Talk:Powers and abilities of the Hulk

Hulk demonstrating lower end abilities

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)

==Strength==powers strengh

While reading the article I found something that trouble me: "Marvel Comics executive editor Tom Bt has officially listed the Hulk as possessing superhuman speed comparable with Thor or Spider-Man".

This does not sound correct to me, while Spider-Man does have incredible strength he is only at approximately Class 25 (ability to bench press approx. 25 tons or less), while the Hulk and Thor are at Class 100 (ability to bench press approx. 100 tons or more).

While I definitely believe Hulk and Thor share the same Class (as Class 100 is the highest), Spider-Man has never shown strength anywhere near their levels. He started out at Class 10, the events of Avengers: Disassembled (and his experience with the Queen) brought him up to about Class 15, the events of the Other brought him up to his current strength-level.

The references list the source as Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Hulk 2004 but I don't recall reading anything in that issue. However, as I don't have a perfect memory, I will check it out before removing the statement.

Yeah, but it was a speed, not a strength reference. Dave 08:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

People need to be careful with the part about the reference to the cover of the Secret Wars comic book that says he held up a "150-billion- ton mountain range.'Two things here: first, the cover of the comic only notes that he's only beneath the 150 tons, not that he's lifting the whole thing. Secondly, if one reads the actual comic, it is very obvious that the Hulk is only holding up PART of the mountain range, in fact, a very small section of it - a section that would threaten the superheroes with its weight if the Hulk weren't lifting it. The rest of the mountain range, however, is in fact on the ground and not being held up. --- Harry, Dec. 18, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry Yelreh (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It says he's directly beneath 150 billion tons. Giving a number would be meaningless if it didn't state how much he held up, and he just previously braced against the entire collision force of the falling mountain range, but you are right in that it said nothing about this being the entire weight, and that he only held up part of that. No mention about very small however. Regardless, he by far outdid this when shifting the continental plates of Sakaar. Dave (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Dave, the way it's written now is fine, but I just wanted to clarify why I said "very small." Of course there's no "mention" of it. It's in a COMIC book. By definition, not everything in comic books is mentioned or described with words. I encourage you to read and look at the illustrations of the actual Secret Wars comic book in question if you have not done so. The picture (inside the issue, NOT the cover) - as they say - is worth a thousand words. By the way, in my opinion, giving the "150 billion" for the number of tons isn't meaningless even if it's not referring to what the Hulk is lifting up. It still gives readers an idea of what kind of trouble the heroes are in; as is so often the case in comics, it makes it seem as if they are in a situation with no way out. --- Harry, Feb. 10, 2008.

Why this article exists

The value of Wikipedia is that although some editorial groups may take an elitist view of certain topics or subjects, this encyclopedia is open to endless depth and information. The Hulk may not even have an article in Britannica or Encarta, but here any interested party can gain knowledge on the very details of the character, his history, and what makes him worthy of note. A superhero is worthless aside from his feats of superhumanity. This article should not delve into temporary or transient instances of accomplishment, but if done right, it can expand the knowledge of the character to readers and give non-readers a feel for why the Hulk is worthy of mention to begin with. It answers the question "why is the Hulk 'super' anyway?" Kontar 00:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what the point of this article been formed. I mean this article pales in comparison to Powers and abilities of Superman or the Batcave, which are worthy of having separate articles. I was actually expecting to be even biggere than this, otherwise it might as welll be merged into the Hulk (comics) article. You can't just make articles about powers and abilities, simply because you like the character and think they're noteworthy. They were fine as it is in the original article. Even Mister Fantastic doesn't have the seprate article for his powers and equipment. Even if he is one of the most recognisable characters in comics, making this article is quite frankly, silly. In fact the only things that makes the article filled is his feats. So you tell me why this article should exist, when Mister Fantastic's powers and abilities are kept in the same article (and I'm not implying that Mister Fantastic should have an article on his article) Uglyguy2006 07:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters Hulk, Spider-Man, Wolverine and Captain America are arguably Marvel's most recognisable characters, much like Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman and Captain Marvel are DC's. That in itself should warrant the creation of this page, beyond the rich history of the character, as Kontar rightly mentioned above. Secondly, in the main page there were severe complaints about the section taking too much space, making an even further expansion until it turns as expansive as either of the two above-mentioned pages utterly impossible. So your essential point in that regard is inherently flawed, unless you wish to surround us into a logical trap where we're neither allowed to write more than a few paragraphs in the main article, nor let various contributors improve upon this page until it gain standards comparable with those for Superman and Batman. If you think it pales, don't complain, help out by expanding and improving the structure. Thank you. Dave 18:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I found out after writing the prior comment the Hulk article is too big. A solution to that problem is simply not to put too much information on it. It's no much that I don't want it to exist, simply that this article is clearly not ready to exist seprately. The fact that the articles on Powers and abilities of Superman and the Batcave had discussions on shrinking the article, shows how much information on the said articles there is. In comparison to this one, it almost says "why is this here?". Even in its original article, to me didn't look like it engulfed the article or anything. Even if I did contribute I'm not sure how much that would help increase it, if any. The point I'm making is: If this article exists, How much more is the Mister Fantastic article begging to have an editor make a "Power and abilties" article out of him? (again, not implying it should be done). I see this article was neccessary in shrinking the space of the Hulk (comics) article, but one solution would be to merge it back, but make the Hulk article smaller. If might not be as easy as it sounds, but to help out, I'm going to take part. I still don't think this article should exist, and it was created by fans of the Hulk, for fans of the Hulk rather than benefit readers who dont know anything about him, (I'm a Hulk fan myself) But if you do still think it deserves the right to be separte, please tell me and don't be rude. (A little fact to help your article: The time when Mr. Fixit resisted a blast from the High Evolutionary, though I can't remember which issue) Uglyguy2006 14:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually no, this article isn't so small that it warrants deletion. It's hardly a stub, and I've seen smaller articles with far less references awarded with B-class. We'll simply wait until others add more information. It's created for anybody who wants to go more in-depth about the character. Dave 15:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Uglyguy on this. I don't really see this article as being necessary in an effort to shrink the Hulk article, primarily, because the powers and abilities section wasn't too bad. It could've been trimmed down some of course. I see this article as existing for the sake of Hulk fans rather than existing for uninformed readers that want to know more about him. The article is essentially the old powers and abilities section, with each individual physical capability divided up into it's own category, copied and pasted onto a blank page and a section devoted to other signifigant feats, which in and of itself can be interpreted as POV. Marvel Comics, to my knowledge, has never really published a list of signifigant physical feats. Even if they had, they it probably couldn't be used for copyright reasons. So, in effect, one can argue that these feats are signifigant only to the creators of the article, or if they were added at a later time by another editor, and that makes it POV.Odin's Beard 23:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, POV would be to file in additional comments and theories rather than strictly matter of fact completely referenced listings, alternately seeing it as a personal project to delete it for personal reasons, simply because you interpret it as unnecessary for you personally, or have greater affection for other characters. Who has the right to decide that nobody has the right to choose for themselves whether they are interested? Nobody forces anybody to click further. Also, as I've told you before, and is readily evident by thorough comparison, it's hardly copied, and pasted. It's vastly expanded and with reworked structure. Further segmentation wasn't even my own contribution. I just made the layout a bit more attractive afterwards. This section needed vastly more room than what was afforded on the Hulk page, and detrated somewhat from publishing and history facts at even a semi-expansive size. Kontar made an excellent summray in its stead, which should be enough for those who find his abilities mostly irrelevant. We give everybody a choice. Dave 19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep the page, for being not even a stub, it's a hell of a lot better than Powers and abilities of Superman. What values it is the references, and the fact that it's written in a swell encyclopedic tone. And kind of like Dave said, work on the article rather than criticize for the sake of it. Lord Sesshomaru 04:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out that the article is in violation of Wikipedia policy isn't a criticism, it's simply a fact. The Powers and abilities of Superman article has been an absolute mess since it was first created, which was another article I saw no true purpose for other than being for the benefit of fans of the character. The purpose of the powers and abilities section for the Hulk provided a reader with information on what powers the character has and to give the reader an idea of the level of his powers by providing some cited examples.Odin's Beard 15:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite that policy? Near as I can tell, this article is well on its way of being a good article, needs a lot more expanding though. Lord Sesshomaru 15:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup it's far more heavily referenced than your average B-class, and with fully acceptable length. By my experience at Wikipedia 'fact' policies are usually cited and very narrowly interpreted by people with a very POV censorship agenda, and are frequently contradictory in this context. Dave 19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, there's WP:POV and WP:NPOV policies. It's all right there. The signifigant feats list, aside from being a representation of personal opinion, can also be classified as an indiscriminate list, which is pointed out here, WP:NOT#INFO. The fact that the info in the list is cited doesn't point out exactly what makes it signifigant other than personal interpretation. There's no censorship agenda with me. If it were up to me, then I'd add as much info about each character as possible. However, this sort of article, for the most part, would be right at home on www.marveldatabase.com.Odin's Beard 23:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's still not POV, that requires that I actually insert a point of view, rather than directly citing without further comments, as facts laid down by the source material. No speculation or hyperbole whatsoever as far as I'm aware. It is highly discriminate by strictly sticking to a very brief and condensed display of the most significant feats. That said, if you wish to insert comments that different writers portray him at wildly different levels that would be appropriate. A main theme of the character is that his power shifts depending on his emotional state, which gives a lot of leeway to play around with, and could be used in another mention, but there's a large difference between this and cutting it out entirely. The list shows the higher levels a rather wide variety of established Hulk writers have displayed him at, so the sources are spread out. Dave 16:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

