Talk:Wolverine (comics)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wolverine (comics) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
WikiProject Comics This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Edit the article attached to this page or discuss it at the project talk page. Help with current tasks, or visit the notice board.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Shinto, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to Shinto. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments


Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Contents

[edit] Eastwood influence?

I'm not an X-pert though I used to read the comics often. I challenge anyone to watch the Man with No Name trilogy and not find influences Eastwood's character(s) have had on Wolverine's personality and mannerisms. Is there no available information on this? 151.205.35.249 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is for Hugh Jackman's version. Look here, here, and here. --Newt ΨΦ 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think the fact that Singer asked him to watch Eastwood films shows that this isn't a shot in the dark, and I don't really see that people are accusing Jackman as being a gross deviant from the comics in any real sense. The problem is I don't personally know who is responsible for the fundamental development of Wolverine as we know him and then at that point how to divine their inspiration. It almost seems self-evident though. 141.153.123.195 16:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Self-evident is POV and asserting this is speculation w/out citations, which I'm sure you realize. I guess it's more "Were Len Wein and Chris Claremont inspired by Clint Eastwood?" then. I tried googling and could only find a vague reference. --Newt ΨΦ 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The character's personality is very similar to the personalities of some of Eastwood's most famous roles, including the Man With No Name from the Spaghetti Westerns and Dirty Harry Calahan. I've heard lots of people say the character's personality is an amalgam of many of the characters portrayed by John Wayne, James Dean, and Clint Eastwood. But, I don't believe it can be stated officially. While the influence is there, to include it in the article is more along the lines of POV rather than a generally known and accepted fact. As Newt said, only an exceptionally vague reference was found. Odin's Beard 00:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to remember, some time ago, Wolvie giving a Dirty Harry-style speech about how deadly his claws were to some thug, and overcoming him with pure intimidation. I have also read somewhere that the writers in the 70s and 80s did adapt lots of his personality from westerns, especially Clint Eastwood. Can't find a reference quite yet though. --Switch 11:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it was, what, 131? He's just come out of the flooded sewer, "It's only 15m, can I kill him before he cuts me to shish kabob with those freaky claws of his?" I missed the Dirty Harry angle. (Not paying attention, I guess...) Trekphiler 03:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Navbox Guidelines

Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion . --Basique 12:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Origin

I'm of the understanding we are to limit plot synopses in articles of fictional characters to brief summaries. That said, I also believe that including the entire plot to a limited series is not necessary to the understanding of this character. I think Origin section should be worded entirely differently; something like: "The 2006 Marvel Comics limited series Origin reveals much of Wolverine's history previously left a mystery. Set in the 19th century and depicting Wolverine as sickly young boy named James Howlett, the series establishes that Wolverine is over 100 years old and reveals that "Logan" is not Wolverine's real name..." and so on. This would put the section in an out-of-universe perspective, more in line with WP:WAF and easier to argue fair use. However, I realize my previous edit was a bit nonsensical. Overall, this article needs to be condensed, that was just my first (albeit poorly executed) step. --Newt ΨΦ 21:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that you're trimming so much that an average reader won't understand what those paragraphs are talking about. T-1000 21:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I said as much in the opener for this discussion (see above: "a bit nonsensical", "poorly executed"). I'll see if I can't make a more sensible edit later :) --Newt ΨΦ 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
As an aside, I'm somewhat surprised that there isn't an article for Origin. It's a significant (understatement!) storyline for one of Marvel's most popular characters. If we could spin off the reverted copy into an article about the story, I think both camps would be adequately happy. I'd be bold and do it, but I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about the story to be comfortable doing it. EVula 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd agree with this, though I would hope that such an article would be more than a mere repository for the plot of the series, and have a bit of secondary analysis and critical and fan response as well as some development and behind-the-scenes-ness. --Newt ΨΦ 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I consider that a given. I wasn't suggesting the disputed content become the entire article, just serve as the jumping-off point for one. EVula 02:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It could be a very good article if media coverage is factored in. It was a big deal for Marvel to reveal that origin; there was a fear it was going to ruin one of Marvel's most popular characters. --Chris Griswold 03:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The common practice with the limited series articles is to just list the summaries and leave them so far as I've seen. At least the more recent ones. That was why I offered the caveat, not because I didn't figure you knew. --Newt ΨΦ 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Powers and OHOTMU

