![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
This article is very light on actual real world content. Editors seem intent on including speculation about the character's identity, and on writing an overly long plot summary which substitues for issues missed by readers. Instead, this article should be considered for returnign to a redirect to the main Hulk article. ThuranX ( talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone see a similarity between the Red Hulk and Jabberwock from Project Arms? Both are reddish, both are calculating and tactical, both emit flames when they get angry, both have a tendency to get angry, both have the same colored hair to an extent. Metalraptor ( talk) 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The article first says Rulk emits increasing levels of gamma radiation upon becoming angrier, then contradicts itself later by saying he emits heat. Infrared radiation/heat=more or less interchangeable. Gamma radiation/heat=no relation. Which effing power does he have??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.214.209 ( talk) 20:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The source provided for his identity even states that it might not be true. Unconfirmed information has no place on wikipedia. Rau's Speak Page 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought they revealed that the Red Hulk was Doc Samson? Why is there nothing about that in the article. It's in Hulk 4 and 5. Annoyed with fanboys ( talk) 03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone actually picked up the issue? it shows samson and a few other men meeting with a man wearing a trench coat and baseball cap, then samson and the other men leave while the man in the coat transforms in to red hulk which domino ends up watching, he however has light colored brown or blondish hair not green.
I agree. To say: "In the "Code Red" story arc,[8] Mutant assassin Domino, investigates Rulk, learning that the human form of the Red Hulk apparently has green hair.[14]" is just wrong. The green haired character (possibly Samson) is not the character that Domino observes transforming. That should probably be changed somehow. I do believe Domino now knows Rulk's identity but even that is left unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.179.160 ( talk) 00:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It is said that the madder the Red Hulk gets the hotter he gets, do we know if his strength increases with anger as well? The K.O. King ( talk) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Its definitely not Ares and neither doc Samson! Its only a speculation but Red Hulk could be that dead S.H.E.I.L.D. agent Quartermain! Just a speculation though and you might be not interested in speculations!
Just a correction: the Hulk series Red Hulk is in is volume 4, not 3. v1 lasted for 6 issues starting in 1962, volume 2 was renamed from another comic that Hulk had been a feature in and ran as Hulk from 1969-1999 or so (don't quote me on that end date), v3 started the same year v2 ended and was recently renamed Incredible Herc about the same time that Hulk v4 started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.230.60 ( talk) 12:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the current series would be Vol. 2, not Vol. 3. What you seem to consider Vol. 2 was actually called "Hulk!" (notice the exclamation point). And Ttenchantr is right, "Incredible Hulk" and "Hulk" (and "Hulk!") are different series and thus do not continue volume numbers.-- BigBang616 ( talk) 05:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
to Rulk! since that's what he's bein advertised as now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.8.122 ( talk) 05:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now the character is listed as debuting in Hulk #1 - is it worth noting that appearance was only in flashback, and the character didn't properly appear "on-screen" until issue #3 (I believe)? -- 68.38.200.195 ( talk) 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It says that the Red Hulk was mentioned on Heroes ep 10. However it was first mentioned in the episode before that in the japanese comic book store. I remember thinking at the time that maybe they were in some parallel universe where the Hulk was red instead of green (evidently that is not the case now I did a search on Wikipedia) not sure if someone wants to change it to two episdoes rather than just eclipse part 1. Dark verdant ( talk) 08:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor has tried to reestablish the Identity section, which was removed long ago, when it was demonstrated that Quesada's jokes about it being Ares were just that - Jokes. The section has a discredited joke and the standard fanboy 'we don't know yet'. As such, it was removed months ago. There being no consensus to reestablish it, and the above identity section being clear there was none months ago to retain it, I have again removed it. ThuranX ( talk) 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The editor is intent that the section stay, but has declined to use the talk page. This is likely to be a problem, because including a section that admits it says nothing at all does not belong in the article. ThuranX ( talk) 14:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, we don't know if it was a joke or not. At the time of the interview, it could have full well been the intended truth. Saying it is a joke is speculation and was added to the section when it wasn't intended. The word "jokingly" has been removed.
Second, I have tried discussing this with you on your talk page, and my own. Here are the entries:
From your page, me to you:
If you look in the history, the 'characterization' section (which I altered to identity recently) was already a source of contention and it was decided it would stay. This was MONTHS before you came along and made the edit (without giving a reason).
When you clarified, you suggest the section has "innuendo" or "speculation" - it was fact that Quesada referenced it in an interview, and it is fact that the identity is unknown. Leaving the section as is gives no speculation as to the identity, but instead clears up rumors.
Please leave it alone.
From my page, you to me (and my reply):
Stop it. The section says NOTHING. Quesada made a joke. The section says 'quesada made a joke, it was shown to be a joke. We know nothing, and we're writing that only the writers know here on wikipedia.' It's a useless, uninformative section, and does not need to be included. ThuranX (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No, you stop it. This has been a mainstay for months and now it must go because you decree it to be so? And when asked to discuss you delete instead of replying on your own talk page. You keep coming up with reasons that do NOT justify the section's removal. The section alleviates rumors about identity and clarifies to the READER (not the editors) that this is not the case and the identity is unknown. It stays. --Apoklyptk (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Finally - the change to this page went without an explanation, and I did not notice. Mid last year it was agreed between editors to keep the "characterization" section intact. This is why your edit has stayed for so long. Had I noticed before I would be doing then what I am doing now. This section clears up rumors and establishes for the READER that the identity is unknown. We are stating what is known at this point in time simultaneously. Thus, this section is informative for the READER.
Alright. It appears that we've found the one Marvel Zombie who thinks Red Hulk is still actually Ares, and that Joe Quesada only speaks perfect truth. The section adds nothing to the article, and the info shouldn't be in there. You blame me for taking it out, if I did, it must've been months ago and stood without complaint, but I cant' recall doing it. If it's stood for months, then you need to provide a cogent argument for inclusion of discredited information and the unneeded 'we don't know anything' statement, which is "bad" writing and never should be used in any wikipedia page. ThuranX ( talk) 15:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's resort to profanity. If you want to see the prior arguments made for keeping it/chucking just look higher on this very page (where it was agreed to stay). I see you made further revisions, and I thank you for abiding by WP:PRESERVE. Though I would contend that including a sentence stating that the identity is unknown will dissuade others from coming in with theories as they did before. As such, I am adding this sentence back in. If you see grammatical errors, please revise at your leisure. -- Apoklyptk ( talk) 15:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No, Thuran is correct. An obvious joke made about the identity does not a section make. However since the identity mystery is central to the character set-up, if done properly you might convince me that it could be an idea to add a paragraph that simply lists the factual explicit clues without further comments. Preferably if there has been creator interviews or feature articles which (in seriousness, as far as entertainment hobbyism can go in that vein) go into this specific point. Dave ( talk) 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This was mulled over already in the above Identity section with other editors. Both of you please read it to see why the conclusion to include it was reached. I will try to sum it up, though. Saying that what Quesada said was a joke is in and of itself speculation. For all anyone but him knows, he could have very well thought he was dropping a big reveal in an interview that was changed later. Once you recognize that Ares=joke is an OPINION - you can see that this particular section is important, as it establishes proof that the identity has yet to be revealed. Just because readers of that comic or ourselves know this, does NOT mean that some casual Hulk fan does as well. I know if I were casually curious about the Red Hulk, and I came on this page to see who his identity was - and I see nothing - do I assume that the article writers don't know? No - I assume this wikipedia page is incomplete. You can see proof of this train of thought in the continuous edits by people listing their theories about the identity. It's much better to just flatly deny a rumor/red herring and state that it is an unknown.