May I point out the only reason it is hardly a stub is purely because this article is virtually the same "Powers and abilities" section, with a list of feats on it, and as I said before "The Feats" sections are the only things making it as large as they are, so really your argument on it not being a stub, is a pretty typical argument considering this article is largely the original section from the Hulk (comics) article. Also another argument I'd like to point is that if one argument for this article existing is because The Incredible Hulk is an iconic character worthy of having a separate article for his powers, then you might as well do the same for Wolverine and Captain America as I'm pretty sure their articles are significant large as well (unless your bias as a fan is towards the Hulk). But I'm sure many of the contributors to this article won't do that. I'd also like to point out that I did actually give you guys a little feat to help out your article (Although I didn't agree, and still don't for this article existing) and that was when the Mr. Fixit incarnation of the Hulk resisted a blast from the High Evolutionary that was supposed to reduce literally into goo or electrical components (I can't remember which), and ironically, none of you even bothered to put it into the article. This happened in the series during the Evolutionary War. So it's all good moaning about people critizing the article, instead of helping out, but when those same critics decide to lend a hand, none of you took it (then again, to be fair to you guys, maybe you don't know which one it is either).

The feats section is extremely concise and non-confusing in a 'statistical' manner, and hardly the main part of the page.

I added about 60% of it, including most references, and restructured(/tried to improve the sentence flow for) the rest.

As for Wolverine, Spider-Man and Captain America, these are not characters I know very much about. Hulk is. I'd be all for if other contributors, who have a great liking for the characters would build pages dedicated to them, but you can't demand that I should spend days creating pages for every major hero out there to justify this one. There are precedents in Superman and Batman (possibly others, but those are the only ones I know about) which is enough to validate the existence.

I had no idea about the Mr. Fixit contribution and can't recall ever seeing it (I'm relatively new in the Hulk section. 1½ months or so), but feel free to add it to the list if you wish. Dave 17:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As for the WP:POV argument, I'm actually not entirely sure if this article fits that despriction, but personally I'm not going to rule that out. From what I understand, virtually all the information came from the comics but as Odin's Beard pointed out, even that could fall directly into the editor's interpretation. So I'll be sure to look out for interpretations and proponents for this article should do the same. After all, this article was not the work of a single individual, and wass the collective work of others. As for the Powers and abilities of Superman arguemnt, In comparison to this article, it seems more to do with the general public's fascination with his powers and how they work than fan devotion as shown in the program The Science of Superman as science (or pseudoscience) explores how Superman does what he can do, and make that consideration as he's been around for nearly 70 years. The only problem is it has been hijacked by fans who want to instill it with every example they can think out, which inevitably makes it messy. But this argument isn't about Superman, it's about the Hulk and this article in particular. I think it it simply exists because somebody wanted to create for others like the person, and used the excessively large size of the Hulk article as an excuse to meet the convenience, and if I didn't know any better, I'd say it was planned (but I do know better, and I'm far smarter than that). Again, as my arguemant concludes, and for the final time, what actually gives this article article the right to be separate from its original section, when characters such as Wolverine and Casptain America have simply just a "Powers and abilities" section without having a separate article? And don't try to tell me Wolvie and Cap aren't iconic. Uglyguy2006 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All of the information came from the comics as far as I'm aware, and as for personal interpretation that's something nobody can ever escape, but it's cut down by sticking to minimalistic statements about what's explicitly shown. For example a contributor just wished to add some speculation that War Hulk could 'bitch-slap' Celestials based upon very vague statements from Apocalypse, which I edited out. As above, it also is spread around a lot of different writers.

