Talk:Sunturion

Requested review

Iwas aske to look in on this here, so...

I've dropped this back to the least troubling version, the IP's.

As to why...

• The infobox becomes a bit of a botch:
  • This is an article on a character, not a team or group.
  • The 2 distinct versions have fully named alter egos. Using those for identification is easy.
  • Even if "Dearborn" and "Stone" could not be used, use of Roman numeral for "succession" - unless it is clearly used in the source material (OHOTMU does not apply here) - is to be avoided.
• Starting from the belief that the IP is looking at the comics directly at the 7 original comics or a reliable secondary source, there is a clear explanation for the armor being created after the character's first appearance and "death".
• The revamp after the IP is structured to minimize, almost to the point of hiding, the second character.
• Standing consensus is still for an in-story history of a character to be called a "Fictional character biography" not just a "Character biography". And the general rule of thumb is for cases of multiple characters to have a separate subsection of the FCB for each character.

Yes, the IP version needs a copy edit. And yes, {{reflist}} likely should be used, though with only 4 or 5 references, setting it up for 2 columns seems a might silly. Also, if the section is just cites, the "References" is fine for the title. More than that and it a "Notes"/"Footnotes" section.

- J Greb (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the edits I made (and apologies, my IP changes every time I log on, but I was the person who made the edits Asgardian deleted without bothering to first check the references I had provided. I am going to endeavour to upload two scans from the referenced issues that confirm what I have said - I feel these fall under fair use based on amount and substantiality (only a couple of panels per comic), effect on work's value (I would argue none, given the small portions being used), and because, in using it to settle a debate on the character for an entry on an encylopedia site, it fulfills the purpose of non-profit educational purposes. However, I am quite happy to have them deleted if anyone feels I am in error or once the debate is settled. 86.136.135.163 (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC) And I see that I can't upload images without being a registered user. So, in the absence of that option I'll quote the exact text: Iron Man #143, Sunturion/Arthur Dearborn explaining his origins: "Through an empirical process my mass was converted into microwave energy, energy that I could control to alter my form... I then volunteered as the entire crew of Star Well, for since I could be completely replenished by radiation from the sun, only minimal food, oxygen and living space would need to be alloted for occasional visitors." This confirms Dearborn to not be human, to not be wearing armour, and the reasons why he underwent the process. Regarding his resurrection and Mike Stone's suit, Dearborn informs Iron Man in Iron Man Annual #9 "Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. Therefore I merely remained dissipated in the vicinity of Star Well's splashdown until Roxxon developed the technology to reintegrate me. They tried once before -- an ill-fated experiment involving a Sunturion "suit" that was lost at see." This last piece of text has a note "See Daredevil #224" thus confirming it is referring to Mike Stone's discovery of a suit, and that said suit was not Dearborn's. 86.136.135.163 (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I did go and check the reference, but never got back to the article. The names were also going back in once checked. Apologies. The only thing that really needs a reworking in the weak colloquial language, as we just try for the gist. Regards Asgardian (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Also restored corrected text as JGreb missed the fact that the old CB contained titles; side bars in the references and fragments rather than complete sentences. This has all been corrected and it now reads quite nicely (with the corrected mention of the experiment with the second suit and how it was found). Asgardian (talk) 06:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• "Actually, I did go and check the reference, but never got back to the article. The names were also going back in once checked." - so why didn't you leave the edit in place until you'd checked the references? Why assume I'd edited in bad faith first? And now you've re-edited it to be wrong again. Once more, Dearborn is NOT wearing a suit. He is a being of energy, and the suit no more real than his human appearance. That's why the suit vanishes when he does - because it is him. That's why, when he recounts his origin he says he was converted to energy, not that he bonded to a suit. He says he can "alter his form" - not make the suit appear and disappear. That's why, in Iron Man Annual #9, Dearborn refers to a Sunturion suit with suit in quotes - because there isn't a suit in his case. His creator, who wrote both his original appearance and his restoration, took time to make it clear that the suit in the story written by a different writer, was not Sunturion's, because it couldn't be, because he DOESN'T HAVE a suit. That's why his counterpart, Stratosfire, who underwent an identical process, has a "suit" that lacks any helmet or most of the bulk - she chooses to adopt a more human appearance. 86.142.180.225 (talk) 17:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Contentious section

Please review this comparison as I'm going to turn the section into a "comment" until this is hashed out. That way neither version will be there to annoy the editors involved.