On another note, I am very tired of defending this. All of the rebuttals and conclusions were arrived upon in the middle of 2008, - and the fact that it keeps getting deleted over and over and over again is exhausting. please do not be lazy - read the prior discussion and from there contribute your thoughts. Just blatantly deleting entire sections is not following WP:PRESERVE. Thanks. -- Apoklyptk ( talk) 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read it. Rau opposed it, and Paulley conceded that included unfounded spec which cannot be confirmed means it shouldn't be included, and called it trivial. Now two more editors concur that it should not be reintroduced, finding it even more trivial in light of the clear refutation presented in the comics. I'm removing the section. Four editors oppose it, you,and the IP you were before registering support it. While wikipedia isn't a vote, and numbers do not necessarily mean consensus, in this case they do. Four editors agree it should be out for the same reasons. it's gone. ThuranX ( talk) 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
While wikipedia isn't a vote, and numbers do not necessarily mean consensus, in this case they do.
And why exactly does this make an exception? Because you say so? Furthermore, the section being 'trivial' is your conclusion, one not shared by everyone else. David A. was even willing to accept an alteration of the section to keep it included. Until you can propose an alternate phrasing of the section, I am just going to keep coming back and putting it back up. There's not a consensus just because you say there is one, and I will not stand for just complete and total removal of an entire section.
On another note, your attitude is very insulting and your behavior is disruptive. You do not own this site, article or me. In addition to your tone, your constant use of "stop it", "it's gone", etc. is very arrogant and I have had enough. You're an editor, just like the rest of us. Act like one. -- Apoklyptk ( talk) 13:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I already have explained my case, over and over and over again. When my argument remains the same and yours adjusts every time you reply, then who is "discredited"?. If you haven't gotten my point by now then I really don't know what to tell you and you are in fact employing an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. The section dispels rumors STARTED by Quesada. Almost all of the many arguments you have presented are only sensible if you assume that everyone reading this entry are readers of the comic and are following the story.
Also, I didn't miss-read you - please stop being manipulative about this. Attempting to gather support for your stance when their thoughts and yours are not one and the same is unethical and muddies the discussion.
Here are the facts: I instituted part of this section mid 2008. After some revisions and discussion, it was agreed to keep it intact (compromised with some changes). Towards the end of the year, you remove it without discussion or reading the discussion page to find its relevancy. Now, I am here again to defend this entry, and instead of compromising and coming up with an alternative (which I have TRIED to work with you on - see your own damn talk page) instead you just keep deleting it. If that's not instigating an edit war, I don't know what is.-- Apoklyptk ( talk) 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
there was never a consensus to keep it. Further, since the insertion, the situation changed. Quesada's comment was discredited. There is no value in noting 'Quesada once joked that it MIGHT be Ares, which was disproved when Ares got his ass beat by Rulk an issue later.' It says 'we don't know anything, except that the creators enjoy making misleading jokes about it.' It adds NOTHING to the article. You never made a convincing argument for it, and I don't see a consensus above. You need to convince me now that it's relevant. Thus far, all I see is an editor rabidly defending his edit ,which he's too proud of to see gone. Further, the 'clues mentioned' approach, David, will result in him saying 'that IS the clue', and any real research beyond would be Synth. ThuranX ( talk) 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
(OD)It seems that any point this section ever had in being on the page is long gone. It's an obvious joke by Quesada, as if an industry secret would be revealed in such a way. Any possibility the comment had of being accurate has been disproved, so it doesn't belong here. Dayewalker ( talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(OD)ThuranX, I understand you and this editor have had problems before. I encourage both of you to just let the past go, and if this is to be discussed, to start over. I've made a new section below, I hope both of you will comment. Dayewalker ( talk) 00:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(OD)I reported him to edit war, where an admin declined to block him because he thought he didn't understand policy. I personally disagree with the admin's take on the matter and think Apok's behavior warranted a block. However, in a show of good faith I decided to lay out the current consensus below as a relatively uninvolved editor in no uncertain terms to try and show Apok where we were, and why his edits are reverted and reported. Dayewalker ( talk) 02:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We've had two rounds of edit war reports over this subject, so let's all start over again. There may have been consensus to include this fact earlier in the character's run, but right now it appears to be against including the Quesada quote, at least in its current form. I take this from the multiple editors who have removed it, rather than the single editor who continues to revert and replace it.
As consensus is against it, I'm removing it and bringing it here for discussion.
Marvel Editor in Chief Joe Quesada suggested Red Hulk's identity was Ares. [1] [2] However, issue five of the Hulk series contradicts this as Ares is seen on a team heading after Red Hulk.
