This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hulk article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

	Hulk was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 24, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed January 17, 2008 Good article nominee Listed February 27, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Comics: Marvel B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

• /Archive01 - To February 2006, inclusive.
• /Archive02 - To February 2007, inclusive.
• /Archive03 - To June, 2007, inclusive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(←)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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

{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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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 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"^[1]. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

This was split a month and a half ago [2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 — [3] and [4]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]