Talk:Powers and abilities of the Hulk

message: Aren't these just occasions when his strength wasn't at it's fullest? He's not like Superman with a constant strength - he has to get more mad to become stronger.
-G  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.112.88 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but it was a speed, not a strength reference. Dave 08:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind. I reconsidered. You're right, it is ambiguous. My bad. I've changed the wording. Dave (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hulk demonstrating lower end abilities

message: I thought I would state my purpose for this since it seems to be lost.  Contrary to what Gscshoyru  stated I did not create that section to say the Hulk is weak.  Wikipedia is supposed to be balanced.  If one does not include low showings and only high it is not balanced.  One could argue that the entire page would serve no other purpose than to say how great the Hulk is and why he is more powerful than everyone else.  Wikipedia is not the place to debate such things.  One could easily say the significant feats section is biased because people are only reading the Hulk's highest feats and think that is the way the Hulk is always portrayed.  Like any comic character different writers have different interpretations.  One issue the Silver Surfer is taking punches from super-strong characters without being hurt.  Another is he knocked out by a brick.  To give a more balanced coverage both section have to  be included or none at all.
Seekquaze  —Preceding comment was added at 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I suggested it myself after all, and have added half of them to follow up. Both sides seems like the balanced way to go. Different writers go different ways. One day he is more powerful than a Celestial, the next taken out by a gnat like Captain America (well, technically it was just a hallucination, but there was some other 'sleeper hold' instance). Then again, Silver Surfer was unable to break the grip of Black Panther, Thor was hurt by Mongoose, Juggernaut burned by a chandelier, and other instances. It's pretty much the norm for all characters to occasionally have really lazy writers, without any sense of logic and math whatsoever. If you compare the scale, it literally makes trillions of times more sense for Cap to be punched out by an ant, than him handling the Hulk, but whatever. I find it so silly that it turns hilarious. Dave 17:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That said, Gscshoyru is an extremely ethical and educated genius. He is beyond reproach in terms of being a matter-of-fact editor and trollhunter. It's nice of him to bother at all with this kind of hobby-stuff. The problem here was that you kept (router auto-?) changing your ip address without logging in. (You haven't even used the identity since April this year) That's generally vandal behaviour. Dave 17:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: See previous discussion. It's handled pretty thoroughly. It is relevant to state his shown degrees of power. If you wish to insert feats into Spider-Man's own separate powers page, feel free. It is also listing the low ends to showcase the other end of the scale. Regardless of the arrogant and nonsensical 'please' comment, the statement is completely accurate according to the math. It is indeed one of the funnier moments in Hulk's history. Dave (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Purpose of the "Lower end feats" section

message: This sounds like some fanboy stuff to me, unless there's a concrete statement to back that up it shouldn't be there, I'm taking it down  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.101.131.106 (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is thin air. The Magus is probably the physically strongest non-conceptual or higher-dimensional entity in the regular Marvelverse. He can grow to the size of a solar system. Hulk, Thor, Silver Surfer, and Gladiator could blow off planet-sized chunks of him all day and it still wouldn't even make him itch. Dave (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Strongest in the 616 reality?

message: Stating that the Hulk could originally, at most, only get as strong as Thor or Herc (well, technically Herc is supposed to be a bit strongerthan Thor, but I digress) is a severe misrepresentation. The case was closer to that his greater strength and stamina evened out their greater speed and fighting skill.
Regarding the early Thor confrontation, in "Hulk: The Incredible Guide" written by long-time Thor writer, and former Marvel Editor in Chief, Tom DeFalco even commented that Hulk was shown to have greatly superior power and stamina, enabling him to easily shrug off Thor's mightiest blows, but that the latter's greater fighting-skill was what evened it out. In the first confrontation with Hercules (just re-released in "Hulk vs. Hercules: When titans clash") Hercules was shown as unable to break his grip, and was forced to tip him over his head instead, so he fell off. 
"Match" was extremely generous of me under those circumstances. "Moderately enraged" was likevise very fair given that Hulk was not explicitly shown as enraged in either conflict. He needs a reason to actually be furious to multiply his strength many times over. Further, I don't think he even had the madder/stronger ability in his early days, and as far as I remember this was commented on in Bruce Jones' run on the book, where a Hulk clone was defeated and killed because it would take it several years to develop such an ability. 
Presenting it as Hulk both being near peak rage, rather than standard, slightly enhanced beyond his then calm "a few percent above the Thing"-level power, and that it was an actual stalemate in strength, rather than total battle ability, is a severe misrepresentation. Either we revert it back to the former, which might have been too generous from me to start with, or we simply skip it, as it doesn't really hold any relevance whatsoever either to his shown extents of power, or current enormously higher degree than back then. It's pointless nostalgism for the state of things 40 years ago, with no relevance whatsoever in the present, but I previously let it stand as it, then, didn't seem out of line. I'm reverting it to "moderately enraged" in the meantime, as the most balanced alternative, but it's possible that the entire sentence should go, sicne it seems to be causing some dissent. Dave (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thor is over to class 100 considering that the warrior madness upgrass his strenght of 10 times. therefore it is in a category to advanced part to class 100 of which hulk ago part. The videogames they are not official sources. Moreover the post it spoke about force originates them that for hulk (when it is calm) is 100 tons --80.180.166.198--  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.245.95 (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, first Hulk overcame Thor's warrior's madness strength with a single arm in issue 440. Secondly, this is not the videogames, it's the editorially approved role-playing game handbooks, which are more or less as official as the 'real' ones. Third, the 'class 100' limit is ridiculous, as even Spider-Man has been known to support multi-story buildings by exerting himself to his maximum, and both Hulk and Thor have demonstrated planet-shattering strength at the very least. Spider-Man is listed at level 10->20, but is hardly anywhere close to a tenth as strong as either Thor, Hercules or the Sub-Mariner, if we're talkign about the feats they've actually performed in the books, nor are Thor, Herc or the Sub-Mariner anywhere close to Hulk's 'overcoming Celestia-level power'/'overcoming the power of a black hole'/destroying a few hundred planets with the shockwaves of his punches' level. It's a very symbolic comparison that's really exponential and more understated the higher you get. A hundred tons is a few school'buses, that's it. The games admitted outright that it was a geometric scale, by listing the level of feats someone within each range could perform, and was the only place that gave any kind of specifics regarding the Hulk's upper limits (apparently level 35->36, or possibly 'just' 30). A Thor fan erased the statistics, from this page but they're still valid. Fourth, the latest handbook from the Word War Hulk crossover spcifically listed Hulk as exceeding the 'class' 100' level several times over, and gave no mention of starting at '100 tons', while Thor and Herc didn't get any such mentions in the same series. Unless you're just another irrational vandal, that's pretty much the end of the discussion. Dave (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Thor/Hercules comparison edits