Let's discuss civilly, and see if there's anything to be gained here. As I've started the discussion, I'll reiterate my comments that this certainly seems to be an obvious joke by Quesada, and not worthy of mention. If there was an ongoing "Who is the Red Hulk?" storyline with clues and tips, perhaps then it would be worth a passing mention. As it is, it doesn't add anything to the article. Your thoughts? Dayewalker ( talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
References
I had a look through this in detail with an eye on improving this to shoot for the GA. I have done some copy editing to tweak anything obvious, some other thoughts on other things that might need addressing/fixing:
I also did a quick look around for more sources:t'd
Interviews:
Reviews:
I'll obviously keep an eye out for more material and might do another couple of passes on the article as there are bits that could probably do with a fine tune (as mentioned above I think the lead might need a tweak or two). Seems to be pretty solid - the onyl concerns about pitching for a GA are that it has been the subject of disputes (although that seems to be resolved and changes like that should be done after discussion) and only has 10 issues under its belt so a reviewer might want more material to have accumulated (although we have taken articles based on less issues to a GA but some, like Spider-Man: One More Day had a lot more background material, although there is probably more material for that and I have posted it above). So it is doable but will need more work. Anyway see what you think. ( Emperor ( talk) 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC))
Hi Asgardian. I' thinking about taking this article to GAN, and I'm not sure your latest edits are getting it closer to that. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Red Hulk, referred to as Rulk in comic narration, is a fictional character that appears in comic books published by Marvel Comics. The character first appeared in Hulk vol. 2 #1 (January (abbreviate date) 2008) and was created by writer Jeph Loeb and artist Ed McGuiness. The Red Hulk was created to generate buzz prior to the release of the 2008 film, The Incredible Hulk. (unsourced opinion) Initially, Loeb and McGuinness created the story "The Strongest There Is", which featured the original Hulk besting various characters in the Marvel Universe. (says who?) Editor Joe Quesada then informed them that he had an idea for a Red Hulk, and he wanted the story to be a mystery. (source?) In the resulting comic, the Red Hulk kills long time Hulk foe the Abomination, and battles other Marvel characters. It is revealed that the Red Hulk was created by Thunderbolt Ross and Doc Samson. (Last two sentences DO NOT belong in what should be an encyclopedia standard article - no weak storytelling in a lead)
The Red Hulk has been described as "absolutely uninhibited, tactically intelligent"[1] and "Everything the Green Hulk isn't, the Red Hulk is."[2] (PH - not here) The character's powers are similar to the original Hulk's, including superhuman strength, speed, and durability. In contrast to the original Hulk, instead of becoming stronger when angry, the Red Hulk emits increased levels of radiation. (Powers and Abilities) Comics featuring the Red Hulk have sold well, but received mixed reviews. (Says who and in Reception anyway) Reviewers have described it as fun, but lacking in character development. (Same) The Red Hulk has been featured in a video game and a number of toys. (There's a section for this as well - in short, blatant doubling up of same info)
If some information is to be incorporated in the lead, it should be sourced and not just repeat what comes later. A rewrite is probably necessary. The attempt at rewriting the PH was also weak as it just became a colloquial FCB. Asgardian ( talk) 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Asgardian, have you ever tried to take an article through the good article process? It's what we're shooting for with a number of comic articles, and it really teaches one a lot about how an article should look. Would you like to team up on this one? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 07:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The Heroes mention is really weak and unless someone can source he episodes and air dates is just personal research. The Dark Files mention is also of little interest, as many characters have been drawn or written about in a one page pin-up without even rating a mention. As it stands, it is improved but still needs some minor work. Asgardian ( talk) 03:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I had moved the collected edition info into the PH section, using them as the names for the subheaders. The section just seems a bit sparse and list like, which is why I merged it. I don't have strong feelings about it, though. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone read this? I haven't read it, so I'm not sure how to integrate the sentence about it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
In the lead and infobox it says "Hulk (vol. 2)" and in the bibliography it says "Hulk (vol. 3)". I thought it was the former but clearly someone thinks it is the latter. The important thing is consistency. ( Emperor ( talk) 14:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC))
I added that Rulk has a new toy in the marvel universe toyline proof here: * http://www.cooltoyreview.com/Hasbro_MU_028RedHulk.asp
But I don't know how to source it on the page. Can anyone help? Drayco90 ( talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Note, the source I have listed is an IGN one. This is because the official announcement is on the VIP section of the Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 website, which is restricted to people who have VIP passes. This means the general public will not be able to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieNewton ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. WP:V and WP:RS prohibit use of portions of websites that are restricted, or require registration from the public, as these are not considered reliable. Using a webhosting service like ImageShack is also unacceptable, because there is no way to verify that the image authentically comes the official site. Your assertion that it does constitutes Original research, which is also prohibited. And please sign your posts. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 22:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a current edit conflict between myself and Asgardian over the Publication history section. I left a message on Asgardian's Talk Page two days ago explaining the rationale for my edits, and offering to begin a consensus discussion, but he has not responded, though he has continued to revert the article, again using his deceptive euphemisms in his Edit Summaries, against Wikipedia policy, which requires edits to discuss their conflicts. Whether he participates or not, these are the four individual points of conflict:
In his last edit, Asgardian states that he "fixed" a link. I'm not sure which link he was referring to, but in this passage: "Although possessing all the abilities of the original green Hulk, the Red Hulk does not grow stronger with anger...", Asgardian insists on wikilinking the words "green" and "red". A relatively minor point, but I don't think these words need to be wikilinked in this context. Doing so does not constitute "fixing" a link, since nothing is "broken". What he has done is overlinking, and not "fixing" one. Asgardian also wikilinked Frank Cho's name in the paragraph that mentions the "split books", despite the fact that he was already mentioned in the paragraph immediately before it that mentions King-Size Hulk. Terms should not be wikilinked more than once per section. This may have been simply an oversight on his part.
I think information on the Red Hulk's human identity should be kept together. This is why I favor this streamlined wording:
The character's human identity is unknown but it has been revealed that in human form, he is a man with green hair, and that General Thunderbolt Ross and psychiatrist Doc Samson were involved in his creation, as well as A.I.M. creation MODOK, as part of a gamma-powered Super Soldier program.
Asgardian insists on breaking up the info in this passage, by mentioning his green hair two paragraphs after the rest of the info in the above paragraph. I don't think there is any rationale for this.
For some reason, Asgardian seems to have some personal aesthetic aversion to mentioning issue titles, numbers and dates in the text, insisting that they only be mentioned in the ref tags. There is no rationale for this, and doing so makes the material read poorly. Remember, this is a Publication history section. Saying, "Several issues are split books" makes the material historically decontextualized, and makes no sense to a reader who may want to know when these issues were. In the past, Asgardian has attempted to claim (falsely) that consensus discussions determined this guideline. In fact, this discussion, which he claimed was the one in question, did not raise the issue until I went there to inquire about it on February 13 of this year. When I suggested that some mention of issues and dates for particularly relevant passages was reasonable, and not every single issue, the response I got from Emperor was:
Makes sense - I don't think there is a big need for sentences saying "the character appeared in Hulk #36 (June 1963), Thor (vol. 2) #8 (April 1969)" and on and on. There were two problems with what Asgardian was doing in relation to this: Stripping out pretty much everything else leading to long listy sentences. Flesh them out and use the relevant bit for identification and footnote the rest.
I agree. Mentioning that the supporting book King Size Hulk was in 2008 is reasonable. Mentioning that the split books were Issues 7 - 9 makes sense. Saying, "Several issues of the title are "split books" makes no sense. Which issues? When? And how many is "several"? Also, is it appropriate to use the present tense for out-universe material, when the books is no longer in that format? I cannot see any rationale for not simply saying that it was Issues 7 - 9. Asgardian insists removing such info is part of keeping the section out-universe. But the reverse is true: How is removing references to issues and publication dates "out-universe"?
Asgardian also insists on referring to the green hair as having been revealed in a "recent" issue. WP:DATE#Precise language instructs us not to use such vague terms, but to use more precise language.
Including the names of authors in the citation information is an obvious practice of WP:CS. I see no rationale for not including them, but Asgardian insists on removing them, again, without providing any reason. Nightscream ( talk) 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
On the four points:
I hope this helps. ThuranX ( talk) 15:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Secondly, I was surprised you felt the need for this given that you were compromising on many of the technical improvements I suggested, and incorporated many of my comments. The main thing I try for is consistency, which is something Wikipedia lacks. With this in mind, I've made a few tweaks to maintain the overall quality. Please note that I didn't double up on a author link, but rather pulled one. Also note that we don't use weak terms such as as well.
Language must be clear, apply present tense where possible and be out of universe across the article. This means paragraph for paragraph. The mention of an author is odd, given it doesn't happen anywhere I else that I know of, so we need to again be consistent. Note too that Loeb is already mentioned in the PH as being the writer. That's one of the reasons for the section. As for linking colours, I think that's an assumption, but so be it. Always remember we write for the laymen, who may not know who the Hulk is, much less his red counterpart. Hope that helps.