A few grounding points:

• Asgardian, you asked for an outside opinion/review. I'm sorry you don't like it. As part of that of that review I really have to take into account you left the article in a broken state and when you were called on it you responded with "Actually, I did go and check the reference, but never got back to the article." That does hurt your credibility in this. Editors do point to you as someone very knowledgeable of Marvel Comics as well as someone who seems to want to get it right. For you to go at this half-assed - and I really cannot think of a gentler term for submitting edits you are unsure of without double checking the sources first - brings into question how much of that respect for presumed authority is warranted.
• I'm turning the section into a comment because I don't have access to the 7 comics from which the FCB is drawn. By what you two have posted, I am assuming that each of you has a set that you can review. That's helpful, even if the good faith edits result in very different results.
• I am going to leave a note on the Comics Project talk page for others who have access to the 7 comics to chime in on what is contained in those books.

Now... on to the section.

Layout issue

• Minor thing, but since the lead and PH are unified - 1 section covering both characters - the FCB should be as well. That means "Mike Stone" should be a subsection of "Fictional character biographies", not a section in its own right. The way it is right now is awkward to say the least.

Detail

There has been a lot of effort put in to limit the amount of plot detail put into a FCB. The general rule of thumb is to exclude blow by blow or panel by panel descriptions. What should be included is what is need to clearly cover the character. Some of what has been jettisoned between the two versions does appear to be important. These include:

• The sequence of events from Roxxon's first attempt to reintegrate Dearborn to Stone finding the suit. The "before" is clear about that - re/creation, attempt, loss, recovery. The after is a little muddled - how did the events get from failure to recovery since there is no real mention of Roxxon losing the suit. And
• Just what is the character's origin.

Suit or no suit?

This seems to be the biggie here.

The before holds that in the characters origin the suit did not exist. That origin runs that Dearborn was augmented and converted into microwaves. As a result he could control his appearance and that one look he came up with was the "armored containment suit".

The after holds that the suit was created for the conversion process.

That beggars a lot of questions about the content of the comics:

1. Did Iron Man 143 or 144 show or describe Dearborn's initial conversion?
2. If so, was he in the suit?
3. At the climax of 144, when Dearborn dissipates, is the suit left behind as a shell or does it go as well?
4. In Daredevil 224, is Stone shown finding the suit?
5. In the same issue is the origin of the suit Stone uses give?
6. In Iron Man Annual 9, how exactly is the background of the suit presented?
7. Is it spelled out that the suit featured in the story is the one Stone wore?
8. Is it spelled out that it was or was not a recreation of a piece of equipment originally used on Dearborn?
9. Is it specifically stated at the end of the story that Dearborn is no longer composed of microwave energy?
10. In "Vibranium Vendetta", does Dearborn appear with or without the suit?
11. Is it stated that is still flesh and blood?

- J Greb (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, what we have here is overanalysis of a very small issue and a comic book that does not have all the answers and several plot holes (not surprising given it was 1981). Also surprising and unwarranted for a whole CB to get pulled. From memory there is a panel of the suit floating in stasis in a flashback, and it isn't too clear about how Dearborn actually got into the suit, but let's just say that he then becomes the suit.

To settle matters it could read "The Sunturion suit is developed by the company Roxxon Oil in conjunction with the company's genetic research division, the Brand Corporation. A willing Roxxon employee, Arthur Dearborn, is transformed into a being of living microwave energy contained within the suit etc etc. So, he's now like Starfire, and needs the shell - essentially his body - to function in the corporeal world. It is in effect, him.

Most of the other questions are superfluous and we don't go into that kind of detail in the CB.

No, there's nothing left at the end of #144, and Dearborn does return as Sunturion in the VV, and that can easily be mentioned. Anyway, the only contentious issue was the suit issue. Perhaps the IP user may like to comment when possible? Asgardian (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

In response to your questions:

