Talk:Micah Sanders

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum! This is not a forum for idle discussion of Heroes. Comments that do not pertain specifically to the improvement of the article "Micah Sanders" are subject to removal.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Micah Sanders article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Image:WikiProjectHeroesLogoBig.PNG‎

This page is within the scope of the Heroes WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Heroes. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

Contents

[edit] Forge analogy?

Anyone else think he is analogous to Forge? He is shown working on machinery, and claims to have "rebuilt his computer's motherboard" in the first scene with him.Rihk 01:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you mean Forge (comics), then I'd say "no". I'd rather not speculate, either. Micah's powers are, as of yet, unknown. He could shoot lasers out his eyes for all we know. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
So, saying "no" isn't speculation? Bmelton
Sorry for speculating on a discussion page, Ace. Just kinda, you know, thought maybe we could shoot some ideas around here in the back room about how Micah was seen rebuilding his computer's motherboard and how Forge has unsurpassed brilliance in regards to technology and a natural gift for invention. No big deal. Didn't make an edit to the front page or anything. Rihk 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes and no, B. Ultimately, the "no" is to over discussion, not simply denouncing the theory.
You're right about it not being a big deal. I just don't want to turn this page into a forum. It's the free encyclopedia. We write up the facts. Speculation and debate is probably more Wikinews' thing. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Age

Has there been any definitive source listing Micah's age? I'm aware of the NBC cast page, but he's is different from the rest of the main characters (it actually details the actor and not the character, and it loads a normal .html design instead of a flash version.) If it turns out that this is the only info (I cannot remember if something was said during one of the episodes) then I think we should list it as "Unknown." --DJ Chair 15:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

According to Micah Sanders' cast page (this one's not in Flash), the actor (Noah-Gray Cabey) is ten years old. But I'm not sure if there's enough info on that to cite a source on it. --Addict 2006 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

an actors age unfortunately almost never equates to characters age. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  | Status:On 00:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Micah's power

Would not Super Intelligence be an appropriate description of his power, for now? --The Yar 04:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The extent of his powers have not been revealed. as far os we know he is simply a genius and not superhumanly intelligent. We should wait until an actual power is revealed before engaging in any more speculation. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 04:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Unless someone has "inside" information there's been no information given as to his powers. He's a smart kid, but that in and of itself isn't a power. He seems to have unexpected insight into his mom's feelings, but that too doesn't mean anything. I guess we have to wait till he starts shooting fire out of his fingertips, or whatever. 23skidoo 05:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I bet Micah's power is "hero detection" or perhaps clairvoyance. It was confirmed that Micah knew that his mom has a power, and it was heavily implied that Micah knew how his dad broke out of Jail. Perhaps these details (but not my speculation of course) should be added in the article.--Hypergeometric2F1(a,b,c,x) 06:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He asked D.L. how in Better Halves. I think he's a little young to be playing "will they tell the truth I already know" mind games with people, so this would disproven the "implication". And, like one guy said on Heroes, Micah might not have mind powers, but just be very mindful. He knows about the stripping and he knowns about the alternate personality. He's with her everyday. It's not impossible. When he can tell Hiro bends time just by looking at him, that'll be a real clue. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Would it be Technopath? There are some people that keep saying it is technokenisis, but he has not been shown to "move" technology, just manipulate it. -Mustang06

It seems that it is a technopath, but this is still unconfirmed. For now it looks like we will include both those details in the page. -TeamOverload

[edit] Unneeded Edits

Can people stop reposting the same material in their own words. Simply fix the grammatical errors of the previous person or add too it. In the past day I've seen over 6 different ways of saying that he is a technopath (and we don't even know that yet so we should be saying he displays abilities similar to a technopath). 71.225.125.176 15:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

New comments at the bottom, please.

