Comics: Marvel B‑class Low‑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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

This article is very light on actual real world content. Editors seem intent on including speculation about the character's identity, and on writing an overly long plot summary which substitues for issues missed by readers. Instead, this article should be considered for returnign to a redirect to the main Hulk article. ThuranX (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the Red Hulk was taken out of Hulk (comics) is because people were placing unwarranted speculation in that article (see this edit where i removed said speculation from Hulk's article)... this article is only a holding place anyway as in two/three months this hulk's real identity will be revealed and this article will be merged.. this was previously a redirect page that got changed every time somebody suspected some one else was this hulk.. i suggest we leave this information here to save people cluttering Hulks article and wait until his true identity is revealed.. plus Red Hulk isnt Bruce Banner or The Hulk so to redirect there would be wrong and confusing to occasional readers. --- Paulley (talk) 08:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you concern for speculation regarding the character and that is something as editors here we have to keep and eye on and remove. --- Paulley (talk) 08:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, the page was not repeatedly moved and edited. It was a stable redirect for a long time before you edited it into a highly speculative article; most of what I keep cutting out of here's being added by you. The reality is that this entire article could be distilled down to one paragraph in the other article, and in fact, that was how it was being handled. Remember that emphasis should still be on real world content, not in-universe plotlines. ThuranX (talk) 11:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was pointed to Rick Jones for over a month with no justification what so ever until it was pointed to hulk after issue two where Jones was revealed to be A-Bomb. After i created a quick stub article by removing much of the speculation for multiple paragraphs in the hulk article, you came and removed what you considered to be OR and publisher promoted information, which after looking at the edits i agreed with (i did not run back here and revert you or anything did i?)... afterward User_talk:67.180.225.161 added more speculation which you reverted and i agree with your decision to do so. There are several referenced real world elements regarding characterization and publication history, and yes i agree the powers and ability section need to be changed from its in-universe style while the fictional biography (well the title states its fictional but i could be changed also) is considerably condensed. When i came to Hulk article i was greeted with this [1] if i thought it was being well handled i would not have bothered to write this stub. --- Paulley (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I do note that you are working co-operatively, and I'm not picking on you personally in that regard. As for the Hulk diff you link to, I respond with this. I have been trying to give material a little time to coalesce on the Hulk page before reverting stuff out, lest I be too readily accused of WP:OWN violations. I pulled out the spec when it became clear that no improvements were readily forthcoming. A bit of patience being worth it. I'm willing to give this a little time, but if this storyline resolves soon, I really think this should redirect to the appropriate section of the main article. ThuranX (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as it the storyline is resolved this paged will be merged with the result, of that we can be assured no matter what the outcome. I never thought any differently on the subject. I just thought it would be easier to managed and source information regarding Red Hulk in a place that steers it clear of Bruce Banner and his Hulk. When the character is revealed the information here should be a lot easier to transfer over into that characters relevant sections. --- Paulley (talk) 20:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone see a similarity between the Red Hulk and Jabberwock from Project Arms? Both are reddish, both are calculating and tactical, both emit flames when they get angry, both have a tendency to get angry, both have the same colored hair to an extent.Metalraptor (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Hulk doesn't emit flames, he emits Gamma Radiation. And the other things are common in comics. Red is a popular color. And black hair is everywhere. Even on the floor. Rau's Speak Page 17:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source provided for his identity even states that it might not be true. Unconfirmed information has no place on wikipedia. Rau's Speak Page 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about facts here, not reader perception, and specifically not your personal beliefs. The fact is that JQ said it in an interview. The fact is no one but a select few people know the truth of this statement. It does not matter if anyone on this planet thinks or assumes it's a joke. You making edits based on your personal beliefs is the definition of 'unconfirmed information'.

Furthermore, the source obviously questions the validity to maintain balance by both pointing out your logic (a joke or not) and providing the facts. You state concerns that the source and the information is misleading. I counter that having the cited source included maintains a sense of levity to the questionable nature of the quote from JQ.