Asgardian ( talk) 02:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I went and found citation for a statement introducing the identity mystery, and added that to the paragraphs about the initial premises for the Red Hulk. I also reworked the Domino identity thing into a lead for a couple lines that can encompass 14 to 17. ThuranX ( talk) 04:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we should include them. It grounds it in the real world, without having to click on a ref link. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I took it to the Comics Project in February, Peregrine, as illustrated by the link I included in my first post in the above consensus discussion, which Asgardian just repeated above, and you yourself were a part of that discussion. Emperor, J Greb, BOZ, and myself agreed that some titles, issue numbers, dates, etc. are reasonable, as long as there's not too much of them. You said putting them in ref tags made it read more smoothly, but here you've said we should include them. Six people now agree that some of them should be included. So we have multiple discussions of this in various places (Emperor also expressed the same thing about titles on my Talk Page in October 2008.) There's nothing wrong with more discussion, but since we already have four people who say they're okay with them (six if you include the discussion we had on the Project page), what exactly would be accomplished?
Asgardian talks about "minefields" and "laundry lists" that are "impossible to read". We're not talking about "laundry lists" of dates, we're talking about occasional mentions of them for important issues. That's a reasonable compromise between a laundry list and the complete removal of them that Asgardian insists on, and is not "impossible to read". What's hard to read is history text that makes no mention of the time period for proper context. When someone reads something like "some issues are this or that", how are they supposed to know what it's talking about, when it doesn't mention which issues, or how many issues, or at least the year that they came out? Darting between the text and the Footnotes is not a natural way to read. When was the last time someone saw, listened to or read any type of "history" of anything that did not mention dates, general time periods or places at least occasionally. At least ThuranX provided some context with the alternative of a story arc name. I'm fine with this.
In any event, I thought this discussion was concluded when Asgardian and others started editing the article, but Asgardian has been editing it against consensus. His assertion that there isn't one is false, as seen by a read of these TP discussions, which he wants to continue simultaneously with his reverts. And not only has he reverted it, but he has done so in a blind, knee-jerk fashion, reverting not just the matter of the issue number/date, but even my modification to a repeat cite with a ref name tag. This is clearly disruptive editing, so I've locked down the article until we can get a more clarified consensus, or an idea of what we desire from another discussion on the Project. Nightscream ( talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You got the link right. It's the section titled "Stand up and take notice!", but the matter of titles/issues/dates does not begin until my February 13, 2009 post in that section. Nightscream ( talk) 04:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Jesus. Colossally bad pagelock, NS. You're an involved editor using Admin buttons. Instead, please unlock, and report Asgardian for edit warring; he's been blocked for it before, and jsut above, admits to a prolonged edit war with multiple editors in June on Abomination to make a POINT, demonstrating a propensity for edit warring by bragging about another EW while waging one here. DO not block him, either, because again, you're involved. Just report it. It's clear enough for any uninvolved admin to see it. ThuranX ( talk) 05:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, I did not accuse you of anything. If you reread the relevant section, you will see that I complimented you on your addition. As to the Abomination, you are mistaken. There was no bragging, and I wrote that article with sources in the article well before June (when you were cautioned for incivility, yes?). I used it as a valid example of how this method can detract from the article.
That said, I have not been involved in edit warring, and neither has ThuranX. We have been trying to improve the article, and despite this Nightscream has become personally involved and used administrator privileges to muddy the waters. This is not appropriate, and needs to be the first issue addressed.
I am happy to discuss the issue at WikiComics, but not with someone who uses their administrator privileges as a blunt instrument if it goes against them. The other administrators will be informed and may need to review said user's status. Asgardian ( talk) 07:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I"m too pissed to properly comment now, but that's going way too far, Asgardian. You know full well who IS involved in this edit war, and because I said you were, you've decided to imply that I'm the other party. I'll write more about this obnoxious lie later when I'm more calm, but this is the most distorted, cheap tactic I've ever seen you use. ThuranX ( talk) 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This was a cheap, and disgusting tactic, Asgardian, one I feel you engaged in simply to bully others out of your way, esp. in light of my noting that you've admitted to a POINT-based edit war at Abomination. You know full well that you and Nightscream are the opponents in this edit war, the page history bears it out, and since you have decided to lash out at others, instead of solve this, I feel it is my responsibility to report the entire matter to the Edit War Noticeboard, rather than deal with this bad faith behavior. ThuranX ( talk) 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
[17]. Also take note of what I said here, which (shock!) was a compliment: [18]
Nightscream, I've seen what User:Mangojuice said and see no need to link it here as the goal is not to humiliate you. Unfortunately, however, I have to say, as others have said, that you should not have used administrator privileges when in dispute over an article. Irrespective of what you perceive to be the circumstances, it is inappropriate.
Finally, there was no edit warring from myself (or for that matter ThuranX, who despite being quick to draw his six guns means well). There have been no constant reversions, only improvements. There is, as I and now User:Mangojuice have also pointed out, no clear consensus on editing style. Perhaps we can now start again. Thank you. Asgardian ( talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure. But since four people there back in February agreed that some dates should remain, and four people did here, for a total of six, and none of the other 20+ comics-related editors responded, how do you think we should proceed?
Also, I'd like to ask you a question to clarify: Do you you feel that any and all mention of dates and issue numbers outside of reg tags are "unreadable", and constitute a "laundry list" or "minefield"? Is it your opinion the the passage I quoted above is unreadable? (Just want to make sure I understand your position.) Nightscream ( talk) 01:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I started a new one here. Just out of curiosity, how many people do you feel would be the required minimum for a consensus? Nightscream ( talk) 02:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
[19]. If this level of discussion could be achieved, I'd be very happy. Asgardian ( talk) 03:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to say that stating that Domino observes the Red Hulk has green hair in human form is just an incorrect statement. The Green haired character (possibly/probably Doc Samson)she observes goes away and Domino observes a man with a baseball cap on his head transform into the Red Hulk. That characters hair color is indeterminate. I am going to edit this to make it factually correct. To back this up, I am providing links to scans from the two pages before the transformation. In the 1st one [20] you can see that there IS a character with green hair. Note that everyone else is wearing a hat. One of the men in a cap and long coat points and presumably argues with the green haired character who is standing next to a taxi cab. On the next page [21] Domino observes the cab drive off and the HATTED and overcoated man walk to an alley and transform into Red Hulk. There is absolutey NO way to determine the hair color of the man who transformed. TheBlueHeel
Is he still refered to as Red Hulk, or is he only refered to as Rulk now? I don't follow the comic myself, so I'm not sure. If he only goes by Rulk now (IRL & in-universe), should the page be moved to Rulk (which currently redirects here)? I'm still new(ish) at Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something here. Tainted Conformity ( talk) 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the lines about the character also appearing in toy merchandise has been removed, was there a discussion for that? The Red Hulk has appears in at least two toy lines (Marvel Universe and as the build-a-figure in one set of Legends). It seems peculiar it was removed, so I've brought it here for discussion to see what happened. Dayewalker ( talk) 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
This article is very light on actual real world content. Editors seem intent on including speculation about the character's identity, and on writing an overly long plot summary which substitues for issues missed by readers. Instead, this article should be considered for returnign to a redirect to the main Hulk article. ThuranX ( talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone see a similarity between the Red Hulk and Jabberwock from Project Arms? Both are reddish, both are calculating and tactical, both emit flames when they get angry, both have a tendency to get angry, both have the same colored hair to an extent. Metalraptor ( talk) 16:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
The article first says Rulk emits increasing levels of gamma radiation upon becoming angrier, then contradicts itself later by saying he emits heat. Infrared radiation/heat=more or less interchangeable. Gamma radiation/heat=no relation. Which effing power does he have??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.214.209 ( talk) 20:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The source provided for his identity even states that it might not be true. Unconfirmed information has no place on wikipedia. Rau's Speak Page 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I thought they revealed that the Red Hulk was Doc Samson? Why is there nothing about that in the article. It's in Hulk 4 and 5. Annoyed with fanboys ( talk) 03:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Has anyone actually picked up the issue? it shows samson and a few other men meeting with a man wearing a trench coat and baseball cap, then samson and the other men leave while the man in the coat transforms in to red hulk which domino ends up watching, he however has light colored brown or blondish hair not green.
