Talk:Speed (character)

"Speedster"

I can't find any reference to Thomas Shepherd using the name "Speedster." It is noted that he is a speedster, but I don't see him referred by any name other than his own anywhere. Chris Griswold 01:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help me with this? Chris Griswold 18:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. Chris Griswold 09:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Vision called him a speedster. He never used it as an alias.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.251.173.169 (talk • contribs) 12:38 July 1, 2006

Exactly. That's why this article and others never should have been changed as if it were true. We don't add speculation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGriswold (talk • contribs) 01:02, 3 July 2006

Hold your horses there, That wasn't me. Don't let me catch you falsly attributin thingsd to me again. -- Majin Gojira 05:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Tired. Sorry. Notice that I added an "unsigned" template and forgot to sign my own post.--Chris Griswold 08:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Relations

Alright, end this little wiki-war now by sitting down and talking about it. Speed and Wiccan are, according to Skrull Intelligence, Scarlet Witch's Children. As Well As Visions files.So it is not just speculation. -- Majin Gojira 16:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Every bit of evidence you've provided proves that it's nothing more than speculation, even by the characters themselves. Let's leave it out until we get more opinions, okay? CovenantD 16:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't ignore the main point. The only speculation is on Billys part--but he has TWO sources--two RELIABLE sources to cite from. Skrull Intelligence AND the Visions files. If you are going to call those into question, you better have some hard, solid proof that either of those sources has been corrupted or is lacking in the proper information. -- Majin Gojira 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. All those sources prove is that at one point in time the Scarlet Witch had two children, something that nobody is denying. It's the linking them to the Young Avengers members that is speculation. On the part of the Super-Skrull, or whoever gave him the information, and Billy. There is no PROOF that the Billy & Tommy are the same people. CovenantD 16:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To quote, from the very fist scan.

Super Skrull: Ironic is it not? Mar-Vel and the Scarlet Witch were my prisoners during the first Kree-Skrull war on earth. Now I owe my life to their sons.

Bill: But I'm not the Scarlet Witch's son.

Super Skrull: Of Course you are. You and your twin? The mage and the speedster?

Billy: The Scarlet Witch never had children.

Super Skrull: According to Skrull intelligence she did. Twin boys. Thomas and William.

There it is. In plain White and Green. The Superskrull STATES that they are the Scarlet Witch's children. Furthermore, do remember that all those in the Young Avengers Protocol the Vision had were blood-relatives of anyone who has ever been an Avenger. I linked those scans for a reason--do read them over again. -- Majin Gojira 16:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, SS was possibly referring to the babies with Mephisto's soul shards? It's an assumption on his part that they have been reincarnated, or whatever, into the teen boys. Once again, no conclusive proof that a connection between the babies and the boys exists. CovenantD 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The words chosen to convey the message show no degree of it being an assumption on his part. Statments such as "Of course you are" and "Accoding to Skrull Intelligence" do not indicate speculation but a statement. There is no "It is theorized" or a similar statement of doubt. And do provide solid evidence for your statements below. Sorry for the late reply, I had not noticed this statement. -- Majin Gojira 16:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

More daming evidence can be found from a Wizard World Interview:

WIZARD: When you come back for Season 2, what will the feel be? I know that a lot of Season 1 drew so much of its ideas and back story from classic Avengers tales, so are you going to keep cherry picking classic Avengers ideas, or will you be changing the direction a little?

HEINBERG: To some degree. Because Season 1 ends by finally revealing who the members of the team are, I think Jim and I are now free to explore their relationships more - and their relationship to the Marvel Universe. They're definitely going to be digging deeper into Avengers history, but it's also "Brave New World" territory for them.

Emphasis mine. Besides Hulkling, who else even came close to revealing their ties? -- Majin Gojira 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll freely admit that there is lots of "circumstantial" evidence that Marvel wants us to believe that there's a familial connection. They also want to tie this into the Avengers to get those fans, and misdirection will be a part of that. I'm not buying until proof shows up as it continues to unfold. Until then, it's all speculation. CovenantD 17:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What evidence do you have that the statements are "Circumstantial"? What reason or logic do you have to doubt the claims made? I see a lot of speculation on your part about a grand marvel conspiracy to mislead the readers. If so, what evidence do you have to support your assertion? You cannot dismiss the BOLD statements by both the creator and the characters within the seires as simple speculation without a reason for doubting their statements. State your evidence! -- Majin Gojira 18:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'm tired of waiting. Either answer the questions or I will remove all of the question marks on their parentage. I've given you ample time to assemble a "Reasonable Doubt", so I'm throwing down the gauntlet. Repond or conceed the argument. -- Majin Gojira 16:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no DNA evidence, no mystical evaluation, no statement that the two sets of boys have been compared in any way. There is no evidence one way or the other, just statements from characters. It's all guesswork. We need a third opinion before this can be settled. CovenantD 17:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to answer my questions. Instead, you have opted to repeat your unreasonable doubts. You have not provided any reason why the sources should be doubted. Even the assertion on the Wiccan (comics) page goes unanswered, another direct quote from the creator. Answer the questions, support your assersion of conceed. I grow tired of your stubbornness. I'll gladly agree with you if you can provide solid evidence that either sources cannot be verified or that the writer is deliberately lying to the readers or has motivation to do so. -- Majin Gojira