Just as with Claire Bennet's healing factor or Niki's superstrength, some powers are move self-evident tthan others. It wouldn't be speculation to call Micah's power technopathy, especially by that article's own definition. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Unless it's cited by some source related to the production (NBC, Tim Kring, cast interview, etc.) it's still speculation and it is not allowed per WP:NOR. --Madchester 21:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Get off it, Maddy. Seriously, this is like, beyond policy thumping. Have you seen the episode? Do you understand the definition of the term? How is this disputable, let alone OR? Oh and try explaining your position before tagging things left and right. It gives more meaning to the situations where tagging is both necessary and indisputable. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The source is the episode itself. Micah was able to get an inoperative telephone to work, as if by magic. That fits the definition of Technopathy, as ACS points out. That's not original research. That's just applying an appropriate term to the situation we're writing about. Primogen 22:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Primo. And let me say, my outburst might not have bee necessary. Madchester, I'm sure you mean well, but it really would be nice if you brought this stuff up on talk pages before tagging. The Heroes (TV series) has several commited Wikipedians handling the information. None of these articles have been abandoned and we'd appreciate you coming to us in better faith, rather than tagging articles and sections based on possible problems. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't know how the pay phone was broken. Did he fix it through mangetokenesis? Was it disconnected from the electrical grid and he provided it with power? Unless youan find a source verifying the specifics of his powers, it's simply original research. Remeber all the ambiguity behind Sylar and his power(s)? This is no different. --Madchester 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you being a little picky and speculative? Technopathy, as defined by the article, is having a superhuman metaphysical "way" with technology, specifically electronics. This would certainly apply to fixing the pay phone. The article does not claim use used any of the methods you mentioned. And no, this isn't like Sylar. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't wish to be insulting about this, but you're being rather anal about his power. Say we had never been told by NBC what Claire's power is. Would you honestly try to argue her ability is anything other than rapid healing? Of course not. Now, we see Micah pick up a pay phone. It has static on it instead of a dial tone. Clearly, the phone is receiving power/ Therefore, it had to have been damaged, thus repairing it through thought is technopathy. And at the very least, use the actual tag, not the substed version. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
And I don't wish to make an ultimatum, but it seems I'll have to. We're probably not going to get something official that says "Micah Sanders has technopathy." In the meantime, we cannot argue the point that Micah has "this" or "that" as a power. We need to take a firm stance one way or the other. I'm for following the defintion of technopathy and acknowledging what was shown in Nothing to Hide. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
On Wikipedia, editors are not suppose to be providing their own insights, opinions, or theories into articles. According to Wikipedia: No original research, primary sources (such as a television show) should only be used "to make descriptive claims". It also stesses that Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source. Therefore, if any editor were to make the claim that Micah's powers were technopathy/magnetokenesis/electrokenesis/etc. then there needs a secondary source to support that claim.
Well, no source can be more explicit about a TV Show than the TV show itself. We have 2 sources: The episode showing that he fixed the fone, and clear statement of what Technopathy is, both in wikipedia itself and in a number of comic books that shows something alike (which would not be Forge, but Madison Jeffries). He may have other powers or maybe it was just a minor part of a larger power, but right now, like every other TV Show page right here, the TV Show itself is the most reliable source about it. DinobotTM2 17:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, editors can only make descriptive claims based on a primary source. i.e., the most we can say is that the phone worked, after Micah touched it. Editors cannot make any personal conjectures or opinions on what why it worked, when the full nature of the power has not been revealed in the show or in any secondary source. --Madchester 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Under WP:NOR, an editor can only describe the scene where Micah fixed the pay phone. However, he or she cannot introduce any ideas on how or why it worked, unless it has been supported by a verifiable and reliable source.
And please keep your cool, no threats or ultimatums towards other editors, please. --Madchester 05:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
NOR doesn't prohibit drawing a reasonable conclusion. Repairing technology with thought is technopathy. Micah does so in that scene. Therefore, technopathy is an accurate assessment of his abilities. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Chest, are you friggen robot or something? Seriously, look, all I was saying was that the tagging wasn't necessary and arguing a point was no better. I'm not saying "my way or else". Gees. Read. Talk about not keeping your cool. And technopathy, as defined by the article, is a reasonable conclusion. It supercedes the other "possibilites" and, as someguy stated, your theory about the phone not having power doesn't add up. Frankly, it seems like you're asserted a misappropiation of the policies you claim to be enforcing. Tell me, is this at all because you don't like the terminology, or the logical conclusion that was originally reached? You're pretty much the only one who just so happens to be insisting there are other possibilities. No offense, but that's not cool. If you think the conclusion of technopathy is wrong, just say it. Don't drag the issue done into a dispute of policies. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