I agree. To say: "In the "Code Red" story arc,[8] Mutant assassin Domino, investigates Rulk, learning that the human form of the Red Hulk apparently has green hair.[14]" is just wrong. The green haired character (possibly Samson) is not the character that Domino observes transforming. That should probably be changed somehow. I do believe Domino now knows Rulk's identity but even that is left unclear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.179.160 ( talk) 00:03, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
It is said that the madder the Red Hulk gets the hotter he gets, do we know if his strength increases with anger as well? The K.O. King ( talk) 15:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Its definitely not Ares and neither doc Samson! Its only a speculation but Red Hulk could be that dead S.H.E.I.L.D. agent Quartermain! Just a speculation though and you might be not interested in speculations!
Just a correction: the Hulk series Red Hulk is in is volume 4, not 3. v1 lasted for 6 issues starting in 1962, volume 2 was renamed from another comic that Hulk had been a feature in and ran as Hulk from 1969-1999 or so (don't quote me on that end date), v3 started the same year v2 ended and was recently renamed Incredible Herc about the same time that Hulk v4 started. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.230.60 ( talk) 12:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the current series would be Vol. 2, not Vol. 3. What you seem to consider Vol. 2 was actually called "Hulk!" (notice the exclamation point). And Ttenchantr is right, "Incredible Hulk" and "Hulk" (and "Hulk!") are different series and thus do not continue volume numbers.-- BigBang616 ( talk) 05:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
to Rulk! since that's what he's bein advertised as now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.8.122 ( talk) 05:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now the character is listed as debuting in Hulk #1 - is it worth noting that appearance was only in flashback, and the character didn't properly appear "on-screen" until issue #3 (I believe)? -- 68.38.200.195 ( talk) 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It says that the Red Hulk was mentioned on Heroes ep 10. However it was first mentioned in the episode before that in the japanese comic book store. I remember thinking at the time that maybe they were in some parallel universe where the Hulk was red instead of green (evidently that is not the case now I did a search on Wikipedia) not sure if someone wants to change it to two episdoes rather than just eclipse part 1. Dark verdant ( talk) 08:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
An editor has tried to reestablish the Identity section, which was removed long ago, when it was demonstrated that Quesada's jokes about it being Ares were just that - Jokes. The section has a discredited joke and the standard fanboy 'we don't know yet'. As such, it was removed months ago. There being no consensus to reestablish it, and the above identity section being clear there was none months ago to retain it, I have again removed it. ThuranX ( talk) 13:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The editor is intent that the section stay, but has declined to use the talk page. This is likely to be a problem, because including a section that admits it says nothing at all does not belong in the article. ThuranX ( talk) 14:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
First of all, we don't know if it was a joke or not. At the time of the interview, it could have full well been the intended truth. Saying it is a joke is speculation and was added to the section when it wasn't intended. The word "jokingly" has been removed.
Second, I have tried discussing this with you on your talk page, and my own. Here are the entries:
From your page, me to you:
If you look in the history, the 'characterization' section (which I altered to identity recently) was already a source of contention and it was decided it would stay. This was MONTHS before you came along and made the edit (without giving a reason).
When you clarified, you suggest the section has "innuendo" or "speculation" - it was fact that Quesada referenced it in an interview, and it is fact that the identity is unknown. Leaving the section as is gives no speculation as to the identity, but instead clears up rumors.
Please leave it alone.
From my page, you to me (and my reply):
Stop it. The section says NOTHING. Quesada made a joke. The section says 'quesada made a joke, it was shown to be a joke. We know nothing, and we're writing that only the writers know here on wikipedia.' It's a useless, uninformative section, and does not need to be included. ThuranX (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No, you stop it. This has been a mainstay for months and now it must go because you decree it to be so? And when asked to discuss you delete instead of replying on your own talk page. You keep coming up with reasons that do NOT justify the section's removal. The section alleviates rumors about identity and clarifies to the READER (not the editors) that this is not the case and the identity is unknown. It stays. --Apoklyptk (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Finally - the change to this page went without an explanation, and I did not notice. Mid last year it was agreed between editors to keep the "characterization" section intact. This is why your edit has stayed for so long. Had I noticed before I would be doing then what I am doing now. This section clears up rumors and establishes for the READER that the identity is unknown. We are stating what is known at this point in time simultaneously. Thus, this section is informative for the READER.
Alright. It appears that we've found the one Marvel Zombie who thinks Red Hulk is still actually Ares, and that Joe Quesada only speaks perfect truth. The section adds nothing to the article, and the info shouldn't be in there. You blame me for taking it out, if I did, it must've been months ago and stood without complaint, but I cant' recall doing it. If it's stood for months, then you need to provide a cogent argument for inclusion of discredited information and the unneeded 'we don't know anything' statement, which is "bad" writing and never should be used in any wikipedia page. ThuranX ( talk) 15:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, let's resort to profanity. If you want to see the prior arguments made for keeping it/chucking just look higher on this very page (where it was agreed to stay). I see you made further revisions, and I thank you for abiding by WP:PRESERVE. Though I would contend that including a sentence stating that the identity is unknown will dissuade others from coming in with theories as they did before. As such, I am adding this sentence back in. If you see grammatical errors, please revise at your leisure. -- Apoklyptk ( talk) 15:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
No, Thuran is correct. An obvious joke made about the identity does not a section make. However since the identity mystery is central to the character set-up, if done properly you might convince me that it could be an idea to add a paragraph that simply lists the factual explicit clues without further comments. Preferably if there has been creator interviews or feature articles which (in seriousness, as far as entertainment hobbyism can go in that vein) go into this specific point. Dave ( talk) 14:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This was mulled over already in the above Identity section with other editors. Both of you please read it to see why the conclusion to include it was reached. I will try to sum it up, though. Saying that what Quesada said was a joke is in and of itself speculation. For all anyone but him knows, he could have very well thought he was dropping a big reveal in an interview that was changed later. Once you recognize that Ares=joke is an OPINION - you can see that this particular section is important, as it establishes proof that the identity has yet to be revealed. Just because readers of that comic or ourselves know this, does NOT mean that some casual Hulk fan does as well. I know if I were casually curious about the Red Hulk, and I came on this page to see who his identity was - and I see nothing - do I assume that the article writers don't know? No - I assume this wikipedia page is incomplete. You can see proof of this train of thought in the continuous edits by people listing their theories about the identity. It's much better to just flatly deny a rumor/red herring and state that it is an unknown.