I noticed an additional in-line comment added after mine discussing some of Wolverine's uncited powers. OHOTMU statistics are generally frowned upon by WP:COMIC editors (see: here and here). As I understand it, if certain fictional facts are found only in the OHOTMU, then it is difficult to argue WP:FU. Basically, fictional facts are not facts per se (independently verifiable separate from the reporting source) but fiction, and rewriting or paraphrasing fiction is not transformative. As the OHOTMU is an encyclopedic source (albeit of fictional facts) we are a competing product (a free encyclopedia) and since we are in no way transforming this fictional material then we are infringing on the OHOTMU's copyright. I'm not against these powers being listed, however, if we could get an issue of a comic book where a character states that Wolverine can endure strenuous activity for days, or where he is depicted lifting greater weight than a human of his stature would reasonably be able to, I'd be a lot more comfortable and the article would be more in line with WP:CMC editorial guidelines. --Newt ΨΦ 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm confused. I've red posts by editors stating that by including things taken from the OHOTMU results in copyright infringement. However, if that's the case, then isn't copyright being violated by even having articles about Marvel characters anyhow? The articles contain most of the same information including a fictional character biography and detailed description of whatever superhuman powers a character has, just as the OHOTMU. As you stated earlier, the OHOTMU is an encyclopedic tool so isn't copyright being violated? Anyone could come to Wikipedia and read the same information for free rather than pay three bucks for an issue of the OHOTMU. Odin's Beard 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is why we shouldn't include information from the OHOTMU, or at least information only found in the OHOTMU, and definitely not report information only found in the OHOTMU in the same manner the OHOTMU reports it. We're not supposed to be a replacement for the OHOTMU, which offers an in-universe history of the character. We're supposed to relate the character as a phenomenon (not a person) and note its effects on the real world. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). It should give you an idea of what Wikipedia's goal is, and the problems with much of the comic book articles. --Newt ΨΦ 02:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It still doesn't really answer my question, I don't know maybe I'm just not getting it. I fail to see how using information taken from one Marvel publication, namely the OHOTMU, violates copyright when using information taken from other Marvel publications doesn't. Say, for the sake of argument, that an issue of the OHOTMU states that Namor can lift approximately 100 tons. Now, if it's mentioned in the article, it's a violation of copyright. But if an issue of regular monthly comic book or a mini-series that's canon is mentioned in the article stating that he can lift approximately 100 tons, then it's not a violation of copyright? Sorry, I just don't see the difference. Odin's Beard 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Look up fair use. Better yet, here's an excerpt:
"In general four factors must be considered:
  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The difference is this is an encyclopedia, and so is the OHOTMU. Our product is thus possibly competition for the OHOTMU, and it's free. If we keep the plot summaries to a minimum, we're not a competing product with the comics or we at least offer less competition. --Newt ΨΦ 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First Appearance

I've just removed the parts of the article saying that he 'appears in the shadows' or does not 'fully appear' in Hulk #180. In that issue he quite clearly gets a full body shot and gets some lines. This website features the evidence.Jayunderscorezero 11:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If Marvel's official position is that Wolverine's first "true" appearance occurred in Hulk #181, then it doesn't matter what this website says. To say otherwise in the article is substituting opinion for accepted fact. If Marvel's position is that his appearance was a cameo or whatever, then that's what has to be written in the article. Odin's Beard 23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But it's entirely verifable that the first appearance of the character called Wolverine was in issue 180 - as long as we don't say it's his first OFFICIAL appearance, then I don't see a problem with either verifibility or what marvel is saying. --Charlesknight 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There's always the "While Wolverine can be seen in issue #180, Marvel Comics official position is that he did not appear until #181" --NewtΨΦ 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I see your point Odin's Beard. However, I think it's sensible to at least remove references to him 'appearing in the shadows' or being otherwise obscured in #180 when that is clearly not the case in the actual issue. Agreed?Jayunderscorezero 09:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC) And yes, I very much agree with Newt on this oneJayunderscorezero 09:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Works for me, and I don't have any problem removing the reference to him "appearing in the shadows" since he was clearly shown. Odin's Beard 00:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rarely kills

I've removed this sentence:

"Logan -- he can incapacitate, immobilize... maim and cripple a hundred ways. But he rarely kills. If you don't believe it - check their heartbeats."

That might have been the case, 15 years ago but does not seem to hold true those days. Wolverine kills a lot of people (mainly nameless henchmen but still...)