Anybody can say anything - without solid proof, it's speculation. That is basic logic. Sorry I didn't spell it out for you earlier; I didn't think that was a difficult concept to grasp.

Billy has no reason to believe what he claims other than some similarities and his own assumptions. The Super Skrull could have some hidden motive or have been lied to. Wouldn't be the first time he was a dupe in some larger scheme.

As far as the bit on the Wiccan article, I didn't see it until you pointed it out (this is the article on Speed) and it still doesn't prove anything other than the code name "Wiccan" may not be appropriate after all, which if anything counts against the Scarlet Witch connection. CovenantD 18:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You really need to read up on Suspension of Disbelief methodology [1]. I've already cited multiple peices of evidence, all you've done is dismiss them with fuirous handwaving. I don't like going on quotes either, but you have yet to produce a solid reason why to doubt either VISION or the Super skrull. Billy was never raised as a valid source. Your argument is utterly speculatory. Look at your own phrasing: "The Superi Skrull could" says it all. Until there is evidnece of such a hidden agenda, it does not exist.

And please, don't let me catch you in a blatant lie again: Fromthe Wiccan Talk Page:

"Allan Heinberg, in the letters page of YA 10, promises that in issue 11 Tommy and Billy will learn "the truth" about their origin. So what Kl'rt reveals in issue 11 is without doubt the truth. Das Baz, 13 May 2006, 12:16 Noon.[2]

You have yet to produce any evidence to cause reasonable doubt. -- Majin Gojira 18:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

"Reasonable doubt" is not the issue here. What there needs to be is absolute certainty before your hypothesis can be put into the article. The threshhold for inclusion in an article is having a verifiable source. If you can find an interview where the creators say unequivocly that these two are the offspring of the Scarlet Witch, then it should go into the article. For now, the best we can say is that the Super Skrull and the Vision believe this to be true. As the story is not finished, not everything has been revealed. It is not yet clear how the two boys could have been reincorporated after ceasing to exist when their essence was absorbed back into Mephisto (assuming that this hypothesis is correct). As far as I'm concerned, there is no rush here. We should let the story play out and then update the article as needed. --GentlemanGhost 11:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

1) I've already linked two interviews relating to the subject. 2) You're request for scientific accuracy is admirale, but utterly missplaced. 3) You STILL haven't producd any evidence as to why we should doubt either the Super Skrull or the Vision. 4) The next arc for Young Avengers (not including the crossover) is deedicated to finding the Scarlet Witch as indicated in both the comic and in interviews, with specific references to parentage--this story comes out in 2007. 5) The Mephisto question is the only aspect that has not been explained, but such a lack of information is not enough to warrent exclusion. If anything the full spectrum of data should appear on the article -- both sources within the book AND the interviews state the ties to Vision and Scarlet Witch, but the "certain detils" remain unanswered. You still have not produced any evidence as to why either sources should be doubted beyond "we didn't see them run any scientific tests", which is a highly unreasonable assertion given the situations both were questioned in. It's the near equivilant of doubting that Aunt May is really Peter Parker's Aunt because Mr. Fantastic didn't do a DNA test. -- Majin Gojira 13:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Promotional interviews are not the most reliable source. See: Infinite Crisis, the Sentry for details. Writers' intentions or ideas or hooks to get readers are not the same thing as what is on the comics page. When it comes down to the bare facts, we can only go by what has appeared in the comics. As for Aunt May, we know she is Peter's aunt because they know she is Peter's aunt. It's not a relationship based on assumption or belief. They know. Vision mentions the babies, and Billy immediately believes it's them. K'Lrt says that it's them only because they look alike and have similar powers. The thing is, no one yet can actually know she is their parents. --Chris Griswold 13:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

