Talk:Nathan Petrelli

message: you made a good point.  I concede.  Although I still don't see why mine was erased and Attention stays.  they are both questions on the plot of the show and not the article itself.  On some pages I've even seen shout outs that don't get erased.  Now I wouldn't do that.  And I concede to your point.  I just don't see the difference on my section and Attention.
:As the one that did the erasing, it's a simple matter of not having seen the others. This was not personal, I am not singling out anyone (and please accept my apologies if it seems otherwise). Padillah (talk) 12:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ophois  

message: At the end of episode 7, during the credits, the actors were credited as playing Simon and Monty Petrelli. 24.14.120.92 10:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His sons weren't unnamed 

message: Howdy, is there any reason why, Nate's name in the info box is on a Red background? --DJ Chair 13:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A user preferred it. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 17:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Background Color? 

message: In one episode, Chandra Suresh's answering machine is playing a message from Petrelli asking for his vote in the race for New York's 14th congressional district. Is the district he's running in notable enough to include in the article? I guess there's no way to know if it is the same district as in the real world, but in the real world, incumbent Democrat Carolyn B. Maloney has represented the district since 1993 and is currently unopposed for reelection. Alienmercy 15:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely true, though the new campaign site seems to contradict that. Alex 03:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just in case it wasn't confusing enough before, now Nathan's campaign site (see link above) says that he has resigned from his "elected seat as Junior Senator of New York state".  Last I heard, he was elected to the House of Representatives -- not the Senate.  KC 15:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congressional District 

message: *In Nathan's political ad, do one of the scenes show him in front of the wreckage of the World Trade Center?DarthMaul431 04:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nathan's commercial 

message: We know he was a lawyer, but was he a prosecutor? He mentions the DA asking to prosecute? Usually, Assistant District Attorneys don't get a choice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.230.65.52 (talk • contribs) 22:48, November 28, 2006
:New comments at the bottom. Click the plus sign at the top next time. Why the excessive capitalization? Use four tildes to sign comments and try to remember to log in. I say that last part assuming in good faith that you aren't simply a GIPU impersonating a registered Wikipedian.
:All that is known is that he was a lawyer working with the DA's office. He could have been an Executive Assistant District Attorney, but his title isn't really stated. Anyway, since it isn't stated, we'll just say "lawyer". Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Previous Occupation 

message: Should his previous military career really be considered as canon? This is listed in the article, but I don't see much support for it in the episodes. In fact, Nathan once remarks that he doesn't know karate or have a gun. One would assume he'd know some martial arts and have a gun if he were in the service. Jkoudys 03:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of any US military branch that teaches martial arts.  But the military career thing comes from the political advertisement that was, IIRC, shown in the background of a scene in NYC (probably one with Hiro or Isaac), and also shown on nbc.com.  Perhaps this mention should state "According to a political ad...", so the source of this claim is more clear.  --ΨΦorg 09:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, just because you were in the military doesn't mean you had a gun while you were in the service, and thus wouldn't guarantee one as a civilian.PureSoldier 01:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm.. I could have sworn I heard a political ad in the backround on one episode mentioning Nathan serving his country in Bosnia.  I have n clue about the episode or the exact wording or scene, so I agree on the "According to the political ad..." but if someone finds that episode, it could confirm it as cannon.  I'm new at this, and I don't have episodes avialable to me, so I can't help.  Just thought I should mention it.DeaderRose 13:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Military Career 

message: I see that someone added that Claire is Nathan's illegitimate daughter. I want to bring it up for discussion: Should we include that word? I would consider it safe to assume, but do we really know if Claire is illegitimate? I don't think that has been addressed in the show or novels yet. Valaqil 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The use of the term "illegitimate" when refering to a child is generally frowned upon, because of it's dehumanizing connotation, and presupposes that the only legitimate way to have a child is within a (heterosexual) marriage. It's like calling an undocumented immigrant an "illegal". It's better just to refer to the fact that Meredith and Nathan were not married at that time (or ever). Alex 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By whom is it frowned upon?  It simply means what you said: a child born out of wedlock, in other words the child is not a legally legitimate heir of one or the other parent.  Any dehumanising connotations are the responsibility of the reader.  And if an immigrant doesn't have sufficient documentation they are illegal.  My wife has a green card (heck, she's married to a citizen) but if she looses it she's here illegally until the request to replace is put through.  We could fall back on the correctly defined word: bastard.  Would that be better? Padillah 13:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you could just say that Claire's parents weren't married, but the definition of illegitimate is "born of parents who are not married to each other; born out of wedlock."   Claire was born out of wedlock, that's a fact (she even called herself illegitimate), so I don't see a problem (unless it's not politically correct).  Arwen undomiel 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegitimate? 