It's pretty simple, without a reliable secondary source, you can't make theories on the nature of his powers, simply be viewing the program, per WP:NOR. However, if a future episode shows Micah saying something like "Mom, I can fix and create machines with my mind." then the technopathy claim can be included, since editors are allowed to describe events or items in primary sources. There is still a lot of ambiguity in the character's powers, and unless they are explicitly presented in details within the show or from a secondary source, it's all personal conjecture, which is prohibited on the site. The current wording is much better, since there is currently no way to verify the actual nature of Micah's abilities at this stage.

And again, I advise against calling names against other users, per WP:CIVIL and WP:COOL. Thanks. --Madchester 13:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Madchester, I don't understand why you think Micah fixing the phone with his mind is theory. Is there any other reasonable conclusion for how he was able to call Niki with the out-of-order sign on the phone? Was the sign a hoax or in error? Did the phone have other problems than the ability to make calls? Did someone other than Micah fix it using their own powers? Did Micah fix it using invisible tools? Or did he fix it using normal tools in a scene that was eliminated from the episode? Any other interpretation of the scene does not seem reasonable to me, because other explanations assume the the writers are sloppy or purposefully playing mindgames with the audience. Or is it the definition of technopath that you have issue with? Do you think the term doesn't apply? In what way wasn't this a case of a demonstration of the ability to "control technology, generally electronic (although not limited by this) with one's mind"? This definition sounds applicable to me -- especially since it doesn't say how the ability works, its nature, its limits, etc. Primogen 19:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Madchester, I just saw your edits to the Micah article, and now I'm more confused about your position then ever. You wrote: "Micah uses his power near the end of the episode to temporarily repair a damaged pay phone." How is this not technopathy? Primogen 19:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


