Talk:Wolverine (character)/Archive 2

message: This archive covers a dispute in July 2005 regarding the "Powers and abilities" section. -- Netoholic @ 17:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

message: 1) The official entry from the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Issue 4:
http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/Marvel_Universe_Master_Edition_4a.jpg
http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/Marvel_Universe_Master_Edition_4b.jpg
2) The official index from the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe as included with Issue 2:
http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/Marvel_Universe_Master_Edition_Index (just the strength part).jpg
3) Wolverine breaking steel bonds with his bare hands from X-Men 111:
http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/X-Men111.jpg
4) Wolverine lifting at least 6 men over his head in Wolverine Volume 2, Issue 1.
http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/WolverineV2_1.jpg
5) Narrator stating that Wolverine has enhanced strength in New Invaders 6.
http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/New_Invaders6.jpg
6) Wolverine stating that he has enhanced strength in New X-Men: Academy, Issue 10.
http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/X-Men_Academy_X_10.jpg
7) The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004 last page with strength level of character on it. Strength level of character is level 4.
http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/Marvel_Universe_Master_Edition_Index.jpg (just the strength part)
8) The Index for all Official Handbooks of the Marvel Universe 2004 and 2005 (just the power levels part).
http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/Marvel_Universe_2004-05_Index.jpg
9) The Official Marvel Universe Entry for Wolverine on the Marvel Universe with Wolverine's strength level pointed out.
http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/Marvel_Universe.jpg
10) Wolverine breaking steel or iron chains yet again in Wolverine: Black Rio.
http://home.cfl.rr.com/paranoidlunatic/BLACKRIO.JPG
None of these images were fabricated.
(unsigned, left by User:Britney Spears on 06:49, 9 July 2005)
In the first place, you do not know what I am thinking. You merely assume what I’m thinking, and pretend that the assumption is a fact. You have never asked me what my thoughts are on any given subject, as it has been your preference to attack me and insult me. I do not think that stating something in three paragraphs is more “sophisticated” or “intelligent” than doing so in one, and have never said that I did. I have explained why I do think that my more-detailed entry on his powers is appropriate, and you have simply misrepresented it, as your invective about what I “think” is just a Straw Man argument on your part. Your assertion that I have attempted to make one side of the issue sound intelligent but distorted or omitted information for the other is also false, and you have not provided examples of where I’ve done this. As for an encyclopedia not being the place to state my opinion, I agree. This is why I have not done so. (Indeed, much of my small contributions to other articles has been to improve inexact wording or fix wording that is not reflective of NPOV.) I have simply addressed the issue of Wolvie’s strength, and provided the information that people who disagree on it point to. Not simply my own opinion. To refer to this as simply illustrating my own opinion is a simplistic distortion so blatant that it functions as a lie—quite interesting, given that accusations you level at me of “distortion”, which you never elaborate. An encyclopedia is most certainly the place for information, and since the issue of Wolverine’s strength is seen differently by different people, it is appropriate to mention it in an entry for the character, regardless of whether you think it is irrelevant. Your apparent position, that the entry should not mention his strength ‘’at all’’, is without merit. Reference sources should exhibit a certain modicum of detail. Not vagueness. Your accusation that I am deliberately trying to annoy anyone is also unsupported, and also irrelevant. The fact is, you do not know what my intentions are, and any viewing of my contributions to other articles shows that they are made in sincerity and good faith, and not with the intention of annoying anyone. The fact that you end up feeling annoyed doesn’t mean that it is my deliberate intention to do so, a distinction that you seem to be having trouble making, to say nothing of your inability to hold a civil discussion with someone you disagree with. It is interesting that I “won’t engage in discussion with you here”? How so? No one asked me to come here for a discussion, which I why I’ve so far conducted discussions on this matter on my own Talk page and on yours, a fact that you conveniently omit (yet another curiosity, given your own accusations against me of omission). The discussion here has only been going for four days, before which no one was discussing the matter here, and now, having just discovered the discussion here, here I am. So what? I have explained my actions to you more than once, and rather than successfully refute anything I’ve said, your own response has been to employ Straw Man arguments and insults. Nightscream July 12, 2005; 1:03am EST.
Ummmm... You are aware that you just responded to the wrong person, right??? That jumble of nonsense up there is really rude and incoherent. I'm not making fun of you either, but you really need to calm down and try to be a little more mature. ScifiterX 07:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Strength Level Links