message: I tagged the Shown higher extents of power and Lower-end power occasions as original research due to Wiki:Syn.  This listing of the Hulk feats in itself is not OR, but adding the qualitative values of "higher" and "lower" to create a range of strength is OR.  As the Hulk is a fictional character, instances of strength can be used to illustrate, but due to the arbitrary nature of writer embelishment and comparison  using other fictional characters and measures to contrast the Hulk's strength decreases the tone of objectiveness and thus the encylopediac nature of the article.  I suggest the removal of both sections, which would hopefully place the article closer to GA status. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't have the time to rearrange it, and it does explicitly state that it is a very rough estimate. Destroying a few hundred planets by the shockwaves of his punches definitely rank above breaking Colossus arms for example. Does anyone have an idea how to handle it? Dave (talk) 12:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "...and it does explicitly state that it is a very rough estimate" is a reflection of the non-encylopediac tone, in addition to the original research which still should be addressed.  I believe the removal of the section would be best for the article's quality.   -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: If it helps it achieve GA, then go for it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not persecution of the character of the Hulk or his feats, quite the opposite.  I feel the Hulks feats stand for themselves, and do not need comparison.  My primary concern is that the comparision in itself is a violation of a wiki policy.  I find the feats list to be enjoyable, but it is not of encylopediac quality and should rightfully be deleted. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 18:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Think I'm gonna go ahead and remove #Shown higher extents of power and #Lower-end power occasions. That ok? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a bad idea to remove the section, as it's a neat feature (and mainly because it took some work to assemble). Better to take away the "very rough order" bit, and simply list them. Dave (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been an advocate for the removal of the lists from the beginning, and garner my full support; however, it is clear that a lot of editors, present Dave's included, have invested much in their research, (albeit original).  Even the simplification of the list would not address the issue of original reasearch.  The lists should be simply deleted. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look, that's the kind of faux-bureaucratic nonsense-rhetorics that are frequently making my teeth itch. According to real-world Wikipedia policy virtually _everything_ we write in the comics sections qualifies as Original Research, since it's based on first-hand sources rather than 2nd, or preferably (?) 3rd part works, which is what counts towards 'notability'. There have been fanatic cleansings of any comicbook character (more specifically a manga-focus, while American counterparts have 'mysteriously' been left out) pages which do not strictly refer books and articles written about htem, even if this generally makes it impossible to write a useful and coherent article. The list is no more warranted for deletion than anything else on this page, it just so happens to list information that some heavily biased editors would prefer to censor. Dave (talk) 18:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original Research

message: Page protected for 3 days due to revert-warring. I am aware the references at the foot of the page are borked but I can't see why. If someone figures it out before the 3 days are up, drop a note on my talk page or use  and they'll be fixed. CIreland (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The references look a little broken. --- Paulley (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the sysop apparently did not see that the page was vandalised right before (s)he protected the article. Please revert the content back to this revision to undo Jtrainor's and CMJ147kitty's unhelpful and unexplained edits. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't need to use edit summaries and accusing me of vandalism for reverting you is not a way to get me to cooperate with you. Likewise, your supposition on another page that I am a sock of a banned user is both ludicrous and insulting, and I shall bring such edits up if you are silly enough to try to haul me to WP:ANI like you've implied you will. Jtrainor (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When have I made such allegations? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

text: No, what's disrespectful and outrageous is you continuously violating Wikipedia policy despite being warned several times and given links to read upon the policy. Nearly your entire edit history consists of trying to put the exact same original research into this and the Hulk (comics) article.Odin's Beard (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page Protection