'"Any other interpretation of the scene does not seem reasonable to me"
Therein lies the problem. Editors are not suppose to be making guesses or interpretations the character's ability per WP:NOR. We are simply suppose to describe the incident, that's all. Until a secondary source explains the nature of his powers, editors can't use a primary source to add personal opinions or theories to the article.
The only case where a primary source can be used, is if the ability to presented explicitly, with no room for interpretation. For example, the intro voice over to this episode described Matt as "The cop who reads thoughts used his abilities to save his marriage" In this case, the primary source clearly described his abilities, and it's fine to repeated in verbatim in the respective articles. A future episode may introduce Micah as the boy who can fix machines with his mind... then it's suitable to describe his abilities as techopathy.
There's no harm in waiting a few weeks for the appropriate primary and/or secondary references to clarify Micah's powers. When weasel terms such as "it is speculated that", "probably", "supposed", "appears to be" or "it is widely regarded" are used to describe Micah's ability, it just reads life fancruft and presents doubt in the accuracy of the article and verifiability of its sources. --Madchester 23:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the problem you do with using the term "technopathy" to describe the powers that we observed Micah use. We cannot help but do a certain amount of intepretation and assumption when we report our observations. We assume that the Petrelli family is having brunch at their own house rather than having snuck into a neighbor's house. We write about the car blowing up as being due to the car crash without leaving open the possibility that the explosion was due to a hidden bomb. We interpet D.L.'s behavior on the highway as driving a car, even though he might really be using some superpower to propel the vehicle. We assume that this week's episode was part of the storyline we've experienced thus far, rather than really being a dream sequence having no impact on the continuity of the overall series storyline. We assume that these characters are the same ones we saw in previous episodes, and not doppelgangers with the same names. There are perhaps hundreds of assumptions and interpretations, large and small, that we make while watching an episode because the alternatives fall outside the realm of what we should reasonably expect based on common sense, principles of professional storytelling, and Occam's razor.
Now, it is certainly possible that, to make the telephone work, Micah used some other power, such as teleporting it back in time to when it was working, or using magenetism to tighten a loose screw, or manipulating electricity to repower the phone, or using telepathy to convice Niki that he was talking to her on the phone. However, since the wtiters/directors didn't bother to show us anything to suggest explanations other than what they chose to depict -- Micah using a superpower to make an broken electronic device operational again -- then it seems to me that common sense, storytelling principles, and Occam's razor should be sufficient to tell us that it is reasonable to use a term meaning "a superpower used to control electronic devices" in describing the incident. Eliminating other explanations that may be possible but are not reasonable (given what was shown in the episode) does not constitute original research. Primogen 00:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
However obvious (Occam's razor or not), that is still an interpretation of a primary source, which is not allowed per WP:NOR. Again, please wait until the program or a secondary source explicitly states the full characteristics of his power.
Whether D.L. drove with "superpowers" or not is simply a red herring. Wikipedia articles should only make descriptive statements of primary sources. Stating that "D.L. drove a car is sufficient." Likewise, something along the lines of "The broken pay phone worked under Micah's power" is all that can be said at the moment. A simple description, nothing more. --Madchester 01:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No. You are wrong, Mad. EVERYONE posting here agrees which power he has. Unless you have a very strong evidence agains it, in case you should post it, Micah has shown Technopathy. Wikipedia is a democracy, and your vote is the only one out. Stop talking like you own it.
Tell me, if someone shoot someon in the head in a given epísode, will you deny it until some magazie publishes it? Come on, it´s not an interpretation, it´s what was shown. Period. P.S.: And if you are so serious about it, stop threatening and call the big shots. No one who threats someone is to be taken seriously.DinobotTM2 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Dino, chill. Seriously...
And, actually, you're wrong. I'm afraid Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. Believe me, if it were, I'd have been vited out a long time ago. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 02:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, i saw that, but still: "In difficult cases, straw polls may be conducted to help determine consensus, but are to be used with caution and not to be treated as binding votes." Do you see any other way that does not involve a posting war? It´s either that or calling the big shots for their word.DinobotTM2 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see this as a difficult case, despite Maddy being in the minority. Also, he is a bit of a "big shot",—ignore the oxymoron—being an administrator and all. Still, you're welcome to call in an impartial third party, I guess. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 03:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Straw polls don't apply to original research additions. There's ambiguity in the presentation of the scene, and that's all Wikipedia's editors can write about at the moment. I don't understand why editors are drawing conclusions from a thirty-second scene. Wait until further information is provided by the show or a secondary source. --Madchester 03:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still trying to understand your objections, Madchester. Perhaps it would help me to ask from another angle. In two other scenes that were thirty seconds or less, Wikipedia editors concluded that Nathan has the power of flight and Niki has superstrength. However, what we observed could be attributed to other powers not clearly depicted in the scenes. For example, Nathan might have induced the illusion of flying from his captors and arriving at the diner (he might have actually driven away to the diner), and Niki might have been using telekinesis to send D.L. flying into a wall. (Nathan did eventually admit to Peter that he could fly, but he was trying to talk him down off a building ledge at the time -- and later, he might have been humoring Peter). Was it original research for the editors to conclude they had the powers of flight and super-strength? Primogen 20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Nathan has flight per TV Guide: "when prompted, Nathan can defy gravity and take flight ". TV Guide - 2006 11 06. And of course, Nathan described his own flight abilities in "Nothing to Hide" (2006 11 06).
Niki has a superhuman alterego per Entertainment Weekly: "She's a webcam stripper with an alternate personality. (That would be Jessica, who has superhuman strength and homicidal tendencies.)" EW.com
Until there's a reliable secondary source explaining the full nature of Micah's powers, it's still an interpretation of the scene, when editors are only limited to describing a primary source per WP:NOR. However, if a secondary source like EW, TV Guide or MSNBC.com states that Micah can repair mechanical objects, then you can interpret his power as technopathy, since WP:NOR states that any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source.
Likewise, the EW article said that Niki's powers will be fully explored in the Nov.27 episode, so any original theories or explanations to her powers until that episode also violate WP:NOR. There will probably be more print material from Kring and co. as we head into the Fall sweeps this month, so there's no need to rush. --Madchester 19:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I think these secondary sources came out after other Wikipedians felt comfortable enough to list these powers in the article, so they don't address my question about, "well, if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and having it turn out to be something other than a duck would be really poor storytelling, why can't we say it's a duck?"
In any case, to put a stop to the revert war that other editors have been waging over "Unspecified" vs. "Technopathy", I put a note in the article saying not to change Micah's power back to Technopathy until there's further evidence. Primogen 22:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Madchester appears to be making two points:
a) It has not been demonstrated definitively on the show that Micah's power is technopathy, nor has Micah's power been publicly confirmed by an authoritative reference (i.e. those who produce the show).
b) Stating information based on conjecture is tantamount to original research and violates WP:NOR.
I personally am not an expert of editing policy, and I highly doubt that pushing argument b) will resonate with a lot of people. However, I have to agree with Madchester on point a). All we know is that Micah was able to fix a phone by touching it. That is all we know. That's it kids. For instance, we don't know if Micah would also be able to "fix" a dead animal and bring it back to life. That power would be analogous to technopathy, but much broader in scope. To simply say that his power is technopathy ignores the possibility that his power could be larger. Also, to say that his power is technopathy involves making a number of assumptions. Making assumptions isn't necessarily wrong, but you usually do say when you have enough evidence from which to draw those assumptions. We don't have that evidence here. All we have is that Micah made a phone work. At this point, I would say that all we know is that Micah has the power "to make broken pay phones work." BetaParticle 02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with MadChester and Beta. I've been vigorously defending the ambiguity over on the main heroes page. Until we see Micah do something clearly technopathic, such as perhaps gettign an ATM to spit out cash, street lights to change, a computer to dial into a protected network, or SEE technology otherwise operate for him in a way outside the normal daily functions, it's simply not there. Do I agree with all the coonjecture? absolutely. DO I think it meets wiki's standards? Not yet. Soon, though, I hope. this fricking back and forth is just aggravating. (that's not a dig at anyone sdiscussing it here, but at the dozen IP anon editors who keep adding it.) ThuranX 05:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as a note to ThuranX... you predicted the future (or a writer read your comment.) See episode from 29-Jan-2007, regarding your ATM comment. Erpbridge 18:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Madchester stated "However, if a future episode shows Micah saying something like "Mom, I can fix and create machines with my mind." then the technopathy claim can be included, since editors are allowed to describe events or items in primary sources." So...if he just fixes a machine with his mind, that's not good enough, but if he says it, then it is? Where is the logic in that? It's original research when you see him do it on the show, but not when he says it on the show? But wouldn't seeing him say it on the show also be original research? if this is the logic that we're using, how can we say even that he's a little kid? Maybe he's an alien in a little kid's body. He never actually said he was human. To assume that he's human just because he looks human on the show would be Original Research. Seanbrasher 23:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Possibly"