message: This is copied from my (ScifiterX) talk page. 
"Call it like I see it" does not constitute reasoning, or a cogent argument. I have responded to your accusations and other statements by explaining why they don't hold up, pointing out your manipulation and distortion of words and their meanings, your unnecessary insults, and so forth. What you refer to as your logic is actually paralogia, and merely asserting that it is sound, or that I have done what you accused me of doesn't make it true. I have refuted your statements by showing why they are false, and you have been unable or wiling to do the same, preferring to respond only with rhetoric. I have pointed out that you have not provided reasoing or examples to support your accusations, which is simply true. Your statement that I have been doing what you said I did is a prime example. I made a statement about how an article being long has nothing to do with whether it makes sense. This is a reasonable statement. Yet you reply with a non-sequitur about what I've done. What exactly is that? You never elaborate on these comments, which makes them nothing more than rhetorical. Rhetoric and Argument by Fiat is veridically invalid, and does not validate your position. Nightscream 7.12.05. 7.12.05. 1:46am EST.
Wow, looks like somebody was busy with their dictionary tonight. I read this to two of my friends and they were just about rolling on the floor laughing. "Your logic is actually paralogia." "Rhetoric and Argument by Fiat is veridically invalid." How can I read that with a straight face? I mean really, I have never insulted the guy. But, he is being a nuisance and now he leaves me these little gems on my talk page. I see a new one just about every time I log in. Is he doing this because he craves attention or something? ScifiterX 07:19, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nightscream speaks

message: ::::Before I start I'd like to express my own opinion on this. Some writers clearly write Wolverine with moderately superhuman strength (about a 10th of what Spiderman has); sufficient strength to break out of a flimsy jail cell or tear a man's arm out its socket but not to toss a car down the block. Strength comparable to an actual gorilla. On the other hand, some writers do not write Wolverine with heightened strength. So there is contradiction over the matter depending on who is writing the story. Therfor the easiest way to avoid a mess is to simply state that "due to his constant cellular regeneration and the additional wieght and tensile strength of his skeleton he has great physical strength." This sidesteps the whole issue, is entirely accurate, and is a true appraisal without getting into this silly controversy.
These are erroneous and non NPOV statements taken from Nightscreams version:
:1) "Additionally, some readers believe that Wolverine's strength, agility, and reflexes are enhanced beyond a range attainable by normal human beings (or even humans in absolute peak physical condition such as Captain America)."
::Stating what readers do or do not believe is not NPOV.
:2)" Although the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe has long listed his strength as merely being within the highest level achievable by a normal human being engaging in intensive regular exercise."
::The Marvel Universe Master Edition Issue 4 clearly states that Wolverine's strength is enhanced human. Enhanced human is defined in the index of that handbook as a character being able to lift significantly above 800 pounds and less than 2 tons. This is the lowest order of superhuman strength. A an actual person doing steroids could reach the low spectrum of this range. The record for the overhead press (clean and jerk) in the olympics is 580 pounds, but there are people have broken that record by at least 200 or 300 pounds, through the use of dangerous performance enhancing drugs (strong man contests on television are the best example of this). 
::All 3 Marvel Universes that have been released since that time (Marvel Universe X-Men 2004, Marvel Universe Wolverine 2004, and Marvel Universe Age of Apocalypse 2005 all list Wolverine's strength level at level 4. Level 4 is defined in the index as being superhuman: range between 800 pounds and 25 tons. Marvel would not have made the same mistake in 4 different editions of the Marvel Universe (5 if you include the website).
::Nightscream's statment is erroneous, as it refers to an edition that was published 18 years ago (and wasn't accurate then) and ignores every version of the Marvel Universe published since that time. The Master Edition is the basis for all of the newer Marvel Universes released in 2004. The older editions from the 80's were mostly written by Peter Sanderson who at the time was not intimately familiar with the newer characters. To my knowledge he has never written an X-Men or Wolverine comic.
:3) "The text of the most recent edition, the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: X-Men 2004, similarly contains no mention of superhuman strength. "
::That is not the most recent edition to include a profile of Wolverine. Wolverine 2004 and Age of Apocalypse 2005 were both published more recently. He is ommitting them because they do not support his argument. Wolverine has "enhanced" strength. Wolverine 2004 explicitly states in the text that the tensile strength of Wolverine's skeleton allows his body to resist higher levels of pressure than a normal human allowing him to lift, in effect, more than a normal human. 
::Considering the X-Men 2004 edition does list the character at level 4, and contains an index explaining what level 4 means, that IS a mention of the character having enhanced strength.
::As far as the inconsistant text, it was text directly copied from an earlier out of date issue (Marvel Universe Deluxe Edition 16) published over 18 years ago. Very easy to verify.
:4) "those who allege such strength on his part point out that both sources contradict themselves, in that while the text does indicate this, the statistic gauges lists in these sources his strength level at 4."
::Those who allege? not NPOV. 
::The only source that contradicts itself is the X-Men 2004 version that copies a block of text directly from an out-dated issue.  This is easy to verify.  
:5) "These readers also point to instances such Wolverine #1 (1988), when Wolverine hoisted half a dozen men over his head and ran through a wall with them. Assuming each man weighed an average of 150 lbs, the total weight combined with their weaponry would be between 900 and 1000 lbs, which, to these readers, indicates that Wolverine is capable of lifting at least 1 ton, and that this elevated strength is not obvious because Wolverine usually relies on a combination of sheer ferocity and skill rather than brute strength. "
::This is misleading. There have been quite a few instances where the character has demonstrated enhanced level strength, and a few more were Wolverine himself (or the narrator) specifically states that he has enhanced strength (New Invaders #6, New X-Men Mutant Academy X #10, Wolverine Vol.2 #1.). In X-Men 111 and Wolverine: Rio he manages to break steel bonds, although it takes considerable effort on his part. Wolverine annual 2001 has him easily overpowering Vermin who can lift 1000 pounds. He has also managed to overpower the Beast although this was more through greater skill than sheer brute force. In other comics he has torn the doors off of cars, tossed steel girders wieghing at least several hundred pounds several feet in the air, etc, etc.
:6)" ...lack of any explicit indication in the comics (and indications to the contrary in the reference books) may suggest that these instances may be a result of artistic license on the part of the artists (who are generally not responsible for establishing facts about characters)..."
::Artists like, John Byrne, Jack Kirby, and Jim Lee, often co-wrote (or even entirely wrote) the comics that are responsible for establishing so-called facts about these fictional characters. Artists draw what the writers tell them to. This statement by Nightscream is actually condescending toward artists by suggesting they aren't involved in the writing process of comic books.
::As far as an explicit indication is concerned, I don't know what could be more explicit than Wolverine saying in a panel that he has enhanced strength. Or the narrator stating it. Both have happened in 2005. 
The fact is that some writers clearly do portray him as having moderate superhuman strength and some writers clearly do not. The easiest way to avoid this mess is with the statment, "the additional wieght and tensile strength of Wolverine's skeleton combined with his constant cellular regeneration grants him great physical strength". This satisfies both camps without sacrificing any accuracy.ScifiterX 06:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable statements