On another note, I am very tired of defending this. All of the rebuttals and conclusions were arrived upon in the middle of 2008, - and the fact that it keeps getting deleted over and over and over again is exhausting. please do not be lazy - read the prior discussion and from there contribute your thoughts. Just blatantly deleting entire sections is not following WP:PRESERVE. Thanks. -- Apoklyptk ( talk) 18:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I have read it. Rau opposed it, and Paulley conceded that included unfounded spec which cannot be confirmed means it shouldn't be included, and called it trivial. Now two more editors concur that it should not be reintroduced, finding it even more trivial in light of the clear refutation presented in the comics. I'm removing the section. Four editors oppose it, you,and the IP you were before registering support it. While wikipedia isn't a vote, and numbers do not necessarily mean consensus, in this case they do. Four editors agree it should be out for the same reasons. it's gone. ThuranX ( talk) 00:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
While wikipedia isn't a vote, and numbers do not necessarily mean consensus, in this case they do.
And why exactly does this make an exception? Because you say so? Furthermore, the section being 'trivial' is your conclusion, one not shared by everyone else. David A. was even willing to accept an alteration of the section to keep it included. Until you can propose an alternate phrasing of the section, I am just going to keep coming back and putting it back up. There's not a consensus just because you say there is one, and I will not stand for just complete and total removal of an entire section.
On another note, your attitude is very insulting and your behavior is disruptive. You do not own this site, article or me. In addition to your tone, your constant use of "stop it", "it's gone", etc. is very arrogant and I have had enough. You're an editor, just like the rest of us. Act like one. -- Apoklyptk ( talk) 13:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I already have explained my case, over and over and over again. When my argument remains the same and yours adjusts every time you reply, then who is "discredited"?. If you haven't gotten my point by now then I really don't know what to tell you and you are in fact employing an WP:IDONTLIKEIT attitude. The section dispels rumors STARTED by Quesada. Almost all of the many arguments you have presented are only sensible if you assume that everyone reading this entry are readers of the comic and are following the story.
Also, I didn't miss-read you - please stop being manipulative about this. Attempting to gather support for your stance when their thoughts and yours are not one and the same is unethical and muddies the discussion.
Here are the facts: I instituted part of this section mid 2008. After some revisions and discussion, it was agreed to keep it intact (compromised with some changes). Towards the end of the year, you remove it without discussion or reading the discussion page to find its relevancy. Now, I am here again to defend this entry, and instead of compromising and coming up with an alternative (which I have TRIED to work with you on - see your own damn talk page) instead you just keep deleting it. If that's not instigating an edit war, I don't know what is.-- Apoklyptk ( talk) 21:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
there was never a consensus to keep it. Further, since the insertion, the situation changed. Quesada's comment was discredited. There is no value in noting 'Quesada once joked that it MIGHT be Ares, which was disproved when Ares got his ass beat by Rulk an issue later.' It says 'we don't know anything, except that the creators enjoy making misleading jokes about it.' It adds NOTHING to the article. You never made a convincing argument for it, and I don't see a consensus above. You need to convince me now that it's relevant. Thus far, all I see is an editor rabidly defending his edit ,which he's too proud of to see gone. Further, the 'clues mentioned' approach, David, will result in him saying 'that IS the clue', and any real research beyond would be Synth. ThuranX ( talk) 21:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
(OD)It seems that any point this section ever had in being on the page is long gone. It's an obvious joke by Quesada, as if an industry secret would be revealed in such a way. Any possibility the comment had of being accurate has been disproved, so it doesn't belong here. Dayewalker ( talk) 23:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(OD)ThuranX, I understand you and this editor have had problems before. I encourage both of you to just let the past go, and if this is to be discussed, to start over. I've made a new section below, I hope both of you will comment. Dayewalker ( talk) 00:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
(OD)I reported him to edit war, where an admin declined to block him because he thought he didn't understand policy. I personally disagree with the admin's take on the matter and think Apok's behavior warranted a block. However, in a show of good faith I decided to lay out the current consensus below as a relatively uninvolved editor in no uncertain terms to try and show Apok where we were, and why his edits are reverted and reported. Dayewalker ( talk) 02:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
We've had two rounds of edit war reports over this subject, so let's all start over again. There may have been consensus to include this fact earlier in the character's run, but right now it appears to be against including the Quesada quote, at least in its current form. I take this from the multiple editors who have removed it, rather than the single editor who continues to revert and replace it.
As consensus is against it, I'm removing it and bringing it here for discussion.
Marvel Editor in Chief Joe Quesada suggested Red Hulk's identity was Ares. [1] [2] However, issue five of the Hulk series contradicts this as Ares is seen on a team heading after Red Hulk.