There is only one promotional interview listed, the other quote comes from the Letters page. Until the "Lie" is revealed, it should remain as the evidence states (or at the very least give a reason why he would be lieing about it). Since you admit we can only go by what appears in the comics, we have to go with what both statements...state. You still haven't discredited as being "assumption or belief to a point where doubting them would be logical. If you are going to blatantly igonre and miscontrue the evidence on a continual basis, I will need direct links to the relevant information to believe your statements as you have effectively discredited yourself. K'Lrt's statements occur first and were not conjuecture, but "Based on Skrull Intelligence" (he even has good reason why he should know that, given his original target). Vision provides the backstory on the situation and adds his own complacency in the matter. Then we have the letters page. Stated, Verified, twice. -- Majin Gojira 13:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how Wiccan & speed could be her kids, since her "kids" weren't real in the first place. They were just pseudo-illusions/constructs she made with her "Probability Control" powers, and were later revealed to be shards of Mephisto's shattered/scattered soul. Dr Archeville 17:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Do recall when the Scarlet Witch upgraded to "Reality Warping". -- Majin Gojira 17:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm chiming in with Dr Archeville and Chris Griswold here. It's speculation, plain and simple. Put in a line or a section about possible parentage if you must, but until it's firmed up in the comics (and no, I don't count letter pages because until you see it in the comic, it's rarely canon), you're extrapolating. Make the main history what we know without question. Then a 'Speculation about <name>'s paranatage has been made from <sources>, who have suggested that they are the reincarnated souls of the children the Scarlet Witch created. Much conjecture has been made as to their appearance and powers, and while interviews have stated that they are, indeed, her children, in the comics the only indication there of is K'Lrt's statements. There is much fan support for this to be true, however as of yet their parantage has not been explicitly stated as being that of Vision and the Scarlet Witch.' -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already addressed almost ALL of these arguments, so I'll stick with the new stuff. The Comment from the Letters page IS verified in the following comic (as the linked pictures indicate). I have yet to see any solid proof that either Vision or K'lrt were either lying or missinformed. Until that time, we have to accept their statements. -- Majin Gojira 17:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Once more, Ipstenu is the voice of reason.--Chris Griswold 19:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for your assertions

My civility is being strained by the lack of acknowledgement of several key peices of evidence, points and counterpoints. Please answer my questions or refrain from posting. "Me Too" is not a relevant post. Please provide either new information and/or new evidence. -- Majin Gojira 19:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The evidence so far

Vision: "The Scarlet Witch had some babies." Wiccan: "We're those babies!"

Super-Skrull: "The Scarlet Witch had some babies. I assume it's you."

It doesn't convince me. Both of these incidents were based on assumptions, and the similarities between the YA dudes and the dead babies. --Chris Griswold 18:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from Strawman Arguments. I've already presented the direct quotes and scans. -- Majin Gojira

Sorry, trying to use some levity. But in both cases, the babies are mentioned and then someone assumes that it's Billy and Thomas. As CovenantD has pointed out, no tests have been done, scientific, magical, or otherwise. I don't think you have any evidence that isn't circumstantial. I've been woding what a straw man argument was; thanks for showing me.--Chris Griswold 07:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is - is it just an idea that you dislike? Does somebody not want it mentioned at all? The characters in question seem entirely convinced of it, as do the rest of the Young Avengers, the (a?) Super Skrull, The Vision, The Avengers, and Jessica Jones. It's as definitive as something can /ever/ be in the ever-shifting continuity of Marvel Comics, and it certainly merits inclusion in the appropriate articles. Ekchuah 12:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not when you're both using the word improperly:

"n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial" - [3]

And before you say it, you have yet to discredit either witness.

Here we have two characters who say the exact same thing. A third who fills in minor gaps and two inreviews that essentially repeat the previous statements. There is going to be a third interview at this website's chatroom, so we may get yet ANOTHER confirmation. Even if we had only one statement, the conclusions drawn from it would be the same, but we have multiple. Until such time as they are directly contradicted, we have to go with what the series has stated. -- Majin Gojira 13:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is that certain characters believe Tommy & Billy to be the children of the Scarlet Witch, without any objective evidence being provided. Show us the fingerprints, the "ownership", or the Scarlet Witch being involved in any way...