If you check the history you'll also see that this page was crated because there was such a fuzz that the powers section had turned too large, and I was making it even larger, and that it should be butchered down to the current format to accommodate the concise rating of the page. Kontar gave me the suggestion, and I asked for objections, as far as I remember received none for 1-2 weeks and promptly took the time to create it.

Again Wolverine Captain America, Hulk and Spider-Man are arguably Marvel's biggest icons, and all definitely deserve powers and abilities (along with friends & enemies and associated settings) sections, but I'm neither the right guy, nor have the energy, time and interest to do so, just like nobody has had the energy and interest to create Batman/Superman counterparts for Captain Marvel and Wonder Woman, but those articles remain anyway, just as they should. Suggest them as teamwork projects if you like. I think it would be great to get more of these expansion sections for the main characters.

The reason I get annoyed is because I don't like censorship of verifiable, mostly non-confusing, facts, on a page strictly used as an expansion for anyone who selects to go a little more in-depth into a major aspect of the character. It should be their choice as long as the page meets decent standards. Dave 17:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't to make a separate page on every last superhero (as I always say). My point is that it is quite biased to go as far as to make this article because its original section is too large, citing recognisable icons such as Wolverine, Captain America and the Fantastic Four. That to me, has a simple solution: Merge it back but make it smaller. Again on the argument on whether this article should be created, I admit I didn't let my opinion known, atlough in the prior argument about this same subject, the answer was simply "no" (or another negative answer). Of course this was prior to the Hulk article exceeding standards. Personally, I believe that at one point someone would speak against, but (unsuprisingly) no one bothered. I was once new to this myself, so I didn't intervene as I felt I couldn't apply to the argument, and didn't understand the basis for the argument. But now I do, and from looking at it, I'm arguing merge it back. Uglyguy2006 23:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree. I'd much rather see that others get inspired to create more pages instead. Following your logic nobody would be able to take the first (technically at least third given Batman & Superman) step. Also, as seen here there isn't nearly enough space available in the Hulk page to give a worthy description, even with the very matter of fact format that is currently maintained. At least not if the mother page is going to reach GA standards, and given that some prominent regular contributors are very intent to do so, it would be necessary to marginalise to just a bit further than what's currently shown. We have reached the perfect compromise. There's no need to make a fuzz about it. Dave 18:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I assume the page will stay then. Shall I remove the merge tag? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The merge tag was removed by me. If any problems come up, it should be argued here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Purpose of the "Lower end feats" section

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)

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)

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)

>> I have to ask, why do we even need to list such "feats" for Hulk, in particular? Other Wikipedia articles of other comic book characters don't do such -- they just outline and describe powers, abilities, and capabilities. These sections for "feats" are pretty much glorifying the Hulk. Look at the "Low-End" section, for example. "Spider-Man reminiscing a hallucination about the at least 1.3*10^22 times less powerful Captain America withstanding the Hulk's blows and knocking him out."? Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.26.131 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Strongest in the 616 reality?

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)

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)

Cracking or denting Adamantium?

I remember the Secret Wars issue as Hulk making a crack which the Wasp flew into to disable Ultron's innards. Or at least that's the way it was translated locally. In issue 300 his grip cracked part of Alicia Masters' adamantium statue, but unlike the former it is somewhat uncertain if it was secondary adamantium, given the expenses othervise. Maybe it just had a coating? Dave (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

In the past, decades ago I mean, there are instances of characters damaging adamantium and so writers retconned the incidents later on down the line with the invention of secondary adamantium. Secondary adamantium was created first and foremost I think in order to explain away instances of true adamantium being damaged or destroyed in the past. Typically, true adamantium's durability, at least within the past 20 years or so in particular, is one of the things in the Marvel Universe that isn't typically screwed around with. And when it is, it's usually due to being exposed to molecular manipulation on a nearly unlimited scale (i.e. the Infinity Gauntlet) or through more conventional means of attack in storylines that, in the end, are revealed to happen in alternate realities/timelines. That way, there can always be the argument that the true adamantium in Earth-78890902 or whatever isn't made the same way as it is in Earth-616 continuity. The incidents with Ultron and the statue, at least in my opinion, are examples of writers ignoring continuity. Happens every now and then without any real explanation or reason. The Hulk is pretty much written right now as being stronger than ever so if he could dent or break true adamantium before, shouldn't be a problem now. Only problem with that is that during his latest scuffle with Wolverine, he repeatedly pounds Wolverine's head without even slightly damaging the adamantium bonded to his skull.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wolverine is a writer's convenience, since he has to survive. His flesh should also vaporise from the slightest blow from planet-busters like Hulk and Thor, but it doesn't. You're also trying to make a collaborative logic amongst a long line of different writers. It doesn't work. I'm aware that Kurt Busiek has made attempts to retcon various incidents. The Secret Wars one isn't covered however. Ultron wasn't scratched from Human Torch's nova-flame, and it wouldn't have made any sense for the Beyonder's power to recreate him at less than full capacity. Not to mention that the Thor incident with the even stronger Cap shield is irrevocable. Regardless, the question remains about the Wasp incident. Dave (talk) 20:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's all a writer's convenience. All the characters and whatever limitations are typically imposed upon them by one writer or another are thrown by the wayside in order to meet whatever situation they're written in, particularly if the writer happens to be a real fan of the character. The World War Hulk storyline is an excellent example. As to the incident with Thor and Captain America's shield, it's hardly irrevocable. It started out being part of the Earth-616 continuity, but the last Thor series ended after Thor altered the timeline so that he never appeared on Earth with the Odinpower, never teleported Asgard to Earth, never had the climactic battle set 20 years in the future in which Captain America, the Hulk, the Thing, Wolverine, and Dr. Strange are killed, never married the Enchantress, never had a son, and so on and so forth. The story may have begun in the Earth-616 reality, but it wound up as alternate reality. As to the question about the Wasp incident, the issue clearly stated Ultron was dented and not cracked open. Might not make as much sense, but it's a comic book. Logic and the laws of science and nature don't apply.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course it's all a writer's convenience in terms of personal favourism. Thor and Hulk both go up and down a lot. It didn't make much more sense for Thor to be defeated by an ordinary gunshot, than Hulk to be strangled by a snake. However, Wolverine and Captain America are the most glaringly nonsensical ongoing ones, since they're two of the main icons. Regular humans slugging it out with gods literally 10^24 times more powerful than themselves has always been a sure-fire chuckle-trigger on my part, but then again technically Hulk and Thor shouldn't be able to generate planet-splitting force without ramming one at a substantial amount of lightspeed, so whatever. ;) It's just the scale thing that tends to set my eyes rolling, but it's kind of funny so I shouldn't complain. As for recent Hulk, not nearly as much. He really has been shown way past that level on a few previous occasions, and the higher base had a solid explanation.