How about "possibly"? The inclusion of that until it is established to an absolute certainty seems reasonable, and would end some of the more ridiculous discussion here. 65.168.216.16 05:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. BetaParticle 06:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Argues a point, weaselly. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 07:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy prohibits including words like "possibly" and speculation. Primogen 20:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Primogen - Wikipedia does not prohibit using words like "possibly." Avoiding the use of words like "possibly" is not a policy of WikiPedia; it is a guideline. There is a big difference between Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Guidelines are not set in stone. In this case, the use of the word "possibly" to describe Micah's powers is reasonable as it is impossible to verify with a comfortable degree of certainty the true nature of his powers at this point.
Also, there does seem to be general agreement that his power could be technopathy, but we need to highlight that it is simply conjecture at this point, and we do that by using the word "possibly." If we were using the word "possibly" to introduce a slanted, biased opinion out of left field, then I would see cause for concern (e.g. "possibly the power to make anything he wants happen"). BetaParticle 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to say "he "might" have this" that's just lame. I can only thing a few situations where qualifiers might be justified—this not being one—and even then I try to avoid them. Mel Gibson might be an anti-semite. Paris Hilton's possibly a whore. Superman's powers are apparently unaffected by pink kryptonite. Sorry, but it just doesn't fly. I'm sure Maddy would agree. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ace Class, I'm not sure what you're trying to communicate by the use of your analogies, especially since I don't feel they add to your argument in this situation. At the moment, it appears that there are a number of ways of specifying Micah's powers:

a) Unspecified
b) Technopathy
c) Unspecified, possibly Technopathy.