--Charlesknight 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought about removing it myself, even though it does hold some ring of truth. He does have respect for life, at least until someone does something that offends his sense of personal honor or takes innocent life or tries to kill him. Even if it's next to impossible to kill him, and he knows this full well, he does have a tendency to respond in kind. Odin's Beard 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
It's a constraint of the narrative form - you want to say that Wolverine does not enjoy it but then he has to slash up a certain number of people every issue to get the reader to come back. It's similar to him being the "best at what he does" but failing to kill anyone of note :) --Charlesknight 15:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The word rarely applies to killing differently than it applies to something like eating chocolate ice cream. I've probably eaten fewer bowlfuls of chocolate ice cream than the number of times Wolverine has killed people. In real life, would you ever say someone who has killed dozens, maybe hundreds of people rarely kills? No bloody way. Doczilla 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's more a constraint of the Comics Code & the Editor in Chief, I'd say. Recall Shooter's conniption over Jean eating the planet of the asparagus heads (even tho, strictly speaking, she wasn't legally responsible, as Claremont pointed out in X-men Companion: "possessed" by Dark Phoenix, brainwashed by Mastermind, take your pick). Trekphiler 03:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

UNCANNY X-MEN #116 (December, 1978) is, I believe, Wolverine's "first" kill. In the Savage Land, Storm and Nightcrawler witness Wolverine sneak up and kill a sentry guard. "He's like the great cats on the veldt. When he strikes, there is no mercy in him." is Storm's thought on seeing Wolverine in action. 74.244.63.126 03:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Counting weapon numbers

Confused slightly. Is Bradley was weapon 0, doesn't that make Weapon X the 11th weapon? JoshuaZ 13:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why? Also, can we get a citation on Bradley being 0? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion: Meta

What does the speech balloon on top of the index mean, and why is he on the archives?--SidiLemine 15:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Now I see where it's from. That must be from my browser, but this balloon keeps jumping everywhere... Is something wrong with the tmplate?--SidiLemine 15:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Atheist?

i noticed Wolverine is listed under "fictional atheists" at the end of the X-men animated series episode "Nightcrawler" hes shown reading from a Bible and praying, allowing God into his heart. how could Logan still be considered an atheist?

The X-Men Animated Series isn't canon, has nothing to do with what goes on in the mainstream Marvel Universe as it refers to comics, neither do the movies. Wolverine, in the comics, kind of "flirted" with Christianity during World War I after he began seeing a woman named Janet. Cyber, one of Wolverine's earliest enemies and his commanding officer during WWI, murdered Janet, for some unrevealed reason, and Wolverine confronted him only to be severely beaten and left for dead. I suppose that someone as devout and good as Janet, to Wolverine, shattered his faith in Christianity. As far as the other religions of the world goes, Wolverine has never shown or announced any sort of affiliation with them. I think that it was in Uncanny X-Men #159 that the X-Men first tangled with Marvel's version of Dracula. Wolverine attempted to use a crucifix against him but it had no effect, I think that either Wolverine himself or it was just written in that Wolverine using religious icons on Dracula wouldn't work due to him being an athiest. Odin's Beard 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

hey man...thanks for the info Dick Grayson

Don't forget the story (I forget the ish) where we see Kurt in prayer, & he asks Logan, "Don't you believe in anything?", to which Logan says, "Nope, nothing I can't touch." (Was it 137, before the battle with Jean? My recollection is, it was later, one of the Brood stories.) Trekphiler 03:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pub histor vs. character

The significance of Origin and "Weapon X" are lost within the context of the character history. Their significance is the breakthrough of new backstory after years of confusion, but that is lost when used chronologically by continuity. I'd say that the publicaton significance to the character at least rivals its effect on the character storywise. Any suggestions on how to move/split this material so it makes more sense?--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The publication of Origin and Barry Windsor-Smith's "Weapon X" should be mentioned in the historical context of Publishing History, but the actual details (that Logan is really James Howlett, his subjectment to the Weapon X project, etc.) should be in the character bio. WesleyDodds
Ok, i've just thought of something: rename "Wolverine's intended origin" to something that can encompass what's already there while also adding mentions of the publications of Origin and "Weapon X" as an extra pargraph. Because the character's murky background has long since part of the intrigue that interested readers. WesleyDodds

[edit] Wolverine's daddy complex

Should there be a specific section dedicated (or, more importantly, is there anything written in a secondary source) about how Wolverine seems to have a penchant for taking young mutant (and non-mutant) coeds under his wing and protecting them? This I guess is the "Unkie Wogan" I've heard in passing, but editing this rather sprawling history down I've noticed at least three instances: Jubilee, Shadowcat, and Amiko, not to mention the movie version's relationship with Rogue. Just a thought. --NewtΨΦ 00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see a need for a special section just for the purpose of acknowledging that he has a tendency to look after strays, so to speak. He's not exactly a role model, but does offer advice or look after younger and naive people who get themselves into trouble. If there was a specific reason that he looked after "kids", like on a subconscious psychological level, then maybe. But, as far as I know, nothing has ever been written to explain why he does it other than the obvious: he'll occassionally run across a lonely, scared, and confused kid that thinks or feels he or she is all along in the world and has no idea where to turn. He's a mentor...that smokes, drinks, gambles, and kills....a lot. Odin's Beard 00:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It should be mentioned if you can find a source that talks about it, like an op-ed column or an article in Wizard. WesleyDodds 02:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
My main concern is taking stuff unimportant to his biography (but possibly important to his character) out of his biography. His meeting Amiko Kobayashi seems very out of place, for example. --NewtΨΦ 02:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writers and issues