The Thor timeline was only changed from the point the nuclear device was about to destroy Asgard. His actions of hard-fisted benevolence, bringing worship on Earth are still in there. Also didn't he dent pure adamantium cylinder at some very early point? I seem to remember reading that somewhere. In any case, Hulk is arguably supposed to be the pootentially by far physically strongest Marvel hero, so I have no problems seeing him getting mad enough to crack it. What I do agree with you on is that the Hulk who did this apparently wasn't particularly mad, which made it make less sense. Although if you want an explanation we could always go with that Ultron strictly had a very thin sheet of pure adamantium coating, and Magneto had limited trouble manipulating the thicker metal in Wolverine's skeleton, with Ultron himself possessing a molecular manipulator that can do the same, and antarctic vibranium capable of the same feat, so it doesn't really take cosmic power to do it, which Hulk incidentally has been shown to reach very sparsely. Regardless, along with the shield, and possibly the cylinder, it's apparently the one instance that hasn't been retconned, although I might be obliged to remove the reference for issue #300. It was the base of the statue that was getting cracked after all, so we can't be sure if it was just granite. I'll try to check for that Wasp SW issue myself in any case. Dave (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Defeating Juggernaut

In World War Hulk: X-Men #3, Hulk defeats Juggernaut not by overpowering him but by using his own unstoppable nature against him. He allows Juggernaut to run at him and then uses his own strength to further accelerate Juggernaut to the point where even he can't stop himself.

I was wondering whether or not this was something worth noting somewhere in this article. It displays the change between the old Hulk and the post-Planet Hulk Hulk - the old Hulk would have tried to overpower Juggernaut instead. Hermiod (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

>> It depends whether you see a ring-out as a defeat. Juggernaut was still battle worthy and would have eventually returned back to confront Hulk, but Hulk didn't want to waste his time and thus continued to Xavier. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.26.219 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, he didn't defeat Juggernaut at all. It was a draw. They were deadlocked with no damage on either part. Hulk realised that it might take too long given the time limit, was irrelevant to his objective, and ended it as quickly as possible. It might be noteworthy enough to warrant a mention in the "As a result of the Planet Hulk storyline, the Hulk has been written with combat skills and experience as a military strategist and leader. Also, he wears armor and utilizes mêlée weapons." section.

But then again the crafty intellectual merged Hulk (my personal favourite) tried his way at reasoning with opponents instead of fighting them a few times, and was even willing to pretend crying and giving up to restore the honour of Talos, rather than being forced to kill him. I can't see this rather barbaric version going that far. Dave (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some dispute if we should imply that Hulk may have stopped The Juggernaut in WWH. The artwork is ambiguous at best. Show me one person who thinks it shows he stopped him and I'll show you five who think the opposite. So how can we imply that he might have? "He later seemingly repeated the feat without help. It was never resolved for how long this could be maintained". The first sentence is "he might have" and the second one is "Don't know how long it would have lasted" The second one reinforces that it in fact did happen. So is this really neutral? We have a comic panel that doesn't show one way or another but a wiki quote that seems to have it's mind made up.

So how do we resolve this? Well you could ask the author. In fact someone asked Chris Gage on the CBR forums if Hulk stopped Juggernaut in WWH. (And yes it is him. Take more than 2 seconds to look into it). His response was as follows "Juggy was trying to kick the Hulk's butt, not push past him or push him backward. So the question doesn't really apply in this case." So any mention that the Hulk stopped The Juggernaut in WWH should be removed. The quote is not neutral. To imply something that did not happen is simply allowing a bias to exist on this page that need not be there.TheJaff (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok...what the heck is the point of having "Severely impeding the movement of the Juggernaut to the point of nearly halting him completely [68]". Besides the fact that it is all interpretation. Nothing said on the page would imply that he "slowed him down". In fact one way to look at it was that from a dead stop The Juggernaut started to slowly push him back. Even if he did slow him down what is the point in having it in the "Shown higher extents of power" section? How is it a higher extent of his power if he "almost" did something. I don't care if it is sourced properly. If it is useless information whats the point? I could source all kinds of middleing Hulk feats and throw them on the "higher extents of power" page. Doesn't mean they belong there.TheJaff (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

How is it useless information? In the Marvel U, the Juggernaut is shown to be unstoppable through physical ability augmented by mystic forces. If the Hulk stopped him, it's noteworthy in an article that's solely about the abilities of the Hulk. Redrocket (talk) 07:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A couple things. 1.The line is question didn't state that he stopped The Juggernaut. Actually thats the only thing that matters. Explain to me why Hulk not stopping Juggernaut belongs on "higher extents of power" section.TheJaff (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The line in question has been the subject of debate, and the end result came from a compromise on this very talk page, I believe. If you disagree, make your case here and try and form a new consensus. Deleting it multiple times with no explanation doesn't help.

