. ThuranX (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to make some minor copyedits to the article. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Per David Fuchs

I have implemented edits to the Infobox, as I offered to David Fuchs, reducing it to the essential persistent characteristic powers, stripped out the numerous RECENTism based aliases, though I would like to add 'ol' jade jaws' and some of the other 60's terms for him, and have reduced the alliances to two groups he founded, and one which was a major ongoing group for years and has recurred. Secret Defenders is a subset of Defenders, Pantheon and Order wree nice long plotlines, but hardly hold long term notability, whereas the constant reuse of the Hulk as foe to teh Avengers and ally to the defenders, and the recurrence of the Hulkbusters supports their inclusion.

I have also added the reworked Powers content which I'd been building before Fuchs pulled the GA. It includes real-world science baswed analysis of the character's origins. ThuranX (talk) 15:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Hulk section in Characterization shouldn't read like plot synopsis, which it currently does. Check out Batman or Jack Sparrow to get an idea on how to tackle such sections. Also, thos subsection that link to other articles need text; see the "Batman in other media' section on that character's page. You may be directing readers to a more in-depth article, but there needs to be something there. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all fictional character articles MUST be written the same. This page had a Character History, which was nothing but an overlong in universe recap, followed by an overlong character section, persona by persona. I combined the two, using far more citation than had been there before, and using creators and so one to change it to an Out of Universe perspective. The old version was one big fan mess. Most characters are fairly static through time, making a Character History a somewhat linear thing, wherein the character eexperiences certain events, but the personality rarely changes drastically. No matter how many events, Hal Jordan returns to being a fearless jock, and The Punisher keeps on killing. However, the Hulk actually has had significantly distinct personas. It made far more sense to combine the two, showing the character's history and his radical personality changes as intertwined, and had a great deal of consensus during the rewriting process. I prefaced this with a section on Banner, whose timid scientist with a moral core, seeking a cure for the Hulk, is fairly stable and unchanging. To redivide the two would be to return to an overlong, overly involved plot summary, which we are not, and to a separate, disconnected Personas section, which, in order to provide context, would have to repeat great chunks of the plot summaries. As written now, the article presents the material from an out of universe, cited perspective. Please go back to the 'old' versions to see what I mean. I think there are a couple links on this talk page. If you have a way to approach this which will genuinely improve the article, not just get it to 'conform' to a preconceived format for no other reason than shoehorning it in, please share it with us here. It may be as simple as retitling the section, but I doubt that will be all it would take. ThuranX (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course character articles don't need to be the same; I mentioned those ones simply as examples to draw from. What I mainly wanted to illustrate is that the section needs to be less plot-focused and rely more on commentary by out-of-universe secondary sources. The character's personality has been written about academically (Bradford Wright's book Comic Book Nation, for one). Right now the section is long and cumbersome. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but to write aboiut the persona, we need context; the character history provides that. Otherwise, it seems as if the character is one way, then irrationally 'becomes' a new way. What do you suggest we do to 'fix' this? Examples would help. As for Wright's book, I'll try to look for a copy, I used a bunch of other sources. The other problem I have is that I really want to avoid to sort of overblown character Biographies that comics pages often have, where every fight is documented. (This page avoided ManBull so far, but he and ManBearPig can't be too far off when the plot inflates.)

I'd love it if we could sum the character up in just three or four paragraphs, with wikilinks to those cases where an event has its own page, like Civil War, Planet Hulk, and WWH. For example, if we could say 'Atr first the hulk was pursued, often seen as no better than the monsters he fought, founded the Avengers, left them, ran around more, founded the Defenders, began a bunch of adventures reflecting spiritual and mystic ideas of the writers, then stomped around with hulkbusters, joined a group of behind the scenes heroes only to be betrayed, had his wife killed, went into hiding while the government pursued him, only to be shot into space, where he conquered a world, but returned to earth to avenge that world's destruction', that would get it down fine, except maybe a little less run-on. For an example of how it was, go back to say, september of last year, and look at all the plot mess, the speculative nature of the hulk personas, and so on. The rewrite I led compacted, organized, and presented all of that with more citation and out of universe content in a way that gave a reader both the major events AND the writers behind them. Please post some examples of how you'd take this to the next step towards getting a GA. ThuranX (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