1. Did Iron Man 143 or 144 show or describe Dearborn's initial conversion? - Yes. #143 does. We see Deaborn, naked from the waist up, his head inside a big clear casing and arms and lower body encased in a big machine (not the Sunturion armour), and his body glowing with energy. The next panel shows him "armored" but by then he's been transformed into Sunturion, so he can take on whatever form he likes.
2. If so, was he in the suit? Only after the process has been completed does he appear to be wearing a suit.
3. At the climax of 144, when Dearborn dissipates, is the suit left behind as a shell or does it go as well? Nothing is left behind. The writer of Daredevil mistakenly assumed a suit would be, hence the original writer making it clear when he resurrected Sunturion that the suit Stone found was NOT Sunturion's.
4. In Daredevil 224, is Stone shown finding the suit? Yes, we see him fishing it out the ocean.
5. In the same issue is the origin of the suit Stone uses give? It's treated as if it was Sunturion's. The later story where Sunturion's creator resurrects Sunturion, he has the character clearly state isn't correct.
6. In Iron Man Annual 9, how exactly is the background of the suit presented? It's not. Sunturion switches between human and "armored" casually. Stratosfire, empowered by the same process, does likewise, but her "suit" is much more form fitting and lacks any sort of helmet. If it was, as Asgardian suggests, a suit designed to contain their new microwave bodies, then they are very casual about walking around without the suit actually being there to do it's containment job. And all the powers manifested - teleportation, interfacing with technology, energy blasts, flying, force fields, not needing to breathe, are powers granted by being living microwaves, so it begs the question - if they are wearing armor, and that armor neither serves the purpose of containing their energies nor supplying a single one of their powers, what is the point of the suit? The only purpose the suit serves is the one Sunturion uses it for - to casually fool onlookers into thinking he is wearing armor instead of being sentient energy.
7. Is it spelled out that the suit featured in the story is the one Stone wore? It is spelled out that the suit Stone wore is not in either of the other stories - it only appeared in Stone's story.
8. Is it spelled out that it was or was not a recreation of a piece of equipment originally used on Dearborn? It is said to have been designed to try and gather Dearborn's dispersed energies. Nothing is said to suggest it was meant to a recreation of any equipment already used on Dearborn. If Dearborn was already wearing a suit, then had Stone's suit worked to gather Dearborn's energies, Dearborn would have ended up wearing two sets of armor, one inside the other. Which is more evidence that he isn't wearing a suit to begin with.
9. Is it specifically stated at the end of the story that Dearborn is no longer composed of microwave energy? Yes. And tellingly, when he loses his powers, he reverts to a man in business suit, not a man in a suit of armor. If he'd been bonded to armor, you'd expect that armor to remain even if his powers vanished.
10. In "Vibranium Vendetta", does Dearborn appear with or without the suit? Without, until someone shoots him with an energy beam - his powers return, and so to does the "suit." In other words, he couldn't possibly have been wearing the armor, yet, the minute he gets the power to alter his appearance again, suddenly he's got "armor" again.
11. Is it stated that is still flesh and blood? During his depowered phase, yes. At the end of the annual he states "I've been trying to change form, but no luck. The explosion must have changed my molecular structure. I can't become Sunturion any more." Note - "my molecular structure" - not "my suit's molecular structure."

Asgardian said "From memory there is a panel of the suit floating in stasis in a flashback, and it isn't too clear about how Dearborn actually got into the suit, but let's just say that he then becomes the suit." That panel is after Dearborn has his powers, so at that point it is him, not an empty suit waiting for him to enter. I'm not going from memory - I have the comic in front of me. And I don't agree with saying "he then becomes the suit" - there was no suit to begin with. It's just an appearance he takes on.

Asgardian said "To settle matters it could read "The Sunturion suit is developed by the company Roxxon Oil in conjunction with the company's genetic research division, the Brand Corporation. A willing Roxxon employee, Arthur Dearborn, is transformed into a being of living microwave energy contained within the suit etc etc. So, he's now like Starfire, and needs the shell - essentially his body - to function in the corporeal world. It is in effect, him."

Nope. That wouldn't settle matters, because it would still be wrong. There's no mention of Brand or Roxxon developing a suit as part of his origin - just converting him to microwaves. There's plenty of evidence he can be a solid human looking form without the suit - half the time he appears as the unarmored Arthur Dearborn. So that shoots down his "needing the shell." He's not like Wildfire of the LSH (which is who Asgardian meant, not Starfire) - he's aking to the Living Laser, a being of sentient energy. And in the same way the Living Laser made himself appear at one point to be the armored Titanium Man, Sunturion makes himself appear to be wearing armor. 86.136.85.191 (talk) 20:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

From the top:

• A degree of over analysis is needed here since we've got 2 good faith edits based on the same 7 comics giving two different interpretations of the mater. The only way to actually get additional info is to quiz you two on what is actually in the comics. It should also help identify areas where information not in the primary source has been assumed.
• "From memory" doesn't help in this case, it only makes things worse.
• Pulling it is about the only neutral way to keep it from getting tinkered with in spite of a discussion going on.
• And 86 does have a point - Suggesting that the issue be settled by acquiescence to one POV or the other isn't settling it.
• And a link was provided on the Project talk page to that covers the 3 Iron Man issues. the the best place to go, but it does provide a little context.

As for the questions...

The best I can see, there is a lot of filling in of blanks here in both versions. And yes, alot of that seems to come from "plot holes" and "comic book logic".