If the Hulk stopped Juggernaut, as he appeared to, he did something that I believe has been impossible up to this point in the Marvel U. It's not merely a question of physical might, such as breaking Superman's grip. This situation indicates that the higher extents of the Hulk's power actually can break a mystical spell heretofore unbreakable.

There seems to be a lot of random stuff under this category, a lot of which needs to be taken down. However, if you want to say that stopping the Juggernaut isn't as signifiant as smashing through Sue Storm's force field or taking a blast from Exodus, I'm going to completely disagree. Redrocket (talk) 08:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Your changing the subject. Unless you can explain why a statement that says Hulk slowing The Juggernaut down belongs on the "Higher extents of power" section. It needs to be removed.TheJaff (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't change the subject at all, you're just not answering it. I've explained twice now how the Juggernaut is shown in the Marvel U to be unstoppable on a physical level augmented by his mystical origins. If the Hulk did something no one else has ever done it certainly belongs here, especially when you compare it to some of the other less noteworthy events listed on this page.

It was never stated in WWH that he stopped The Juggernaut. When something like that happens it's kind of a big deal. To imply that it happened when it was not stated anywhere on the page plus havening been told by the author that it didn't happen. It is just allowing false information to show up on this page. Also slowing him down is a non-event. To have slowing him down as a higher extent of power just doesn't make sense. You have dodged answering this yet again. Explain how Hulk not doing something should be in the "shown higher extents of power" section. Until you can it will be removed.TheJaff (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on this page is not to delete this informaton, and assuming so is willfully removing sourced info from a wikipedia page. Your edits have been deleted by multiple editors, and you are now in violation of WP:3RR. I ask you again, as I did on your talk page, to revert your last edits which push you over the WP:3RR limit as a sign of good faith. Redrocket (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

As a sign of "good faith" I'll revert my edit for now. But unless you can explain to me why we should include information that was not specifically shown or stated in the comic that has been stated by the author of the comic that didn't happen. Then I won't go away on this issue. It seems like reverse logic that I should have to prove something that didn't happen. The burden of proof for even (heavily)implying that it happened is on whoever wants to imply it.TheJaff (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting your edit which was in violation of WP:3RR. Whether you will "go away" or not isn't relevant, I encourage you to continue this discussion on the talk page to try and gain consensus. I don't understand your objection to the event as written on the page, why would you think that event wouldn't be noteworthy, or show the higher extent of Hulk's power. Redrocket (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would you think it should be included? There is no reason to imply something that didn't happen for one. Plus to state that he slowed The Juggernaut down is a non-event. Besides the fact that the two statements contradict each other. First the page says Hulk probably stopped him in WWH. The next line is saying he slowed him down. One is wrong the other isn't needed.

But let's just delve into it a bit shall we. The Juggernaut has only been stopped twice. Once by Thor using his most powerful attack. The other by the Celestial empowered Horseman of Apocalypse. These were two rather large events. It was stated clearly what happened. There is no doubt. As has been stated, stopping the Juggernaut is very noteworthy. Then why was it not stated in the WWH comic? Why was it not implicitly shown? Why has the writer come out and said it didn't happen? If this is such a large event as we all agree it would be then why do we have nothing that implies it happened? The burden of proof is on someone who wants to imply it. They have to answer all the questions above. If that can be done then it is worth putting on the page. If the questions can't be answered, it needs to be taken off as useless information.TheJaff (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The author's original comment was that he never said that the Hulk stopped the Juggernaut, but that he redirected the momentum downwards, which is completely irrational. The ground would be far less than papier-maché to beings at this level of power, and the forward vector of the resulting momentum would still have to be negated. The image clearly shows the two of them deadlocked pushing towards each other, not punching in the slightest, regardless what the author intended, so it may be either a mitigating retreat of his original intention, to get irrate fans off his butt, or a similar situation to the Black Bolt scream. The author of Iron Man stated that he didn't intend it as a scream, but the author put it in, so it's still in continuity.

An image of the two of them literally deadlocked (for a few minutes or so?) can't be disproven in any way by 50/50 bias among cheerers/deniers. It's a solid irrefutable fact. However, we did get the ambivalent, either 1-inch moved backwards Hulk footprint, or simply using the ground to take hold to start with, but I'm leaning towards the former, which was the reason for me originally writing "or at the very least severely slowing him down" or something of that vein, but people kept messing with that, so I let the "it was never resolved for how long this could be maintained" stand, since it essentially boiled down to the same thing. I agree that rewording it to "Stopping the Juggernaut when Hulk had higher base strength, due to nexus-energies from Franklin Richards' pocket universe, but had lost his rage-factor. Possibly given help from the Celestial armor provided by Apocalypse. In a later deadlock, he seemingly either repeated the feat without help, or, at the very least, severely impeded the Juggernaut's movement." That's fair and accurate enough. Case closed?

Regarding the odd tidbit that a new user turns up from nowhere simply to make multiple edits on this page in particular, which has previously been under the scrutiny of certain sockpuppet-using people, (such as JJonz and Asgardian) for the sake of open discussion I'm going to, for the moment, compartmentalize the information to assume coincidence and good faith. Everyone has to start somewhere after all. Dave (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the thing. How can one imply something that wasn't stated? Or shown clearly for that matter? As I said above the two times The Juggernaut has been stopped it was a very big deal. Redrocket even emphasizes this fact that stopping the Juggernaut is a big deal. So whats the point other than to give a false impression? Even if the statement is neutral it still implies that the event did happen. Hulk either did something or he didn't. Like he knocked out Silver Surfer. Or he Stopped Juggernaut as War. As for Chris Gage. The only statement I have seen directly from him says Hulk did not stop Juggernaut. http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showpost.php?p=5411579&postcount=36 So again I ask. Whats the point in having that statement in there? It's not needed. To say the Hulk might have done something does not belong in "SHOWN higher extents of power"TheJaff (talk) 06:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