I think we all know that Ares isnt going to be Red Hulk (if it is my face will be very blue after this post).. However, the source provided isnt sourcing Red Hulk's identity, its sourcing that "JQ said... Ares"... and that is true the source provides confirmation that in an interview JQ said something about Red Hulk and Ares. --- Paulley (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't say for certain that he is Ares. I think that it is misleading to even suggest that he said that. People might get the wrong idea. I know the wording doesn't say that it is confirmed, but it is still misleading. Rau's Speak Page 13:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess maybe I am misunderstanding the point of Wikipedia, but I was under the impression it was about providing information. This information is valid, regardless of whether the storyline proves it to be true or not, JQ did actually say this, and it should be included as information on this article.

Well if people actually read it and look at the source then it shouldnt be.. though i can understand that a casual reader who did not read it fully could get the wrong idea but, to be blunt, that's not are problem. It clearly says that he "suggested it was Ares" and the source clearly states that this could be a miss truth. --- Paulley (talk) 13:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is about providing verifiable information. It's one of the core policies. WP:V. Is a miss truth the same thing as unconfirmed? Because if it is, then that means it is unverified. If it means something else, please elaborate. Rau's Speak Page 14:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well like i said the source confirms and verifies that JQ said something... until we can prove he lied that's all that sentence says. --- Paulley (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But saying he said something that is unverified is trivial. Rau's Speak Page 14:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. I agree with you there -- Paulley (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that for all intents or purposes, with no evidence to the contrary; Joe Quesada revealed the Red Hulk's identity in that interview as Ares. The source material questions the seriousness of the statement, but does not alter the context or modify the tone of the original quote. Regardless of any comic fans' feelings, this may very well be the case and is relevant to this article until knowledge to the contrary comes to light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apoklyptk (talk • contribs) 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont like the term revealed... the comic or the actual creators will reveal the truth later, what the sentence is telling the reader is that JQ said something and the source confirms that he did indeed say that thing he said, what he said means nothing at the moment. Which can be considered trivial; fan or not. This one claim from JQ isnt enough to confirm an identity and i have stated, we could not merge this article to Ares on that statement alone, the same way we couldnt put that Red Hulk's real name as Ares or even state on the Ares article that he is Red Hulk. --- Paulley (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they revealed that the Red Hulk was Doc Samson? Why is there nothing about that in the article. It's in Hulk 4 and 5. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they havent revealed anything yet. they found Doc Samsons coat that is all... it just another red herring.. Until we actually see Red Hulk transforming he has no confirmed identity --- Paulley (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might well be Doc Samson, although I personally doubt it because the mystery of the Red Hulk's identity has sparked a lot of interest. I doubt they'd want to reveal the identity too soon because they'll want to milk it for all that they can. As of the latest issue, it's not Ares since he's a member of the assembled team that's going after the Red Hulk. As I said, it might be Samson but I look for Marvel to pull up some sort of twist and have it turn out to be someone that no one expects. Whether that's a good idea or not would, of course, depend upon who they wanted it to be.Odin's Beard (talk) 00:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Samson, when he appeared in Thunderbolts there was no Red Hulk to be seen, even when Samson was fighting. *SIGN* 01:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is it could be anybody, and until Loeb actually shows us who its is, we dont know.. this is not a place to discuss speculation and the article is no place make up ideas.. (noting the recent repeated Glenn Talbot/Red Hulk edits).. --- Paulley (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is said that the madder the Red Hulk gets the hotter he gets, do we know if his strength increases with anger as well? The K.O. King (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Bruce Banner stated the madder he gets the hotter he gets in KSH but no information of strength level has been revealed so far. --- Paulley (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a correction: the Hulk series Red Hulk is in is volume 4, not 3. v1 lasted for 6 issues starting in 1962, volume 2 was renamed from another comic that Hulk had been a feature in and ran as Hulk from 1969-1999 or so (don't quote me on that end date), v3 started the same year v2 ended and was recently renamed Incredible Herc about the same time that Hulk v4 started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.230.60 (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there is a case to be made against giving it a volume at all; considering its not really a Incredible Hulk title. -- Paulley (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually where it is called just "Hulk" that would make it volume 3, after the two previous just "Hulk" titles: the 1979-81 magazine originally called "Rampaging Hulk" and renamed just "Hulk" with issue 10 and the 1999 reboot which became "Incredible Hulk" volume 2 with issue 12. Ttenchantr (talk) 15:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that became "Incredible Hulk" Volume 3. Volume 1 was the short-lived original series that lasted 6 issues, Volume 2 was the former "Tales to Astonish", Volume 3 was the John Byrne-led relaunch that later became part of the Marvel Knights line and is now "Incredible Hercules", and the current series would be Volume 4, if one were to give it a volume number. oknazevad (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in pointing out that I missed out an "Incredible Hulk" volume, but remember, the current book is called "Hulk" not "Incredible Hulk" so it should be "Hulk" volume 3 for the reasons I stated above. Just like "Uncanny X-Men" and "X-Men" or "Amazing Spider-Man" and "Spider-Man," "Incredible Hulk" and "Hulk" are separate titles.Ttenchantr (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