• The 3 panel origin is a bit vague. The Sunturion "suit" is shown in it, but it's never directly referred to as a "containment suit" or the like. It's also not revealed where it came from.
• For Dearborn at least they are consistent that "dies" or loses his power there isn't a suit left behind.
• It seems even less information was provided about Stratosfire.

Looking at what we have, I'd suggest that:

• Dearborn's section be written without reference to a suit in the creation of Sunturion. We do not know id one was involved or if Roxxon embedded a "look" for him to assume or his on creation since he was now "super human" and needed to look the part.
• Stratosfire gets handled the same way.
• The note about Marvel's change of mind with the "reclamation suit" should be included as a note. Speculation as to why it looks like Dearborn should be left out.

- J Greb (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Given there are continuity mistakes and the original comic isn't entirely clear, let's just say Dearborn is the suit, irrespective of views. My only real concern is the language. I'm willng to clean up the IP's original statement and go with that, although Stone finding a suit of armour that shouldn't exist is a bugger. May as well just ride over that one. Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally believe that the absence of any suit when Dearborn is depowered or dispersed, its reappearance from nowhere when he regains his powers, his use of the exact same powers whether in suited or human form (which means the suit apparently has no powers itself and thus absolutely no function beyond looking cool), us knowing the human form is merely a facade because he's actually sentient microwave energy (so why would the suit be any different), and Michelinie putting the word suit in quotes when he has Dearborn mention Sunturion suit (e.g. not "Sunturion suit" but Sunturion "suit") makes it fairly clear. Yes, the origin didn't explicitly spell it out, which is why you got what was meant to be Sunturion's suit turn up in Daredevil, and why in turn Michelinie made a point of clarifying that it wasn't his suit later.

However, unless and until further clarification can be provided to confirm this, I am fine with just leaving out mention of a suit in Sunturion's creation. I don't however agree to say that "Dearborn is the suit" because, again, that suggests a real suit actually exists - from my POV that's incorrect, and from my reading of J Greb's POV it's at least inconclusive there is one. 86.137.2.64 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the story shows a suit, and then in the next few panels Dearborn gets converted into microwave energy and then apparently placed in the suit. To me that suggests he is rather like Wildfire. Perhaps it would have more sense for Iron Man to find an empty suit floating nearby at the end of the story. Oh well, round and round. I'll take a first pass at it.

Regards Asgardian (talk) 01:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Guys,

• The minimal (3 panel) origin does not make it clear that an actual suit was involved. It can be assumed, at the very least, that the second panel shows Dearborn activating a containment suit or or Roxxon activating a pre-programmed visual representation. It is not clearly spelled out and we don't get to assume. Without a ref for one or the other all we can do is state "Dearborn underwent a process at Roxxon's Brand subsidiary that converted him into microwaves."
• The initial story really doesn't mention a suit but does mention Dearborn's ability to change his appearance. Nor does it mention or depict anything left behind after he "boosts" Iron Mans armor. Again, we don't get to fill in the blank one way or the other on it being a suit.
• Based on what is shown as sourced, someone at Marvel OKed the use of the Sunturion "armor" for the Daredevil story since that is it is referred to. The Iron Man Annual presents a different explanation for the "armor" Stone wore. Best we can do with that is spell it out fully, not pick which explanation we like.
• As far as Dearborn's powers and Stratosfire's go... again, we are not given a reason why most of the offensive powers are only shown when the character's are "in costume". We don't get to jump to the conclusion that "it has to be a suit that allows for energy blasts."

Does that make sense?

- J Greb (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I'm fine with that take. On closer inspection, a lot of the issues from that time have plot holes you could drive a truck through. Asgardian (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian said "Well, the story shows a suit, and then in the next few panels Dearborn gets converted into microwave energy and then apparently placed in the suit." - no, you are going from inaccurate memories. The story doesn't show a suit until after Dearborn was turned into energy. And "Perhaps it would have more sense for Iron Man to find an empty suit floating nearby at the end of the story." - if Michilenie intended Sunturion to be wearing a suit, yes, but since he went out of his way to debunk Stone's suit as belonging to Sunturion, I think the lack of suit left behind was intentional. Anyway, I was going to agree with J Greb's overall edits, but I've now got some further evidence. J Greb said "It is not clearly spelled out" - well, the recently released Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe volume 11 says "NOTE: Despite mistaken accounts arising from the Mike Stone incident, Dearborn does not wear armor. He is sentient energy, and both his human and armor forms are merely facades." Which I think ends the debate. No suit, clearly spelled out. 86.154.101.102 (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK... and before the "We don't use the OHOTMU" rif... That is actually a good and proper use of it. And that gets added to the notes. - J Greb (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

A little overemphasis on the wrong things creeping in...some of the changes are fine, and have corrected some spelling; fragments and plot details. The last section should be like the rest of the text - just the gist and on point. The murdered character certainly doesn't need a mention by name much less a bold mention as they are effectively a non-entity. The fact that a friend of Stratosfire's was killed - for discovering the truth - is enough.