How can we have no mention of the Celestials when it comes to War Hulk stopping The Juggernaut? Apocalypse states quite plainly that it is Celestial power making it possible. http://img147.imageshack.us/my.php?image=apocwarcirclelp9.jpg Seems odd that it would be left out. War wasn't just Hulk with a change of clothes.TheJaff (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To speed things up (and since it's pretty old news/over and done with to me), I'm linking to my old full coverage on the whole stopping Juggernaut deal. Basically the entire topic was pretty muddled. Basically Apocalypse referred to using his technology to tap into Hulk's nexus-power, in turn derived from then-imminent Celestial Franklin Richards, in a mini-series named Heroes Return, which Peter David also wrote. It was tapping into/as usual glowing green with this nexus power that was explicitly shown to power him up enough to actually stop the Juggernaut, and I read it as Apocalypse referring to the 'Celestial-type' power the Hulk tapped into in the first place. All he really seemed to do was give the Hulk a near-indestructible sword, a goofy whip, a thin executioner's cloth piece with neural implants, and a skull cap that shielded him from distractions/his father's obnoxious ghost. On the other hand the then Hulk editor inserted a 'mea culpa/in retrospect/let's not shake up the status quo' comment afterwards, even tyhough the issue itself showed nothing of the sort. Meaning: A "possibly aided by technology provided by Apocalypse" or at least "likely", rather than "definitely" seems appropriate.

Regarding making statements of wearing Celestial armour at the time, Apocalypse only directly mentioned using technology from the Celestials when analysing the Hulk, not outfitting him. It's also not remotely used at the expertise or advancement that the Celestials themselves use it. Mostly reverse-engineered comparatively minor stuff as far as I know. Heck, in X-Cutioner's song Apocalypse's inner dialogue stated that he understands only extremely little of it, but that a little goes a very long way in this case. Dave (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The Thor/Hercules comparison edits

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)

The strenght of Hulk is not par of Thor and hercules's strenght. the original strenght of hulk is 100 tons, thor and hercules possess superhuman class 100 (over 100 tons), for madee macht with thor and hercules hulk must be very angry. In fact, he lost from Thor in past, because it has not made in time to become angry itself --80.180.166.198-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.245.95 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. The latest handbook explicitly listed him, as the only character exceeding the incredibly incorrect 'class 100' 'limit' many times over. Herc was unable to break his grip in the referred early story, and (long-time Thor writer) Tom DeFalco referred to the Thor fight that Hulk had vastly superior strength and stamina, but htat THor's speed and fighting skill allowed him to keep up. The official statistics of the 1998 Marvel RPG listed Hulk as able to exceed '30' while Thor and Herc were stuck at 19, with the upper limit of each category twice as high as the last. I.e. Hulk was listed as at least 2^11 times stronger. The 2003 game listed Hulk as possessing an enraged strength of 18 compared with Thor's 10, which I suppose would mean around 36 in the earlier system, or 2^17 x stronger. Please discontinue your repeated disruptive editing attempts. Dave (talk) 19:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Pak comments about Superman

Greg Pak commented that, with all respect to the 'Distinguished Competition', he didn't think even Superman would stand a chance against the Hulk at this point, so "possibly" is a misrepresentation, while "easily overcome" is closer, but I'm changing it to the actual quote instead. Dave (talk) 08:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The comment of Pak not ago text. An author marvel will always answer that a marvel's charather is stronger than a dc's charather. Between the other pak has received a letter from a dc's fan it said that it of superman and it has said: " I'll stick by my assessment" that it wants to say that has answered without to estimate. http://www.brokenfrontier.com/columns/details.php?id=836 --80.180.166.198--

As long as it's stated as an opinion of the writer of the story it's fine to include the reference. The writers for Marvel and DC tend to be interchangeable dcepending on whoever pays them better, so it's not like they're engaged in some form of company warfare. Dave (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Original Research

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).

• There is a pattern in the fictional bios.What is intrinsec to the character must be respected,and the fluctuation of power is intrinsec to the Hulk's character.Ignore that is a lack of respect to the fictional character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.5.244.220 (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Maybe make it smaller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.5.63.164 (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

"...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).

If it helps it achieve GA, then go for it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that is a persecution against Hulk' character and feats.The feats should not be ignored,and if these involves ohter characteres it must not be ignorerd just because your favourite character was mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.5.245.22 (talk) 03:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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).

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)

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)

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).

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)

Page Protection

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 {{editprotected}} and they'll be fixed. CIreland (talk) 11:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The references look a little broken. --- Paulley (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

When have I made such allegations? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I found and fixed the unclosed reference tag. This is not an endorsement of the addition or removal of that particular reference. CIreland (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you erase my edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.58.52 (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What is vandalism to you?What you dont like to read? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.58.52 (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a disrespect!Outrageous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.58.52 (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

Now till Thor's page have adapted to this pattern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.87.58.52 (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

This ref does not look like it passes WP:RS. As the ref implies, what type of game is it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an RPG. If I'm not mistaken, RPG stats are discouraged along with the various comic handbook stats.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

He's reinserted a part of my old addition. As for the apparently very flexible handbook policy, given how often we (rightly) use it, when it's the only tool available, as I've mentioned previously, never made any sense whatsoever to me. Wikipedia as a whole apparently considers noteworthy sources analysing the events as _more_ important/notable (which makes sense in a real-world perspective, but imho should only rate about the same about fiction), and these books do list the official editorial mandate from the company that actually _owns_ these characters. CHief editor Tom Brevoort himself oversees and allows/refutes every single profile, along with writing the statistics. You know, beyond the common fandom feeling of entitlement to 'always know/decide better' than stuff they emotionally disagree with. (That said, I seldom have an extreme view about anything, and do think it's relevant to list examples in blatant contradiction with paritcularly inane conveniences, i.e. the 'class 100 tons' scale to be taken literally rather than as a tool of official comparisons)

I'm not sure about Marvel's personal involvement in the role-playing games, but they must have been editorially approved to be allowed to be published, and are certainly just as valid as any other source, definitely compared to the completely outdated Thor/Hercules references OB inserted; which I _didn't_ censor out, and are technically just as immensely irrelevant as Loki being more powerful than _Doctor_(I hold my own against the Infinity Gauntlet for breakfast)_****ing_Strange_ (aka: the _by far_ most powerful Marvel superhero when at his peak) back in his introduction, apprentice to the Ancient One, years, which is to be taken as 'proof' that so is Thor in the present day, or for that matter stalemating the Silver Surfer around the same mid-60s era.