to Rulk! since that's what he's bein advertised as now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.8.122 (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being advertised and actual names are two drastically different things. *SIGN* 06:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agree, i oppose move as well. ThuranX (talk) 23:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case in point - Check out Doctor Who (name of the show and how he's referred to in the popular media) versus The Doctor (the character's actual name, such as it is)24.73.221.242 (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the character is listed as debuting in Hulk #1 - is it worth noting that appearance was only in flashback, and the character didn't properly appear "on-screen" until issue #3 (I believe)? --68.38.200.195 (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the Red Hulk was mentioned on Heroes ep 10. However it was first mentioned in the episode before that in the japanese comic book store. I remember thinking at the time that maybe they were in some parallel universe where the Hulk was red instead of green (evidently that is not the case now I did a search on Wikipedia) not sure if someone wants to change it to two episdoes rather than just eclipse part 1. Dark verdant (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

im in the process of rewriting it -- Paulley (talk) 11:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, cleaned up all the inaccuracies and poorly wikied stuff.. made mention of the important fact of Loeb. --- Paulley (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has tried to reestablish the Identity section, which was removed long ago, when it was demonstrated that Quesada's jokes about it being Ares were just that - Jokes. The section has a discredited joke and the standard fanboy 'we don't know yet'. As such, it was removed months ago. There being no consensus to reestablish it, and the above identity section being clear there was none months ago to retain it, I have again removed it.ThuranX (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is intent that the section stay, but has declined to use the talk page. This is likely to be a problem, because including a section that admits it says nothing at all does not belong in the article. ThuranX (talk) 14:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, we don't know if it was a joke or not. At the time of the interview, it could have full well been the intended truth. Saying it is a joke is speculation and was added to the section when it wasn't intended. The word "jokingly" has been removed.

Second, I have tried discussing this with you on your talk page, and my own. Here are the entries:

From your page, me to you:

If you look in the history, the 'characterization' section (which I altered to identity recently) was already a source of contention and it was decided it would stay. This was MONTHS before you came along and made the edit (without giving a reason).

When you clarified, you suggest the section has "innuendo" or "speculation" - it was fact that Quesada referenced it in an interview, and it is fact that the identity is unknown. Leaving the section as is gives no speculation as to the identity, but instead clears up rumors.

Please leave it alone.

From my page, you to me (and my reply):

Stop it. The section says NOTHING. Quesada made a joke. The section says 'quesada made a joke, it was shown to be a joke. We know nothing, and we're writing that only the writers know here on wikipedia.' It's a useless, uninformative section, and does not need to be included. ThuranX (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you stop it. This has been a mainstay for months and now it must go because you decree it to be so? And when asked to discuss you delete instead of replying on your own talk page. You keep coming up with reasons that do NOT justify the section's removal. The section alleviates rumors about identity and clarifies to the READER (not the editors) that this is not the case and the identity is unknown. It stays. --Apoklyptk (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Finally - the change to this page went without an explanation, and I did not notice. Mid last year it was agreed between editors to keep the "characterization" section intact. This is why your edit has stayed for so long. Had I noticed before I would be doing then what I am doing now. This section clears up rumors and establishes for the READER that the identity is unknown. We are stating what is known at this point in time simultaneously. Thus, this section is informative for the READER.