Ace Class, it appears that you are against c) because it's "weaselly". I think that c) is perfectly fine in this situation. It looks like it might be Technopathy, but we're not sure. But let's say that we didn't choose c), and we had to go with either a) or b). At this point, I think it's clear that we have no choice but to going with a). We don't have enough evidence to say that it's b) with a high degree of certainty. Like I mention previously, all we know right now is that Micah can fix a broken pay phone. We don't know if the power he used to do that would translate to fixing a VCR, computer, a TV, a remote controlled airplane because we've never seen him do anything else. If you make a claim based on empirical evidence, you need to have enough data to substantiate your claim. BetaParticle 19:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I was very clear; you can't. Primo agreees. This is simple stuff. You can't qualify speculation with words like "possibly". That's arguing a point, trying to imply something to the reader, and it's worse than speculation. Keep it out of the article. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 20:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The use of "possibly" implies that an assumption is being made, based on the primary source. That would be violating both WP:NOR and WP:WEASEL. WP:NOR limits editors to adding descriptions of a primary source. For example, "the phone was fixed." That's all. If you want to say "The phone was fixed via technopathy", then the power must have been described explicitly within the primary source or perhaps a secondary source. Again, editors are limited to describing not interpreting a fictional work. --Madchester 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wait, i'm confused.

We can say that he has technopathy on the Heroes (TV series) article, but not on the character page? What kind stupid hypocrisy is that? Look, we can always change it later. But for now, we have to pick something. Either we wait until next years round of episodes to make a decision, or we take what we already know from Nothing to Hide and put that he has technopathy. It cannot be both! Please, someone, pick one or the other. dposse 21:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed his power to unspecified on the TV series article. Primogen 21:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
So, we're choosing to wait until next year? Is Micahs powers so obscure that wikipedians are scared to add it to the article? dposse 03:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Waiting until we know with certainty what Micah's power is. A Wikipedia administrator, Madchester, has been making strong arguments that the telephone could have been done by a power other than technopathy. Since there is uncertainty, the article shouldn't specify what the power is. Accuracy is more important than comprehensiveness. Patience. I'm sure we'll see another example of his power soon. Primogen 04:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, as Maddy stated, this is a matter of verifiability. He himself has made a poor effort to prove "technopathy" is wrong, he just doesn't believe we have source to cite when making such a statement. Verifiabilty first, accuracy second. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 18:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] technopathy as effect, not cause