message: Nathan was confronted by Mr. Bennet and the Haitian in "Hiros" and managed to fly away despite the Haitian's ability of power negation. Shouldn't this be noted somewhere? Is it Nathan's power to counter-negate the Haitian or something else?
It was never outright stated that the Haitian could negate all powers or it could also be Nathan's power is stronger like when Matt was still able to read one word from Mr. Bennets mind even with the Haitian there.
:Please sign your comments.  As far as we know, the Haitian let him get away, because of the connection to Claire, or as previously said, the Haitian might not be able to negate all powers, or he might have just slipped up. PureSoldier 01:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Haitian blocks mental powers, while Nathan's power is physical. 66.91.239.39 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I haven't really thought it through, but that might be possible.  The Haitian is able to block Matt's mind-reading abilities and Eden's power of persuasion, but did not prevent Claire from healing in Company Man or Nathan from flying.  Of course, he might be able to choose which powers he negates.  He wasn't attatched to Matt or Eden, but it he is working for Nathan's mother, so he might have allowed Nathan to escape unharmed.  The Haitian was trying to protect Claire, so he obviously wanted her to heal.  Arwen undomiel 16:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also there's a question of how close he got to Nathan before Nathan took off.  Maybe he simply wan't close enough for his negation to "reach" Nathan.  (Or, at least that's what he tells The Company).  Padillah 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Haitian in "Hiros"

message: I recently read one of the Heroes GN, and in "War Buddies Pt. 5, Introductions" we find out that Linderman worked with Petrelli in the war.. Petrelli already saw Linderman's powers in this graphic novel. Should we add this in? Nocarsgo 14:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graphic Novels 

message: As I'm reading the article I notice that "weelchair-bound" is very clumsy.  Can we state that she is a parapeligic or has this not been referenced?  Padillah 01:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In Six Months Ago, it was confirmed that it was due to a car accident. Also, this may become quickly irrelevant, as it's been basically confirmed that Linderman is going to heal her next episode anyway.153.106.4.94 15:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In "Landslide", Linderman cured Heidi and she stood up.  Nathan decided to hold on the news until he'd won and was in office.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnermisael (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is his wife a parapeligic? 

message: War Buddies takes place in 1968 and Heroes takes place in 2006. I'd find it odd that Nathan started walking at 2... shouldn't Nathan's be birthday logically be closer to 1967 making him 39 not 40? --Harlequin212121 20:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My son started walking at 13 months old and my daughter at 16 months old.  When my nephew was 18 months old and not walking yet we started to worry about him.  24 Months old is a perfectly respectable age to be walking.  Padillah 11:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstand me. I'm saying Nathan should have started walking YOUNGER than 2 and thus not be 2 years old when he is claimed to have just started walking. Thus, he's 39 and not 40. I wasn't suggesting he should have started walking later than that, otherwise I'd be saying he should be 41. --Harlequin212121 20:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what I'm saying is the spread of the average age of a child as they begin to walk is so loose there's no way it should be used to pinpoint an age.  Ask a doctor, you can't pinpoint anything from a child's developmental point of view.  Padillah 21:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If there are other things that would help actually pinpoint his age, list them so we can deetermine their fitness.  Thanks.  Padillah 21:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age concern 

message: Why didn't Peter just fly up into the sky on his own before he "went off"?  He could do it since he's absorbed Nathan's power.  That way no one would die.  Nathan didn't have to fly him up there. HipHopLives 00:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You already asked this on Peter's talk page.  I'm pretty sure that controlling the radiation so he didn't explode at that exact moment was using all of Peter's energy and concentration. Before Nathan lifts him, Peter says, "I took his power, Nathan. I can't control it. I can't do anything." I think this statement implies that Peter could not prevent the explosion, nor could he do anything else, including using another power--if he tried to use a power, he would probably lose control and explode then. Someone else was required to fly with him. Arwen undomiel 00:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: thanx, sorry about asking the question twice, i just wanted someone to answer it. HipHopLives 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Not true. In several episodes he's shown using multiple powers at the same time. Check your facts. 124.148.83.40 (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ATTENTION!

message: Hiro did not, under any circumstances, think Nathan's power was the ability to make food crispy!!!  He called him "Flying man"!  Yes he had an afflicted accent but what he was saying doesn't change.  Please refrain from changing it to "frying man", it's incorrect.  Padillah 18:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: what hiro was saying indeed sounded to me like flying man and in no way frying man. as an added note 74.104.90.230 21:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frying man?? 