Let's discuss civilly, and see if there's anything to be gained here. As I've started the discussion, I'll reiterate my comments that this certainly seems to be an obvious joke by Quesada, and not worthy of mention. If there was an ongoing "Who is the Red Hulk?" storyline with clues and tips, perhaps then it would be worth a passing mention. As it is, it doesn't add anything to the article. Your thoughts? Dayewalker ( talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
References
I had a look through this in detail with an eye on improving this to shoot for the GA. I have done some copy editing to tweak anything obvious, some other thoughts on other things that might need addressing/fixing:
I also did a quick look around for more sources:t'd
Interviews:
Reviews:
I'll obviously keep an eye out for more material and might do another couple of passes on the article as there are bits that could probably do with a fine tune (as mentioned above I think the lead might need a tweak or two). Seems to be pretty solid - the onyl concerns about pitching for a GA are that it has been the subject of disputes (although that seems to be resolved and changes like that should be done after discussion) and only has 10 issues under its belt so a reviewer might want more material to have accumulated (although we have taken articles based on less issues to a GA but some, like Spider-Man: One More Day had a lot more background material, although there is probably more material for that and I have posted it above). So it is doable but will need more work. Anyway see what you think. ( Emperor ( talk) 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC))
Hi Asgardian. I' thinking about taking this article to GAN, and I'm not sure your latest edits are getting it closer to that. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 04:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Red Hulk, referred to as Rulk in comic narration, is a fictional character that appears in comic books published by Marvel Comics. The character first appeared in Hulk vol. 2 #1 (January (abbreviate date) 2008) and was created by writer Jeph Loeb and artist Ed McGuiness. The Red Hulk was created to generate buzz prior to the release of the 2008 film, The Incredible Hulk. (unsourced opinion) Initially, Loeb and McGuinness created the story "The Strongest There Is", which featured the original Hulk besting various characters in the Marvel Universe. (says who?) Editor Joe Quesada then informed them that he had an idea for a Red Hulk, and he wanted the story to be a mystery. (source?) In the resulting comic, the Red Hulk kills long time Hulk foe the Abomination, and battles other Marvel characters. It is revealed that the Red Hulk was created by Thunderbolt Ross and Doc Samson. (Last two sentences DO NOT belong in what should be an encyclopedia standard article - no weak storytelling in a lead)
The Red Hulk has been described as "absolutely uninhibited, tactically intelligent"[1] and "Everything the Green Hulk isn't, the Red Hulk is."[2] (PH - not here) The character's powers are similar to the original Hulk's, including superhuman strength, speed, and durability. In contrast to the original Hulk, instead of becoming stronger when angry, the Red Hulk emits increased levels of radiation. (Powers and Abilities) Comics featuring the Red Hulk have sold well, but received mixed reviews. (Says who and in Reception anyway) Reviewers have described it as fun, but lacking in character development. (Same) The Red Hulk has been featured in a video game and a number of toys. (There's a section for this as well - in short, blatant doubling up of same info)
If some information is to be incorporated in the lead, it should be sourced and not just repeat what comes later. A rewrite is probably necessary. The attempt at rewriting the PH was also weak as it just became a colloquial FCB. Asgardian ( talk) 04:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Hey Asgardian, have you ever tried to take an article through the good article process? It's what we're shooting for with a number of comic articles, and it really teaches one a lot about how an article should look. Would you like to team up on this one? - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 07:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
The Heroes mention is really weak and unless someone can source he episodes and air dates is just personal research. The Dark Files mention is also of little interest, as many characters have been drawn or written about in a one page pin-up without even rating a mention. As it stands, it is improved but still needs some minor work. Asgardian ( talk) 03:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I had moved the collected edition info into the PH section, using them as the names for the subheaders. The section just seems a bit sparse and list like, which is why I merged it. I don't have strong feelings about it, though. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 18:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Anyone read this? I haven't read it, so I'm not sure how to integrate the sentence about it. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 01:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
In the lead and infobox it says "Hulk (vol. 2)" and in the bibliography it says "Hulk (vol. 3)". I thought it was the former but clearly someone thinks it is the latter. The important thing is consistency. ( Emperor ( talk) 14:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC))
I added that Rulk has a new toy in the marvel universe toyline proof here: * http://www.cooltoyreview.com/Hasbro_MU_028RedHulk.asp
But I don't know how to source it on the page. Can anyone help? Drayco90 ( talk) 18:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Note, the source I have listed is an IGN one. This is because the official announcement is on the VIP section of the Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 website, which is restricted to people who have VIP passes. This means the general public will not be able to see it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieNewton ( talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. WP:V and WP:RS prohibit use of portions of websites that are restricted, or require registration from the public, as these are not considered reliable. Using a webhosting service like ImageShack is also unacceptable, because there is no way to verify that the image authentically comes the official site. Your assertion that it does constitutes Original research, which is also prohibited. And please sign your posts. Thanks. Nightscream ( talk) 22:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
There is a current edit conflict between myself and Asgardian over the Publication history section. I left a message on Asgardian's Talk Page two days ago explaining the rationale for my edits, and offering to begin a consensus discussion, but he has not responded, though he has continued to revert the article, again using his deceptive euphemisms in his Edit Summaries, against Wikipedia policy, which requires edits to discuss their conflicts. Whether he participates or not, these are the four individual points of conflict:
In his last edit, Asgardian states that he "fixed" a link. I'm not sure which link he was referring to, but in this passage: "Although possessing all the abilities of the original green Hulk, the Red Hulk does not grow stronger with anger...", Asgardian insists on wikilinking the words "green" and "red". A relatively minor point, but I don't think these words need to be wikilinked in this context. Doing so does not constitute "fixing" a link, since nothing is "broken". What he has done is overlinking, and not "fixing" one. Asgardian also wikilinked Frank Cho's name in the paragraph that mentions the "split books", despite the fact that he was already mentioned in the paragraph immediately before it that mentions King-Size Hulk. Terms should not be wikilinked more than once per section. This may have been simply an oversight on his part.
I think information on the Red Hulk's human identity should be kept together. This is why I favor this streamlined wording:
The character's human identity is unknown but it has been revealed that in human form, he is a man with green hair, and that General Thunderbolt Ross and psychiatrist Doc Samson were involved in his creation, as well as A.I.M. creation MODOK, as part of a gamma-powered Super Soldier program.
Asgardian insists on breaking up the info in this passage, by mentioning his green hair two paragraphs after the rest of the info in the above paragraph. I don't think there is any rationale for this.
For some reason, Asgardian seems to have some personal aesthetic aversion to mentioning issue titles, numbers and dates in the text, insisting that they only be mentioned in the ref tags. There is no rationale for this, and doing so makes the material read poorly. Remember, this is a Publication history section. Saying, "Several issues are split books" makes the material historically decontextualized, and makes no sense to a reader who may want to know when these issues were. In the past, Asgardian has attempted to claim (falsely) that consensus discussions determined this guideline. In fact, this discussion, which he claimed was the one in question, did not raise the issue until I went there to inquire about it on February 13 of this year. When I suggested that some mention of issues and dates for particularly relevant passages was reasonable, and not every single issue, the response I got from Emperor was:
Makes sense - I don't think there is a big need for sentences saying "the character appeared in Hulk #36 (June 1963), Thor (vol. 2) #8 (April 1969)" and on and on. There were two problems with what Asgardian was doing in relation to this: Stripping out pretty much everything else leading to long listy sentences. Flesh them out and use the relevant bit for identification and footnote the rest.
I agree. Mentioning that the supporting book King Size Hulk was in 2008 is reasonable. Mentioning that the split books were Issues 7 - 9 makes sense. Saying, "Several issues of the title are "split books" makes no sense. Which issues? When? And how many is "several"? Also, is it appropriate to use the present tense for out-universe material, when the books is no longer in that format? I cannot see any rationale for not simply saying that it was Issues 7 - 9. Asgardian insists removing such info is part of keeping the section out-universe. But the reverse is true: How is removing references to issues and publication dates "out-universe"?
Asgardian also insists on referring to the green hair as having been revealed in a "recent" issue. WP:DATE#Precise language instructs us not to use such vague terms, but to use more precise language.
Including the names of authors in the citation information is an obvious practice of WP:CS. I see no rationale for not including them, but Asgardian insists on removing them, again, without providing any reason. Nightscream ( talk) 15:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
On the four points:
I hope this helps. ThuranX ( talk) 15:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Secondly, I was surprised you felt the need for this given that you were compromising on many of the technical improvements I suggested, and incorporated many of my comments. The main thing I try for is consistency, which is something Wikipedia lacks. With this in mind, I've made a few tweaks to maintain the overall quality. Please note that I didn't double up on a author link, but rather pulled one. Also note that we don't use weak terms such as as well.
Language must be clear, apply present tense where possible and be out of universe across the article. This means paragraph for paragraph. The mention of an author is odd, given it doesn't happen anywhere I else that I know of, so we need to again be consistent. Note too that Loeb is already mentioned in the PH as being the writer. That's one of the reasons for the section. As for linking colours, I think that's an assumption, but so be it. Always remember we write for the laymen, who may not know who the Hulk is, much less his red counterpart. Hope that helps.