In this particular case, the 1998 (level 30+) and 2003 editions (level 18, with a scale apparently cut in half, as Thor and Hulk both had a base of 10) are relevant because they're the only places that we've seen some actual gauges of how much more powerful the Hulk can get than his base (which would be 2^10->2^16 x stronger), and would simultaneously get rid of that horrible 'virtually unlimited' notion. OB is a diehard Thor fan, so he may not like that these references exist, but they do, and they are just as valid as anything else, even more valid if we're going by the 2nd-3rd-hand sources trumph 1st-hand references notion. (I've obviously never warmed up to it in this context, but the whole 'contradictory regulations depending on what's convenient, as a pretext to get away with censorship, rather than going with what's actually reliable and fits the situation' weasel-bureaucratic notion that seems to pop up everywhere really, really, annoys me at this point. ~

In conclusion, I'd say that logically my original text (rather than the cut-off version that was reinserted) should stay, with some additional information OB requested at my talk, i.e. each succeeding level ranges between the upper limit of the last, and twice that amount. As well as the definite "class 18" _limit_ for the 2003 RPG, compared with a base of 10 (20 in the original), but OB has stated that he will continue deleting it whenever it appears, while somehow having no problem with allowing the "Loki is more powerful than Doctor Strange, and Loki is afraid of Thor" mention to stay. Well, that turned a bit more rambling even than usual, but I'm tired. Dave (talk) 19:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Look Dave, with all due respect, but you're talking out of your ass. You seem to be into it with so many editors that you're mixing me up with someone else. I'm not a "diehard Thor fan" as you called me and I don't know what these Thor/Hercules references are that you mentioned. If I were such a fan of the character, I'd make Thor's article part of my usual stomping grounds. I've edited the Thor article a handful of times over the years, mostly to remove vandalism or nonsense added by an anonymous editor. It's probably been 6 months since I even went to the article. I don't give a shit about the politics of Wikipedia, I just edit. If I see something that I know violates the policy as I understand it, I'll remove it. Handbook and RPG stats shouldn't be in comic book related articles. My entire life doesn't revolve around comic books, I don't know if "Loki is more powerful than Doctor Strange". I'm not some comic book historian. I edit where I know I can add something positive and if there's something I'm not sure of, I'll sometimes leave it be or sometimes I'll remove it. Often depends a source. You've rambled on and on and you've said next to nothing. The stats violate policy, I'll remove them wherever I see them. You gotta problem with the policy, then try to do something about it and stop going on these pointless rants. There's no attempt on my part to put certain characters ahead of any other, so stop trying to say what I am and what my motives are.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I´ve actually said plenty, just not in a format most seem to prefer, and I´m only into it with JJonz, Asgardian, and maybe TheBalance, but you´re right in that the systematic deliberate system-wrangling seems so frequent that it does blur together. If I see "Named himself after a Thor character + removes Thor-´disfavouring´ addition + inserts Thor-´favouring´ edit + apparently doesn´t mind Asgardian maintaining yet another extremely misleading statement" I tend to make an auto-pattern. But yes, you haven´t behaved like a weasel in the past, so I was probably unfair, due to gradually eroding to turn edgy. Sorry.

As for doing something about it, that´s a good point, but I´m not sure what I can do about my real annoyance, the dishonest system-kanipulation, beyond individually taking it to task whenever it appears, and hopefully making others aware of it in the process. I´ve never had a motivation to look into the more local statistics issue until now, and don´t know where to go about it, or if it´s worth the effort/any point, nor how to word the rule in such a manner that editors don´t uniformly wholly ´plagiarise´/copy copyrighted texts/works, rather than stretch the regulations for tiny inserts whenever it´s the only gauge we have for something, and it does not exceed 2-3 per page. (This one only used the upper strength limit and the handbook speed reference for example, since those were the best available gauges I knew of) That´s the problem with most laws, to avoid ´the letter´ to be used against ´the spirit´. Dave (talk) 05:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I´ve just checked up the oft-cited statistics rule, and it actually seems far milder and more sensible and ´suggesting´ than usually claimed, citing the same concerns that I do, i.e. in conjunction noting/contrasting when the handbook is blatantly contradicted, such as the far too low 100 ton strength scale, and not overciting to the point of copyright infringement. It also uses the word "discouraged" rather than "forbidden". As long as we don´t overdo it/use it sparsely, have plenty of alternate references, treat it as a source like any other, and strictly for comparison purposes, it should be ok. Dave (talk) 12:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but I think you're twisting it to suit what you want. Let's not play word games here. The project obviously doesn't want fictional stats taken from comic book handbooks or RPGs placed in the articles. Otherwise, there would be no statistics rule to begin with.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No I´m not "playing wordgames". I´m saying exactly how it reads to me. It´s stated outright that handbook references can be included if contrasted with contradicting sources, and that the 2 concerns are these potential inaccuracies due to fiction not being set in stone, and not to do copyright infringement. So yes, based on what I read there and my past experiences and thoughts on the matter, to me it very much seems like something to be waved around as an absolute for people like Asgardian to justify biased censorship, when it´s worded like a guideline to keep in mind, not a catch-all. Dave (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, this doesn't have anything to do with censorship to me. There's a consensus that these type of stats be removed from comic book related articles. It was a consensus reached over 3 years ago and one that I happen to agree with. The articles under the comics project looked more like bios taken from fan sites, often with information, particularly in the P&A section, taken word for word out of various issues of the OHOTMU. Some still read like fan site bios, but it's not nearly the mess that it once was. If you want the policy changed, the only shot is to convince the vast majority of active project members that it should be changed and then, basically, for someone representing the project's position to take it to administration. I'm not an expert on that or anything but, from what I've heard and read, administration almost never goes against a clear consensus from a project. The only problem is that most project members probably won't agree to change it, or at least that's the impression I have. The project as a whole, once again this is the impression I have, seems to agree that the articles much improved without the use of handbook and RPG stats. The only ones that add them anymore, and these instances seem to be few and far in-between these days, are new editors and anonymous IPs.Odin's Beard (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the concern is to avoid the mess of not quoting contradicting sources and word-by-word copyright infringement. It´s deliberately not worded in such a way that it turns into an all-inclusive catch-all in cases where this doesn´t apply. A wide variety of contradictory sources are noted, and only the barest snippets of information are used, so there is no problem with either of these concerns. It´s simply the only ´upper limit´ we have available. You can read through it yourself. You seem to misunderstand the extent to which it was written to handle the concerns. Dave (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