I've seen many of these cases of fans rushing to a conclusion only to be proven wrong later. Barry Allen returning as the Flash, based on a costume in Infinite Crisis is a classis example. Even on this talk page we see somebody trying to assign a code name based on incomplete information. CovenantD 14:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

How long are you going to simply repeat your assertion without backing it up? Your example falls flat because of the multiple sources for this conclusion, as opposed to the single source for your examples. The characters believe it, and until it is contradicted or even question their conclusion, we must go with it until there is physical evidence one way or the other to contradict or support it--as you have provided NO evidence or reason behind your skeptisism despite being asked multiple times. -- Majin Gojira 15:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Two other editors agree that it is speculation. There is clearly not consensus to include it as fact. CovenantD 15:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum. Please answer the questions. -- Majin Gojira 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it's spectaculation at all. It's strongly supported by the books and by the statements of the author. It might turn out to be a red herring, but that's increasingly unlikely, and it absolutely deserves inclusion. Ekchuah 16:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Legal arguements do not pertain here. Whether there is "reasonable doubt" as defined in U.S. court of law is not germane to the discussion. What is important are Wikipedia's rules, specifically the rule against original research. Speculation, however well-argued, is still speculation. While it is true to say that many of the characters in this comic believe that the Scarlet Witch is the mother of these children, this has not been shown to absolutely be true. Since this is technically impossible (inasmuch as anything in a fictional universe can ever be impossible), it would be behoove us wait until an explanation is given before stating this as a "fact" in the article. --GentlemanGhost 19:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Legal terms were used to discred the concept, so I corrected them. I have yet to see a legitimate reason to doubt either sources for the information that would indicate a speculatory nature of it. I have been repeatedly asking for such information and would truely like to see it. As it stands, there is no evidence that any of the sources of information are speculatory in nature. If this is not true, please indicate where the evidence of this speculation is. I've been asking for far to long. Where is the evidence? -- Majin Gojira 20:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

So those against inclusion are just up and ignoring the comments made about what the author himself has said about the factuality of these statements? 24.62.27.66 22:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

All I've gotten so far is vehement denial and accusations of conspiracy. -- Majin Gojira 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Super-Skrull's statement is purely speculatory in nature. He's getting his information on the children secondhand, from Skrull intelligence. Yes, he unquestioningly believes it, and yes, it's probably true. However, he does not have firsthand knowledge of the children's parentage. How the Vision obtained his knowledge is even less clear. I will be much happier if we get firmer evidence of this — an omniscient narrator, a flashback sequence, an OHOTMU entry, etc. Cheers, --GentlemanGhost 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is omniscience the sole reason we have to doubt Skrull Intelligence? Not the best grounds to base oneself on. The Slippery slope that can lead to is frightening. -- Majin Gojira 20:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Middle ground

Okay, I tried to make a middle-ground subsection to Character History, that reflects the fact that in-world, Billy accepts the hypothesis that he and Tommy are brothers, while Tommy was skeptical. I don't put it past the writers to say 'They have powers like Wanda and Piotr becuase their souls were touched by Wanda.' It's not a clear cut 'these are Wanda's kids' answer, but since she didn't give birth to Billy and Peter, she's not really their 'mother' as it's classically thought. This is ... sticky. We have two characters ICly conjecturing that a + b = c, and they could be wrong. But. Even if they're right, the boys are Wanda's spiritual sons, and not blood-kin. The souls were reborn. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Right on.--Chris Griswold 05:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Though I would really like an answer to my question, this is an accceptable solution until more informnation is available. -- Majin Gojira

Sorry, Mahjin, there was so much back and forthing, I can't figure out which question you wanted answered... Feel free to re-ask me if you want on my talk page :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been wondering myself. So far, the only question I have been able to find is "Why won't you answer my questions?" --Chris Griswold 13:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Questions

Okay, here are the questions that have yet to be fully answered: What reason is there to doubt the statements of the Super Skrull and The Vision? (I phrased it in multiple questions, but this single question is the core of it). -- Majin Gojira 14:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Forty years of misdirection and retcons by Marvel. CovenantD 14:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Some characters are still skeptical. --Newt ΨΦ 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The Super-Skrull doesn't have firsthand knowledge. --GentlemanGhost 15:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally! First off, thank you all for responding! I might as well get started: Retcons need only be worried about when they occur (random thought: can you imagine what Wiki would have been like during the Clone Saga? I shudder to think!). Only Tommy is skeptical, but has not stated a reason for his skeptisism (unreasonable sketpisism is not very good). The Super Skrull got his information from Skrull Intelligence--what reason do you have to doubt it? -- Majin Gojira 15:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Skrull didn't cite his sources ;) I know it sounds twee, but Skrull just said 'because'. He says 'According to Skrull intelligence she did. Twin boys. Thomas and William.' And ... those aren't common names? Speed isn't a common power? Reality Warping isn't common? I don't doubt that Vision and Skrull believe their statements to be accurate, but they didn't show their work. All we have are their statements of 'You're the guys.' - Besides, I'm reading the story as 'Scarlet Witch took two souls and created 'sons' out of them. Your souls are those souls.' That doesn't make her their mother, nor does it make them brothers. It makes them former-life families, if Skrull's conjecture is correct. So far all Vision and and Skrull have said is 'Wanda had sons named William and Thomas.' and a robot is the daddy. Skrull's assuming that Billy and Tommy are the boys, which I agree is possible, but it's not certain. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Before I go into a full response I have to ask: What's "Twee?" -- Majin Gojira 20:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Twee. --Newt ΨΦ 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not exactly sure as to your meaning. Are you saying that we should not take their word on their say-so simply because it's what they say? How does that discredit the 'witness'? -- Majin Gojira 23:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying to discard their beliefs and statements because it's just say-so, I'm saying that them saying A=B does not make it so without a little proof. They haven't given us any rational for why they believe it except for names and similar powers. That's conjecture, and while it's likely and entirely possible for this to turn out true, all we have is a quoted history that could be inferred as meaning the boys are the twins, and a super intelligent being who thinks they are. But we don't know what Skrull is basing his observation on, and if he turns out to be forming it on bad data, even the most genius braniac of them all will come to an incorrect conclusion. Skrull said the boys are her sons, and Billy, who adores Wanda, believes it right away, possibly becuase he very much wants it to be true. But.