I put technopathy back on the page, and here's why: technopathy is just the ability to affect a machine, which was clearly demonstrated on the show. I understand the point about speculation, etc. but at this point the only speculation is how he did this, and what other abilities he may have. As was stated, it may turn out that his abilities are magnetic in nature, or probability manipulation, etc. but that doesn't negate that what we have seen so far is technopathic. It seems that the discussion so far is analogous to arguing whether or not he has a cold when we have seen him running a fever and with a runny nose. Yes, technically we have only seen symptoms of a cold and have not run a blood test to confirm an infection, but saying that he has Technopathy is not saying that he has a cold, it is just saying that he has displayed certain symptoms, in this case repairing a telephone. This is verifiable. He repaired a phone with some superhuman ability. Regardless of his specific sci-fi method of doing so, the end effect was technopathy.Seanbrasher 16:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, for those still waiting on a seconday source, I added five secondary sources that back up the technopathy reference.Seanbrasher 16:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Four of your sources are fan forums, blogs and wikis, and therefore not legitimate sources. I'm not sure about buddytv.com -- it looks like a news site but a fairly amateur one. Primogen 18:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I deleted all the "sources" except for buddytv. Primogen 18:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted to an earlier edit; buddytv is not really a reliable source; it doesn't make reference to the creators, actors, or the program on how it came to the conclusion of Micah's powers. At least EW or TV Guide actually obtain press releases on upcoming episodes or character bios. --Madchester 22:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I started reading this discussion page feeling that technopathy or a reference to it possibly being his power as being warranted. The problem I see is that there is a value in letting people reading the article who don't know what technopathy is that it may be his power and a danger in the same reader taking it as gospel if the next episode contradicts it and they don't come back to make sure the description of his power hasn't changed. The problem is that when you're dealing with fiction sometimes you will not get a reputible source to cite. I can't verify it, but if TV Guide is considered a reputable source for citation, based upon the above comment regarding Peter Petrelli's power of flight I would think their discription as having the ability to defy gravity as a citation is tenuous at best (an argument can be made there is a difference between levitatoin and flying - akak propulsion). Do we need to start doing peer reviews on TV guide articles in order to determine if the author had some inside information or did they just observe him flying through the air as enough evidence (do we really think someone cranking out 5 TV articles a week is really as worried as we are?) (and yes I'm ignoring that there may be official information for this example)
Is there any way a guideline can be created by where a certain number of occurrences can be constrewed as sufficient evidence and not be in conflict with NOR? While I understand why NOR is a good idea, when dealing with a fictional work of this nature there would appear to be some validity setting a guideline of when enough demonstration is sufficient evidence. I may get some heat for it but I can't help but feel that at this time some sort of reference to the debate over what his power is would provide value to a reader. KernelHappy 23:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the search for a reliable source on this has been turned on its head. Per the policy on reliable sources, exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Specifically, "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community" require exceptional evidence. Because this is a work of fiction and there is no relevant academic community, this is precisely the type of situation where the straw poll method should be called into play. The wikipedia community combined with the relevant blogs and fan sites is the only remotely academic community studying this question, and the majority of the posters on this page and in those blogs agree that the power is technopathy. That is the "prevailing view" of the community. In fact, Madchester and Primogen are in the distinct minority in this matter. The burden of exceptional evidence should be on them, as the minority, to show that Micah's power is not technopathy.

I had considered posting an edit where I described the superpower as an "unknown power similar in appearance to technopathy", just as a compromise, because I assume that would be acceptable, since it describes only the visual appearance of the power as displayed on the show. But I can't justify doing that, because I can't define any gap between a power that is "similar in appearance to technopathy" and technopathy itself. What I mean is, his power could be magnetic control, or metallic control, or reality alteration, but every one of those would include technopathy as a subset of the ability and it would still be accurate to describe his ability as technopathy so far.

I am curious, also, why Petrelli's flight power is allowed. If we find out in season two that he can also breath fire, they might start calling his powers "dragon powers" on the show or something along those lines. Would that mean that all along when we said he had the power of flight, we were wrong? No. It would just mean that his powers, as displayed on the show so far, included flight, so that's what we listed. To wait for some unknown point in the future for Micah's powers to be precisely labelled is ludicrous, when we have evidence enough right now to call it technopathy.Seanbrasher 22:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a minute! If you read some of my postings on this issue, I personally believe that there is already sufficient evidence to call Micah's power "technopathy". However, I yield to the greater experience of Madchester in matters of Wikipedia policy and am supporting him even though I disagree with him. Primogen 23:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)



  1. Blogs and fan sites are rarely regarded as reliable or verifiable sources, since their information may not be authenticated or peer reviewed. (See WP:RS#Self-published_sources_as_secondary_sources). Unless the blog is run by a production or cast member, it cannot be included, since it does not include someone writing within their field of expertise.
  2. The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (See WP:V) The power may very well be technopathy, but if it hasn't been recognized in a secondary source, then it cannot be included.
  3. If an editor wishes to add "technopathy" as the superpower, The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. Unless the program describes the power explicitly, you need a secondary source to make the analytical claim, per WP:NOR. Wikipedians are not allowed to include their personal commentary or interpretations into an article.
  4. Nathan Petrelli's power has been explicitly described as flight in the show's introduction and in various secondary sources including Entertainment Weekly and TV Guide interviews with the creators and actors.
  5. We don't care about potential Season 2 powers, b/c Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We report on information that is available in the present, no speculation is permitted.