Also, we don't go for that level of detail in TV mention as it is unnecessary. People can find all that via the link at the relevant page. The 2nd suit's trick to power is also a drawback for the wearer and should be written as such.

Finally, there's no need for that text in the first reference bracket. It is somewhat anal and unnecessary, as the reader is being directed to the OHOTMU Handbook, which explains everything. Asgardian (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

1. Stop editing now please, you are doing one of the thing you seem to rail at others for: Writing poorly and fannishly.
2. When citing a website, {{cite web}} is preferable to raw urls.
3. Full information about the characters only appearance outside of comics is more than acceptable, it is entirely appropriate and relevant.

- J Greb (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, you need to take a step back here, as this is becoming a tad farcical. First of all, some of your changes are fine, and I have no issue with those. That said, there is some still some weak and colloquial language here, and it needs changing.

The correct response to my changes could be several things, but it is not "#Stop editing now please, you are doing one of the thing you seem to rail at others for: Writing poorly and fannishly." I'm sorry, but you are not talking to a child, and I believe you to be in error.

The website tag is fine, no issue. That said, some of the language - and only a very small amount - is weak and should be more clinical. It is preferable to say "Originally the corporate symbol for Roxxon (as Iron Man is for Stark International), the female operative turns against the company when a close friend who learns about Stratosfire is murdered. Sunturion locates Stratosfire and activates her "Zed Control": a Roxxon-implanted self-destruct device that dissipates Stratosfire's microwave energies and reverts Dearborn to his human form.

as opposed to the clunky: "Stratosfire’s original function was as the corporate symbol for Roxxon, much as Iron Man functions for Stark International (colloquial and clunky) She (who?) turns against the company when they murder her friend Babs Bendix (unnecessary) as a security leak (colloquial term) Sunturion battles Stratosfire and activates her "Zed Control", a Roxxon-implanted self-destruct device that dissipates Stratosfire's microwave energies and reverts Dearborn to his human form".

You added unnecessary terms to the P & A, which should be present tense, and retained an error.

As indicated, the page for the TV series can provide all such information, as we don't add original air dates. This addition is not on any other page and there is a consistency issue.

You also need to address my point about the need for side dialogue in references. At present, you would appear to be displaying ownership issues, and over very minor points. Asgardian (talk) 04:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• That said, I've corrected a sentence I wrote to allow easier understanding. Asgardian (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I know you've said "security leak" is colloquial language - however, what you put in was incorrect. Roxxon didn't kill Stratosfire's friend for knowing who Stratosfire was (they were aware she knew and made no move against her, other than to monitor her); they killed her once she talked to Tony Stark. You've accused JGreb of ownership issues, but I'm beginning to feel that you seem to have those, as you have repeatedly come back in to edit this entry to the way you want it - if that was purely because it needed tightening up to meet Wikipedia standards, that would be one thing, but it seems that almost every time you do so, you change the text to make it incorrect. 86.158.45.129 (talk) 06:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• As you can see, I've altered the text to incorporate your point, and spelt out that Tony Stark is Iron Man's alter ego. If you can advise as to whether it was innocent dialogue or a tip-off, that can also go in for further clarification.

As to factual detail, if you check the top passage you'll see I accurately place the events of #143 - 144 in order, which we didn't have prior to this edit. Until you pointed out the OHOTMU reference, you could still argue the original comic either way, but as I said prior to you adding the above, I was happy to go along with the idea that Dearborn is just energy.

I've also accepted some of J Greb's changes. All that was needed was a polite tweak. So, not really ownership at all...

Regards Asgardian (talk) 07:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

"whether it was innocent dialogue or a tip-off" - between the two. She wasn't intending any harm, but spoke to Stark out of concern for her friend. However that was enough for Roxxon to decide she was likely to provide further, potentially damaging info, and to decide to silence her. It concerns me slightly that you need to ask; I don't expect you to automatically have the comic to hand all the time, but if you are going to edit content you shouldn't be working from memory. 86.158.45.129 (talk) 07:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• OK, we can slip that in. Heh, you might like to tell the rest of the Wikipedia editors that... Asgardian (talk) 10:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sunturion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

what is "velocity speed" ? 66.161.167.53 (talk) 02:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)tom

Last edited at 02:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 07:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)