"Shown higher extents of power" needs to go

This section is completely over the top - we are a general readers encyclopedia, it needs to be cut down to one or two examples (not a 30+ bulletpoint list) and integrated into the relevant prose sections of this article. Which examples do we think are a) most notable and b) most accessible to people unfamilar with the subject? --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Trimming it down from the unnecessary is a valid point, as are the two criterias. Two examples is far too low though. Even the lower occasions would eclipse it, and this page is supposed to be extensive. As for the higher/lower ends sections they're there for some sort of balance. The ones you can stick a real-life 'weight' to are in the strength section, and most durability/healing etc 'feats' are similarly stuck to the appropriate regions, while the more indeterminate displays are in the p&a section. Still, quite a few of them could be moved, the Gladiator occasion is the only instance I know of that the Hulk's skin has actually been burned straight through for example, and I think there are a few duplicates overenthusiastic visitors have copied down. Dave (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I've started trimming a bit now. Will do more in the coming days. Dave (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just an observation... the "extreme" ends should be limited to a few overall low end and a few overall high end since the idea points out how flexible/inconsistent the stories have been. That being said, even the examples of the character's "average" abilities should be kept to a minimum. - J Greb (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

And as an image aside... The Strength and Durability images are also decorative. I wasn't kidding in the merge discusion: only the healing factor image illustrates a hard ro describe concept. - J Greb (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, 3 images are within the limit I think, and 1 each for one of his major sections seems reasonable since it's not merely for decoration/keeping up reader attention-span but to illustrate that we're not merely making this stuff up, but I suppose that it's not a complete disaster to remove them, just unnecessary.

In any case I've made an effort to restructure the page, and compress or cleanse away redundant references. Dave (talk) 19:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I get the message, Clean-up of this mess will not be allowed. Fine - let's all waste our time at AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. I made an effort to restructure the page and delete and redundancies. Then asked for help to beautify the text. Dave (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually that's the wrong message.

Since there was actually an attempt to improve the article and that it was only a single purpose IP that reverted it without supplying edit summaries, I've semi-protected the page.

(sigh) - J Greb (talk)

Even so - after cleaning it up, I'm now convinced that merging is the wrong idea and the article should be AFD (which I have done). There is simply not the material available to write an article that meets our standards and conforms to a real world perspective. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally I want other editors to simply help me improve it. There is no good reason for it to be specifically targeted when all the other, far less well-referenced sub-pages can stay along with any minor character and storyline in existence. Dave (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The last month

WTF!! is all I can basically say after seeing the changes I say that because of the last month let me point out some things that you guys have over looked while editing this article
1.When it comes to pre-phoenix era Jean she's much weaker then post but it is known that even Phoenix can not truly beat the hulk and when a person who's reading up on the hulk comes along this page to read up on hulk aka the audience they want to know excatly how powerful he is again anybody he faces whether it's superman to phoenix even the watcher even thought it's no real contest(watcher got whooped by red hulk).
2.It's necessary to have the feats of strength to show that he has at one time or another beat on characters who before have seemed invincible. characters that have taken beatings but have gotten up when fighting other characters but have actually been physically beat by the hulk IE the sentry hulk fight where even after everything bruce could keep going and destroy the whole planet with his two hands.
3.the experiments in every single version of the Hulk the that created the Hulk is possible by physics anything technically is POSSIBLE but at the same time improbable and highly highly unlikely by physics except things that have been 100% proven other wise aka actual physical data that this is impossible no matter what the environment(I.E. Jumping again in midair without touching physical mass), all you need is the right environment but even then it's a 1 in a billion chance kind of like how me and you got here it's a 1 in a billion chance that one sperm got to the egg before the others and made us but not violating physics.Altman Be Praised (talk about altman) 22:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed the article isn't around anymore, so there isn't much point with this post. Dave (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

1. who cares?

2. Who cares?

3. I have no idea how this related to the article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, you've made the exact same argument, almost word for word, a while back. The vast majority seems to prefer not to have an article that's little more than a cherry picked "greatest feats" list performed by the Hulk. They might be interesting tidbits of information but, at most, they're trivial. If the Hulk were the only character in history to have his powers jacked up to "incredible" levels, levels well beyond the initial set limits by comic book writers, then I could possibly see such a list as being more than just trivia information designed, first and foremost, for those that are already fans of the character and think he's cool.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, checking his history he's never made a comment on this Talk page before. I suppose it's possible that it's the same troll that deliberately messed up the Hulk talk discussion (not sure if it was JJonz or not, but he definitely left me a hint that he was committed enough to track down my story, alternately tracked me down here after reading it), but most likely not, since this one didn't serve any gleefully malevolent point, which is what tends to get trolls off.

As for your comments about the page itself, most outsiders would naturally find it irrelevant if asked to chime in, while most insiders would probably find it fun, and the point was always to seek ways to gauge the displayed upper limits, and later the lowest shown degrees, i.e. what a lot of different writers developed the character into, not strictly the levels Stan Lee and Jack Kirby introduced it at (and Stan is extremely flexible and enthusiastic regarding most things Marvel writers come up with these days). The deviation from the low start was mentioned, but this isn't the 60s anymore, which, again, goes for all other characters as well. Also, such a sea of examples are hardly as cherry-picked as strictly mentioning the greatest 2-3 occasions, as is the case with other space-constrained character-sections such as Thor or the Silver Surfer. The Hulk simply has a greater range of displays. Making outrageously extreme displays is half the point of the Hulk, and characters such as Doctor Strange, Gravity and Quasar have taken it even further on a few sparse occasions. In any case, at the end it's no big deal. Maybe it would be better suited for Wikia, and other P&A pages could be initiated there as well. I enjoy limits-defining sections. Dave (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)