message: Since the part where they showed Nathan's car accident was a part of Peter's dream, can it be considered canon?
Gavin Darkstorn 20:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am having a hard time remembering but I thought the car accident was more of a flashback by Nathan that helped us realise why he felt so guilty about his wifes paralysis (because he was able to escape but left her to crash).  If someone still has the epi on DVR please let us know the context of the "rememberance".  Padillah 19:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure it was in Peter's dream, but I think he asked Nathan about it. Ophois 22:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually happened, it is just that Peter also saw it in his sleep. That is how Pete knew Nathan was hurt before he got the phone call, like he told his mother in the pilot. The car accident happened during the events of the episode "Six Months Ago".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.126.102 (talk) 10:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dream sequence/First time flying 

message: I thought she was just driven away? That could mean separation. I know Matt and Janice are divorced but it never says Heidi and Nathan are divorced, does it? I thought it is stated that he drove them away. If someone can prove this with a quote and around the point (minute mark since I have it recorded), then fine. -Babylon pride 22:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus don't you need like a year of separation before getting divorced? Maybe I'm totally wrong on this. I thought I read that on Wiki somewhere. -Babylon pride 22:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I meant to say this above, but I think that "separated" is the best term to use for now.  KC 23:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. 'cause I was doubting myself there on what had happened. (Plus I sort of absolutely adore Heidi and divorce is bad, though the beard is worse...) -Babylon pride 22:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May be a moot point after the ending of "Powerless"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnermisael (talk • contribs) 14:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heidi's his ex-wife? 

message: when nathan looks in the mirror. he doesn't see a severely scarred version of himself he infact sees a severely burned version of peter. the burns being from the radiation 74.104.90.230 21:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he is seeing himself burned. Ophois 21:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  i find that odd ill double check the episode soon74.104.90.230 02:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually if you read the source it's an interview with the director of that episode and search for Nathan you'll find the reference to that scene rather quickly.  I've reviewed the scene on DVR and it's really tough to tell, even paused, who it is because there's so much burn tissue.  But if you look hard you can tell it's Nathan  Around the mouth and nose is what helped me.  Padillah 11:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  image in the mirror 

message: Did Nathan ever take office? He won the rigged election, correct?--RLent 15:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After all, with what happened to Peter, and Nathan becoming depressed, I don't think he was in the spirit to work as Congressman.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnermisael (talk • contribs) 14:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election 

message: Are there any oppostions to my new format (Electrobe (talk) 10:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as evidenced by the constant reverts. If you want to make a big change, then you have to discuss it first. List your reasons why you want to change it, and then it's possible that it will be changed to your way. Ophois (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  i dont feel like one person should make a huge change on the work that a lot of us contributed to, without disucssion first.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Formatt

message: Why was it decided to remove the data about Spouses, Parents, Siblings and Children from the first page character box?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abnermisael (talk • contribs) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data 

message: I found an interview with Adrian Pasdar.  In it he says Nathan will be returning in the third season.  The site is http://tv.ign.com/articles/883/883188p1.html but I don't know if we can consider this a credible source.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.161.126.85 (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It may qualify as WP:RS but it's also WP:CRYSTAL for anyone to speculate on the upcomming season. Remember, we don't have to scoop anybody, we have to get it as right as we can. padillaH (review me)(help me) 12:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is nathan revived from dead on the hospital after he was shot down ? who cured him ? it wasnt peter or linderman. --Fotte (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nathan's Alive 

message: OK, It was bad enough devoting an entire section to a single episode that was nullified by the season finale but to have an entry based on a brief comment made during a piece of one episode, now we're getting crufty. I'd like to get rid of the alternate future sections. They are outdated and invalid since Peter stopped that version of the future from happening. Yes, I understand there are references to the future in the new season but to keep the information on the off chance that it will be related to something that might come up is the embodiment of WP:CRYSTAL. We need to purge these sections. padillaH (review me)(help me) 13:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate future section 

message: I'm sorry but I cannot endorse the mention of Sylars powers in this article. They are unarguably Sylar's powers, not Nathans and placing them here gives the false impression that the two are linked in some way. Also, the recap of "Redemption" does need mention, if only to maintain context if/when Nathan does return, but I think it can be trimmed even more than is there now. We only need to keep the use of the body, but not much else. Padillah (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pasdar or not. You yourself said that it is the character of Nathan being portrayed. Ophois (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and given this twist I've updated my response. I wasn't counting on this kind of thing happening. To me the underlying physiology is more central than the outward appearance. I would put forward that the writers are using the appearance of powers to remind us that the person is Sylar, not Nathan. Padillah (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Redemption" and powers 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Nathan Petrelli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070316100535/http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/photos/general/15024.shtml to http://www.nbc.com/Heroes/photos/general/15024.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)