--Madchester 02:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


I wonder, what possible ability could Micah have other than Technopathy? And why is this specific peice of information so important. Why is it ok to presume Zach has a questionnable sexuality when only a few characters, all of whom pick on him, mention it? Seems more like an insult than true fact. As far as I am aware, technopathy covers all abilities to affect technology with the mind. Even if he has a wide ability, he will still have technopathy. And as for a need for sources, Can you source me somewhere that says explicitly that all these characters are human and not aliens? Can anyone show me a source that says Micah is definately male and wasn't born a hermaphrodite? I think we need some sources to prove that Niki doesn't have super strength, since it's only presumed Jessica can.
If Hiro has only realised he was able to stop time, his power would have been placed as The ability to freeze time", not what it has been. This isn't wrong, he can stop time, and his abilities list him as someone that can manipulate time, however his ability is broader than that. Almost all people on the technopathy list should be removed if such extreme sourcing is necessary, because technopathy as a term is rarely used in the works of fiction themself. Much like many works of fiction use "Mind reading" or "see thoughts" instead of telepathy. I've read this debate for a while, and Madchester has not shown any reasoning why Micah shouldn't have Technopathy as a name, other than the possibility it is not technopathy. However, anyone that can fix a telephone, even if temporarily, no matter what else they can do, can still be correctly called a technopath. Unless I hear a reasonable argument about why Micah's powers can't be technopathy, I'll edit it in in the next 24 hours. And no. None of the arguments previously listed really count, since The ability to affect the telephone itself is enough source to constitute technopathy. Telepathy covers every ability regarding the mind and othe rpeoples mind, in the same case, Technopathy covers every ability regarding the mind and a machine. Jacobshaven3 18:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Uh...I'd really avoid referring to the comments of Jackie Wilcox and others as simple "insults" or "accusations". Homophobia as it is now written over at the list is better. And sexual confusion or ambiguity isn't exactly uncommon for young homosexuals. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 19:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've heard plenty of homophobic insults, and as a bisexual I'd say that the comments made by Jackie didn't seem in the context of "I hate you because you have a questionnable sexuality", more in the context of "You will find it insulting if I say you have a questionnable sexuality, therefore I'll say it." Just the same way that people may use "fat" as an insult even if they actually have no problem with overweight people. Though this is getting slightly off topic. Jacobshaven3 20:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. According to WP:V, if an editor adds a piece of information to an article, it's his or her responsibility to include the accompanying reliable source. This information has to be found and cited by third-party sources; it cannot based on assumptions made watching or reviewing the primary source (the TV show). Thus, any information without the appropriate source must be removed, since it violates WP:V and may contain original research, which is also not permitted on Wikipedia. --Madchester 21:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Though you realise that if your being this stringent on this section, you should be for the whole article. And if you remove everything that isn't third party sourced, then you have an incredibly bare article. Almost all of all of the Heroes (tv series) articles rely solely on the tv series, and I do not see you or any other editor making the attempt to fix them all. Name a third party source that definitively shows Ted Sprague as a radiation controller, or any which says that Simone has no abilities. Sometimes, a third party source isn't necessary. Why do you deem this as a time that a third party source is neccesary. And isn't the fact you chose this subject to be so exact about over another showing a certain level of POV, since you are being biased against a certain area of the article. Jacobshaven3 03:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Jacobshaven, Zach's official myspace page lists his orientation as unsure. Rihk 04:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bringing technopathy back into debate

Just wondering, is the interview that states that Micah can "communicate with machines and electronics" enough to put his ability as Technopathy or Cyberpqathy? Just wondering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacobshaven3 (talk • contribs).

What interview? If there is one that says that, it sure sounds like technopathy. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, an interviewer asked Bryan Fuller if thats Micah could do that, and he said Yes. Reference is :Interview with Bryan Fuller, Co-Executive Producer/Writer. Retrieved 1 Jan 2007. Jacobshaven3 17:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
If I don't get a response in a couple of days I'll make the hange, since no one seems to be disagreeing with me. Jacobshaven3 02:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interests

Is the comment about the video game really nessessary? It doesn't seem to have a point on this article. Bio 19:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm I agree, it's rather trivial and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. — hippi ippi++++ 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/c/Talk%7EMicah_Sanders_7a5d.html"