message: ::The problem here is, we have to follow the process.  Yes the current edit is the consensual position, and since Nightscream has indicated that he will not reach a consensual position then he should be listed at WP:RFC.  I've just done that, so can others add their voices at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Nightscream with how they have tried to reach a compromise with Nightscream, and the problems we're having with him here. Hiding 14:30, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
::I pretty much agree with SoM. I really tried to look for something in Nightscream's revision that we could add, and I just couldn't find anything. I did notice that it was much more well written and objective, but it still just adds allot of unnecessary minutia.  ScifiterX 20:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, you'll note that Nightscream continues to push his (new) version in deliberate ignorance of whatever discussion is going on here, and has changed the article to his version and been reverted by T-1000 since I posted the above message, ignoring the discussion here. - SoM 20:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No one believes you, Nightscream.  You are well aware of where the discussion is taking place and what is being said. The village pump section links here. Notes were posted on your talk page directing you here. Do you take everyone for a chump? SoM is not the one who is distorting here, you are. ScifiterX 22:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC against Nightscream

message: Thanks for responding to our request for comment.  What we are seeking to achieve is a consensual position on how the article Wolverine (comics) covers the character's powers.  We basically have two versions, the Current Edit and Nightscream's New Edit.  Please could you read through the two edits, and also the discussion and comments by the page editors, and then comment below.  Once again, thank you for your time. Hiding 19:17, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty much with SoM on this. Early on GingerM also voiced this position it you look up top.ScifiterX 20:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That last one was his sixth revert in 24 hours - I reported him for the 3RR breach after the fourth, and added his two most recent just there, but he still hasn't been blocked yet. - SoM 10:39, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 3RR breach? 3 Revert Rule Breach? I am not sure I follow. Would it help if others reported him also? ScifiterX 12:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, although if you really wanted to, you could leave a comment I suppose @ WP:AN/3RR#User:Nightscream. Be better if you could find an admin to do the blocking (see Special:Ipblocklist before you do, oc.) - SoM 13:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests For Comment