You actually don't need too much plot context to discuss the characterization of the Hulk. Most of the discussion focuses on the character's "Jeckyl and Hyde" nature, which doesn't rely on specific stories. What other people say about the character will dictate how the section is written, so don't worry if a particular run or storyline is not mentioned. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Only if we focus on the traditional singular 'green angry dumb hulk'. Discussing the alternate characterizations (integrated green, shady, crafty Joe fixit), requires a bit more context. And that would still require eliminating a lot of the material about how each writer changed their approach, in favor of a singular examination of the iconic meme 'Hulk vs. banner, Id vs. Ego'. I really tried for an examination of how many writers approached the character, and how those approaches varied over time, and differed from each other. And I don't think that most of it focuses at all on Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde, not when Weinstein, or Grest & Weinberg are examined. G&W make more of the nuclear cultural reaction, Weinstein of the Jewish thematic ties. Other authors approach it in other ways. That many also use the J&H comparison is indicative that it's ONE commonly recognized theme, not that it's the only theme. ThuranX (talk) 23:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Focus on those comments and include them, but don't feel obligated to write about every version of the Hulk. What the writers have done with the character is not as important as what others have said about what the writers have done with the character. That is the key to writing a great Wikipedia article, in any discipline. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The other article intros are completed. ThuranX (talk) 05:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Look good overall. Bit irritated by taht IP deletion in the pwoers section; I thought real world attention was relevant, and the fact hat I mentioned a book already used as source seems like citation enough, no? ThuranX (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, ThuranX. Feel free to add back the deleted material. Majoreditor (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I already had; simply commenting on it back here. ThuranX (talk) 00:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

An IP has repeaetedly deleted the real world criticism/examination section of the Powers section. There's been no explanation, and there is apparent consensus here to maintain it, so unless some good rational is presented, I see no reason to allow the blanking. ThuranX (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Crouching Banner, Hidden Faust: Peter Sanderson's essay, which compares Banner to Faust, Hulk to Godzilla, etc. Very good source. Alientraveller (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether you want to put it in characterization or publication, Hulk: Transformations deals specifically with writer's changes to the Hulk's status quo up to Peter David, including emo my mom got killed Banner all the way back to Fixit. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you, I'll work on those. Wish yuou could've been this helpful the first time, david. ThuranX (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, Thuran. Since you guys have this under control, I'll just try and help with sourcing. Just so I'm not confused, you want publication history and characterization as seperate, correct? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I think so. If you look in the recent edits, you'll see I began the arduous process of sorting the two out, starting with the Mantlo era. I pulled far more into the characterization, and pulled it out of the publication, leaving just enough to be able to use Pak's commentary on the Mantlo era, which I think belongs far more in publication history. Seems smarter to have the external making of in pub hist, and the internal effects of the making in characterization (i.e.- reaction to a writer goes into pub hist, reaction to the writer's effects on the character into characterization). An example would be 'Pak raved over Mantlo's style of writing' in pub hist, but 'Mantlo's writing of the hulk has been observed to work the character into mystical realms as well as deeply psychological areas such as child abuse, which served to explain how the gamma radiation expressed itself in Banner as a rage-based character lashing out at the world around him'. Something like that. Your aid in finding sources is great. I'll do what I can with this over the week, I have real world social stuff tonight and tomorrow night, and installing new foyer lighting tomorrow morning, but late tonight I might start again. I've got a couple books from the library, in addition to the half dozen I've already got on my own shelves. I see you're kicking around at Iron Man as well, and that's a far more straightforward article for revising upwards. Supposedly it's A level, but I odn't think so. Hit that talk page and see what I've been discussing there. I'd like that to be GA by May 2 for that movie, adn this back to GA or up to FA by June for this movie. Both articles would really be great with the high real world content we're all working towards. I think that uninitiated readers who come here and see how much literary and social rooting Hulk has will be amazed, an the war connections at IM would surprise as well. that's definitely an article needing more academic sources. ThuranX (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

One more note, in the interest of further AGF and so on, I do accept your apology, David, and am glad you finally offered one. Your cooperative style editing in the last few days has been the sort we could've used from the get go. Let's continue in this style from now on, nad buff all these up to GA or better. For my part, I'm sorry for some of my reaction, esp. the POINT-y parts. ThuranX (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I've had worse :P I've replied to Iron Man on the respective talk page. May 2 is a lofty goal, but possible... Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 22:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

In Pop Culture section renewed.

I Retitled the parodies section to IPC. I know that IPC is frowned upon, but I think all of us can agree that being held up as a counterculture symbol is far more relevant an IPC than the typical 'OMGEVERY appearance evAR of the character' crap most IPCs are. It looks like I might be able to flesh it out even more with the cites int he section above, and this could be a model of IPC for comics project stuff. I certainly know, and have asked on that article ,that Captain America certainly could do with a solid IPC section, given how often he's been referenced in comparison to war heroes, politicians mentioning him, and so on. Thoughts? Please don't revert out of hand, but build consensus here first on this, I really think that a REAL IPC could be expanded here, with parodies being only ONE aspect. ThuranX (talk) 22:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Virtually Every Hero And Villain

"In forty years, he has battled virtually every hero and villain in the Marvel Universe."

That's quite a big statement to make without offering verification. If it can be said about the Hulk without proof, then the same could be said about any other comic character as well. This needs a source to verify it. --James26 (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it was added to reflect such crossover events as World War Hulk, and Secret Wars I and II, among other items. By the end of WWH, he'd taken down every team around, and since all the teams together represent the vast majority of teh heroes, and so on... but I'll drop it, becuase that sort of sourcing's going to be a problem. ThuranX (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a strong statement to say. Without proof this is an inaccurate statement. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. without proof, it's an uncited statement. The sky is blue. without proof, it's not inaccurate, just uncited. that said, I took it out, so really, why keep complaining about it? ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)