I'm not saying it's not the most likely conclusion with the information we have, but it's not the only one. And even if their souls are those of Wanda's sons, that doesn't make the current bodies siblings. It makes them related in a previous life. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I really won't be able to answer till monday at the earliest, but Allen Heinberg's recent intervew/chat session offered some interesting sound bites. Among them:

And according to Billy's theory, the souls of Wanda's twins inhabited the his and Tommy's bodies when they were dispersed from Mephisto.

I have the feeling that he's using the layman's definition of a theory. -- Majin Gojira 23:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What is "the layman's definition of a theory"? --Chris Griswold 01:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is meant when someone says "I have a theory." I would guess a hypothesis or, less formally, just an idea as to why something is or how to do something. This is as opposed to a scientific theory which is a rigorously empirically tested explanation that most fits the known evidence. That said, I don't know why the distinction needed to be brought up. --Newt ΨΦ 02:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Majin Gojira may have been using the layman's definition of a feeling. But that's just my theory.--Chris Griswold 06:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay wait a sec. This quote And according to Billy's theory, the souls of Wanda's twins inhabited the his and Tommy's bodies when they were dispersed from Mephisto. does not' say 'Billy and Tommy are Wanda's sons.' It says 'Their souls were reincarnated.' They're not her kids, they're the kids reincarnated (and please, can someone explain how they're older than Luna?) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The way Scarlet Witch alters reality, it affects time as well. For instance, in the House of M, the world had been that way for a while.--Chris Griswold 01:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

... Okay, I agree and believe it, but like Superboy Prime's punches, I don't have to like it! Bastards and their plots. How lame. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 01:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Much as I hate to muddy the waters further but the souls in question are fragments of Mephisto's. He is Lord of Lies. Also, the Skrulls aren't known for their accuracy, bearing in mind they cannot tell the difference between drawn pictures and photographs. It could easily be argued that Thomas and William never existed, the powers of the Scarlet Witch merely gave form to her wishes. I suggest waiting until there is unquestionable evidence before making assumptions. Mallanox 00:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

They are Mephisto's babies! Proof enough! I will make the change immediately! --Chris Griswold 08:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I find all this controversy a bit puzzling. It is clearly not possible to ever know if Thomas and William have the same souls that their namesakes did. For one thing the very existence of the Scarlet Witch's sons is less than solidly established; for another, souls are tricky things to detect, and in fact IMNSHO unlikely to exist in any meaningful form in real life, much less in fiction. The available evidence strongly suggests that Wiccan and Speed are patterned after Wanda's sons somehow and are probably their inheritors in some sense. But to question if they "have the same souls" is essentially meaningless, because it amounts to "are we allowed to call these different people equals to those other people"? And that is clearly an arbitrary call that does not establish truth, only preference. Luis Dantas 02:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Mutant?

I notice a lot of categories being added based on the assumption that Speed is a mutant. Has this actually been stated in a comic? CovenantD 20:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No. They need to go. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it will never be stated anywhere. All the "mutant-issues" seem to be covered in the X-men related titles, all the mutants from other titles seem to be living on another planet sometimes: no racism, no sentinal attacks, no mentioning of the topic at all.--Inugami-bargho (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Mebius' image

The Mebius user added some sort of weird Power Rangers image in what I assume to be a joke ... I'm not exactly sure how to revert the image back to the correct one, could someone else give it a go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.52.177 (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. For the record, it was Ultrman Tiga, Speed Form. -- Majin Gojira 21:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Speed.png

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

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Image deletion nomination(s)

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

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

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 28. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)