Asgardian ( talk) 02:27, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I went and found citation for a statement introducing the identity mystery, and added that to the paragraphs about the initial premises for the Red Hulk. I also reworked the Domino identity thing into a lead for a couple lines that can encompass 14 to 17. ThuranX ( talk) 04:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we should include them. It grounds it in the real world, without having to click on a ref link. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 02:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I took it to the Comics Project in February, Peregrine, as illustrated by the link I included in my first post in the above consensus discussion, which Asgardian just repeated above, and you yourself were a part of that discussion. Emperor, J Greb, BOZ, and myself agreed that some titles, issue numbers, dates, etc. are reasonable, as long as there's not too much of them. You said putting them in ref tags made it read more smoothly, but here you've said we should include them. Six people now agree that some of them should be included. So we have multiple discussions of this in various places (Emperor also expressed the same thing about titles on my Talk Page in October 2008.) There's nothing wrong with more discussion, but since we already have four people who say they're okay with them (six if you include the discussion we had on the Project page), what exactly would be accomplished?
Asgardian talks about "minefields" and "laundry lists" that are "impossible to read". We're not talking about "laundry lists" of dates, we're talking about occasional mentions of them for important issues. That's a reasonable compromise between a laundry list and the complete removal of them that Asgardian insists on, and is not "impossible to read". What's hard to read is history text that makes no mention of the time period for proper context. When someone reads something like "some issues are this or that", how are they supposed to know what it's talking about, when it doesn't mention which issues, or how many issues, or at least the year that they came out? Darting between the text and the Footnotes is not a natural way to read. When was the last time someone saw, listened to or read any type of "history" of anything that did not mention dates, general time periods or places at least occasionally. At least ThuranX provided some context with the alternative of a story arc name. I'm fine with this.
In any event, I thought this discussion was concluded when Asgardian and others started editing the article, but Asgardian has been editing it against consensus. His assertion that there isn't one is false, as seen by a read of these TP discussions, which he wants to continue simultaneously with his reverts. And not only has he reverted it, but he has done so in a blind, knee-jerk fashion, reverting not just the matter of the issue number/date, but even my modification to a repeat cite with a ref name tag. This is clearly disruptive editing, so I've locked down the article until we can get a more clarified consensus, or an idea of what we desire from another discussion on the Project. Nightscream ( talk) 04:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
You got the link right. It's the section titled "Stand up and take notice!", but the matter of titles/issues/dates does not begin until my February 13, 2009 post in that section. Nightscream ( talk) 04:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Jesus. Colossally bad pagelock, NS. You're an involved editor using Admin buttons. Instead, please unlock, and report Asgardian for edit warring; he's been blocked for it before, and jsut above, admits to a prolonged edit war with multiple editors in June on Abomination to make a POINT, demonstrating a propensity for edit warring by bragging about another EW while waging one here. DO not block him, either, because again, you're involved. Just report it. It's clear enough for any uninvolved admin to see it. ThuranX ( talk) 05:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, I did not accuse you of anything. If you reread the relevant section, you will see that I complimented you on your addition. As to the Abomination, you are mistaken. There was no bragging, and I wrote that article with sources in the article well before June (when you were cautioned for incivility, yes?). I used it as a valid example of how this method can detract from the article.
That said, I have not been involved in edit warring, and neither has ThuranX. We have been trying to improve the article, and despite this Nightscream has become personally involved and used administrator privileges to muddy the waters. This is not appropriate, and needs to be the first issue addressed.
I am happy to discuss the issue at WikiComics, but not with someone who uses their administrator privileges as a blunt instrument if it goes against them. The other administrators will be informed and may need to review said user's status. Asgardian ( talk) 07:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I"m too pissed to properly comment now, but that's going way too far, Asgardian. You know full well who IS involved in this edit war, and because I said you were, you've decided to imply that I'm the other party. I'll write more about this obnoxious lie later when I'm more calm, but this is the most distorted, cheap tactic I've ever seen you use. ThuranX ( talk) 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
This was a cheap, and disgusting tactic, Asgardian, one I feel you engaged in simply to bully others out of your way, esp. in light of my noting that you've admitted to a POINT-based edit war at Abomination. You know full well that you and Nightscream are the opponents in this edit war, the page history bears it out, and since you have decided to lash out at others, instead of solve this, I feel it is my responsibility to report the entire matter to the Edit War Noticeboard, rather than deal with this bad faith behavior. ThuranX ( talk) 13:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
[17]. Also take note of what I said here, which (shock!) was a compliment: [18]
Nightscream, I've seen what User:Mangojuice said and see no need to link it here as the goal is not to humiliate you. Unfortunately, however, I have to say, as others have said, that you should not have used administrator privileges when in dispute over an article. Irrespective of what you perceive to be the circumstances, it is inappropriate.
Finally, there was no edit warring from myself (or for that matter ThuranX, who despite being quick to draw his six guns means well). There have been no constant reversions, only improvements. There is, as I and now User:Mangojuice have also pointed out, no clear consensus on editing style. Perhaps we can now start again. Thank you. Asgardian ( talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure. But since four people there back in February agreed that some dates should remain, and four people did here, for a total of six, and none of the other 20+ comics-related editors responded, how do you think we should proceed?
Also, I'd like to ask you a question to clarify: Do you you feel that any and all mention of dates and issue numbers outside of reg tags are "unreadable", and constitute a "laundry list" or "minefield"? Is it your opinion the the passage I quoted above is unreadable? (Just want to make sure I understand your position.) Nightscream ( talk) 01:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay. I started a new one here. Just out of curiosity, how many people do you feel would be the required minimum for a consensus? Nightscream ( talk) 02:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
[19]. If this level of discussion could be achieved, I'd be very happy. Asgardian ( talk) 03:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just going to say that stating that Domino observes the Red Hulk has green hair in human form is just an incorrect statement. The Green haired character (possibly/probably Doc Samson)she observes goes away and Domino observes a man with a baseball cap on his head transform into the Red Hulk. That characters hair color is indeterminate. I am going to edit this to make it factually correct. To back this up, I am providing links to scans from the two pages before the transformation. In the 1st one [20] you can see that there IS a character with green hair. Note that everyone else is wearing a hat. One of the men in a cap and long coat points and presumably argues with the green haired character who is standing next to a taxi cab. On the next page [21] Domino observes the cab drive off and the HATTED and overcoated man walk to an alley and transform into Red Hulk. There is absolutey NO way to determine the hair color of the man who transformed. TheBlueHeel
Is he still refered to as Red Hulk, or is he only refered to as Rulk now? I don't follow the comic myself, so I'm not sure. If he only goes by Rulk now (IRL & in-universe), should the page be moved to Rulk (which currently redirects here)? I'm still new(ish) at Wikipedia, so I'm not sure if I'm overlooking something here. Tainted Conformity ( talk) 21:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that the lines about the character also appearing in toy merchandise has been removed, was there a discussion for that? The Red Hulk has appears in at least two toy lines (Marvel Universe and as the build-a-figure in one set of Legends). It seems peculiar it was removed, so I've brought it here for discussion to see what happened. Dayewalker ( talk) 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)