--Apoklyptk (talk) 14:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright. It appears that we've found the one Marvel Zombie who thinks Red Hulk is still actually Ares, and that Joe Quesada only speaks perfect truth. The section adds nothing to the article, and the info shouldn't be in there. You blame me for taking it out, if I did, it must've been months ago and stood without complaint, but I cant' recall doing it. If it's stood for months, then you need to provide a cogent argument for inclusion of discredited information and the unneeded 'we don't know anything' statement, which is "bad" writing and never should be used in any wikipedia page. ThuranX (talk) 15:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's resort to profanity. If you want to see the prior arguments made for keeping it/chucking just look higher on this very page (where it was agreed to stay). I see you made further revisions, and I thank you for abiding by WP:PRESERVE. Though I would contend that including a sentence stating that the identity is unknown will dissuade others from coming in with theories as they did before. As such, I am adding this sentence back in. If you see grammatical errors, please revise at your leisure. --Apoklyptk (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, Thuran is correct. An obvious joke made about the identity does not a section make. However since the identity mystery is central to the character set-up, if done properly you might convince me that it could be an idea to add a paragraph that simply lists the factual explicit clues without further comments. Preferably if there has been creator interviews or feature articles which (in seriousness, as far as entertainment hobbyism can go in that vein) go into this specific point. Dave (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was mulled over already in the above Identity section with other editors. Both of you please read it to see why the conclusion to include it was reached. I will try to sum it up, though. Saying that what Quesada said was a joke is in and of itself speculation. For all anyone but him knows, he could have very well thought he was dropping a big reveal in an interview that was changed later. Once you recognize that Ares=joke is an OPINION - you can see that this particular section is important, as it establishes proof that the identity has yet to be revealed. Just because readers of that comic or ourselves know this, does NOT mean that some casual Hulk fan does as well. I know if I were casually curious about the Red Hulk, and I came on this page to see who his identity was - and I see nothing - do I assume that the article writers don't know? No - I assume this wikipedia page is incomplete. You can see proof of this train of thought in the continuous edits by people listing their theories about the identity. It's much better to just flatly deny a rumor/red herring and state that it is an unknown.

On another note, I am very tired of defending this. All of the rebuttals and conclusions were arrived upon in the middle of 2008, - and the fact that it keeps getting deleted over and over and over again is exhausting. please do not be lazy - read the prior discussion and from there contribute your thoughts. Just blatantly deleting entire sections is not following WP:PRESERVE. Thanks. --Apoklyptk (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. Rau opposed it, and Paulley conceded that included unfounded spec which cannot be confirmed means it shouldn't be included, and called it trivial. Now two more editors concur that it should not be reintroduced, finding it even more trivial in light of the clear refutation presented in the comics. I'm removing the section. Four editors oppose it, you,and the IP you were before registering support it. While wikipedia isn't a vote, and numbers do not necessarily mean consensus, in this case they do. Four editors agree it should be out for the same reasons. it's gone. ThuranX (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While wikipedia isn't a vote, and numbers do not necessarily mean consensus, in this case they do.

And why exactly does this make an exception? Because you say so? Furthermore, the section being 'trivial' is your conclusion, one not shared by everyone else. David A. was even willing to accept an alteration of the section to keep it included. Until you can propose an alternate phrasing of the section, I am just going to keep coming back and putting it back up. There's not a consensus just because you say there is one, and I will not stand for just complete and total removal of an entire section.

On another note, your attitude is very insulting and your behavior is disruptive. You do not own this site, article or me. In addition to your tone, your constant use of "stop it", "it's gone", etc. is very arrogant and I have had enough. You're an editor, just like the rest of us. Act like one. --Apoklyptk (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You misread me. I didn't state it was an exception, but a case wherein the comments of editors constitute a consensus based on agreement about the nature of the material itself, not an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. Further, per PRESERVE, irrelevancy and inaccuracies should be removed, which is what has been done. You have failed to make any case at all for keeping material which has been shown to be wrong, and which was based only on a joke, and which had opposition to inclusion before, and has more now. Unless you can make a case for keeping it, there's no reason to keep it. ALl youv'e done is shout over and over that I'm wrong, and declare an edit war " Until you can propose an alternate phrasing of the section, I am just going to keep coming back and putting it back up. ". You need to explain, in clear terms WHY the material should stay after being discredited. ThuranX (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I already have explained my case, over and over and over again. When my argument remains the same and yours adjusts every time you reply, then who is "discredited"?. If you haven't gotten my point by now then I really don't know what to tell you and you are in fact employing an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. The section dispels rumors STARTED by Quesada. Almost all of the many arguments you have presented are only sensible if you assume that everyone reading this entry are readers of the comic and are following the story.

Also, I didn't miss-read you - please stop being manipulative about this. Attempting to gather support for your stance when their thoughts and yours are not one and the same is unethical and muddies the discussion.

Here are the facts: I instituted part of this section mid 2008. After some revisions and discussion, it was agreed to keep it intact (compromised with some changes). Towards the end of the year, you remove it without discussion or reading the discussion page to find its relevancy. Now, I am here again to defend this entry, and instead of compromising and coming up with an alternative (which I have TRIED to work with you on - see your own damn talk page) instead you just keep deleting it. If that's not instigating an edit war, I don't know what is.--Apoklyptk (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But why do you want this to stay so badly? It doesn't contribute anything interesting to the page? On the other hand the mystery element itself could be worthwhile. If you wish to keep it, go around, and look for feature articles and interviews on the Red Hulk. Then write down any clues mentioned there. Dave (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input David. As I have mentioned before, to the non-reader this is a way to clear up rumors. It is an assumption that JQ's comment was a joke, for all we know he could have thought that's where the story was headed at the time - the interview was way before the issue where Ares shows up. The point of this section is to avoid speculation by way of dispelling a rumor that was propagated by JQ himself. I do not believe that this section is saying "we know we don't know", I think it is saying, "you might have heard it was this character, but in fact it's not and it hasn't been revealed". This is informative to the reader.--Apoklyptk (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there was never a consensus to keep it. Further, since the insertion, the situation changed. Quesada's comment was discredited. There is no value in noting 'Quesada once joked that it MIGHT be Ares, which was disproved when Ares got his ass beat by Rulk an issue later.' It says 'we don't know anything, except that the creators enjoy making misleading jokes about it.' It adds NOTHING to the article. You never made a convincing argument for it, and I don't see a consensus above. You need to convince me now that it's relevant. Thus far, all I see is an editor rabidly defending his edit ,which he's too proud of to see gone. Further, the 'clues mentioned' approach, David, will result in him saying 'that IS the clue', and any real research beyond would be Synth. ThuranX (talk) 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had enough of this. I don't "need to convince" you of anything. What you "need" to do is go back and actually read what I write instead of continuously replying that I'm not giving any justification. I've mentioned the word "rumor" what, 6 times, and every single reply you come back with the word "joke". You're not reading this discussion, you're only firing off every time you delete and telling me I need to justify it. How can a discussion be had when you don't listen? This is the last time I am going to ask you to either contribute an alternative or stop being disruptive and move on to other things.--Apoklyptk (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've read what you wrote. It comes down to 'i made an edit and I want to see it stay.' See your comment on 23 Jan "I'm here to defend it". That's great, but it's been removed by three editors and argued against by two. You claimed the old consensus was to stay, which I do not see, but it is clear that current consensus is that it's out. Bold Clone removed it, I've added one extension to the plot summary to clarify, in context, that the identity is unknown, that's as much compromise as I'm willing to deal with. ThuranX (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(OD)It seems that any point this section ever had in being on the page is long gone. It's an obvious joke by Quesada, as if an industry secret would be revealed in such a way. Any possibility the comment had of being accurate has been disproved, so it doesn't belong here. Dayewalker (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=======

This is the LAST time I'm going to say this. Calling JQ's comment a joke is speculation and opinion. If you are removing this section because you believe it was a joke, you have the burden to disprove it as a serious comment to make it fact.

Also, let's make something clear - I do not care if 100 people oppose this. The removal of an entire section based off of fanboy beliefs is not how Wiki should be edited. I will also say this one last time: To the casual reader, this section clears up rumors that JQ may or may not have started intentionally (again, disprove) and asserts the fact that the identity is unknown.

So, again, either make appropriate changes to this section you're satisfied with to preserve it if it bothers you, or leave it alone; else prove your beliefs about JQ's motivation. Until one of these two things are satisfied, I will continue to place it. All further questions about my further revisions should reference this final entry.--Apoklyptk (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]