While I understand I'm working on editing the "biography" section which people prefer to write entirely in-universe, I do not think that "Chris Claremont and other writers have added layers of complexity..." is entirely enlightening nor fair to Claremont or the other writers of Wolverine. I've also added some issue tags because all this jumping around from Canada to Japan to Australia without any context as to the time period, who was writing it, why he's there, and loosely connecting these places by adding "later" in strategic places is rather shoddy and only minimally informative. --NewtΨΦ 00:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bone claws

I was just wondering if Wolverine actually sharpens his bone claws? Most depictions I've seen of them portray them no where as sharp as his original adamantium claws, and they look like the only thing they'd be good for is stabbing.141.157.217.34 19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

  • He had his bone claws first,then he was taken to Weapon X and had the admantium attached to his entire skeleton.

Well, since his bone claws are once more laced with adamantium, it's a question that'll never probably be answered. Nothing was ever shown in the comics, or even mentioned for that matter. As far as I know, it's something that's never really come up. I suppose most people just suspected that the claws just kept a natural edge, maybe because of their shape or something. Maybe he used something for a scratching posts like cats do to keep their claws sharp. *shrug* Odin's Beard 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, the only time that the claws have been depicted as truly cutting are when the artist depicts the claws as blades, which isn't accurate at all. It's always been my assumption that the claws were naturally shaped to have a bit of an edge, as well as extremely sharp tips, but that they would tear and rend like a cat's claws rather than cutting through objects. I've been thinking that the article could use a paragraph or two talking about the claws themselves; that might be a good place to address this issue. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Naturally yes, that's how the bone claws should have functioned but this is a fictional comic book character after all. The typical laws of nature don't exactly mean very much in comic books. One could argue that Wolverine's bones are naturally denser than those of an ordinary human, which could help add to the bone claws' edge. There's no real answer to the question, just speculation because it's never been addressed by Marvel. Without the naturally sharp edge to them, they'd be spikes rather than claws. In fact, they were drawn in some instances to look more like spikes while some artists drew them retaining their traditional shape. Odin's Beard 23:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
It really does depend on the artist. I've seen the claws shown as conical, like real claws, or as blades. The very famous cover to his first limited series, for example, has the claws clearly shown as blades, but the current comics seem to show them as real (pointed, not blade) claws instead. In 'Origin, they looked like real (pointed) claws. Maybe the sharp edge was given to them in the adamantium bonding process. But, really, we'll probably never know the "official" shape of the claws. --Switch 11:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In his first limited series, the idea was that the claws were forged of pure adamantium and he has bionic housings in his forearms; he clearly states so. No wonder the claws look like a bunch of knives. They were supposed to be artificial. Inner Circle 2.0 12:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logic check

For adamantium to be "toxic", it would have to be, in some way, chemically reactive. If it were chemically reactive, it could not possibly be indestructable. Therefore, "adamantium poisoning" should be impossible. Chaotic nipple 00:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think the original story handling this - an X-Men issue where Wolverine's powers were cancelled for days/weeks - treated the problem differently. It wasn't that adamantium was toxic, it was that Wolverine had a metal skeleton with no functioning bone marrow. This would have been the first Genosha storyline, which that article identifies as starting in Uncanny X-Men #235. If anyone's got the issues, we can probably settle this... --Mrph 00:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
In Uncanny X-Men #380, in a storyline involving the High Evolutionary using his technology to supress the mutant abilities of every mutant on Earth, Wolverine explicitly states that he is dying of adamantium poisoning. I'll have to look it up, but I believe he also stated the same thing during an issue of his own monthly series that was taking place alongside the X-Men storyline. The thing is nipple, logic doesn't always apply when it comes to comic books. The Marvel Universe is ficticious, they can do whatever they want to it. All you have to do is open any comic book on the market, by any comic book company, and you'll see every natural law tossed out the window. For instance, adamantium can withstand nuclear explosions without so much as a scratch, which makes it vastly harder than even diamonds, and diamonds are the hardest substance in nature. There are beings in the Marvel Universe that will never grow old, can fly through space and survive unaided and even go faster than light, and it goes on and on. Logic, simply doesn't apply. Odin's Beard 23:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
"The thing is nipple"? You might want to take a wikibreak and go do whatever it is you need to. Come back when you've gotten it out of your system. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Sounds as if you're the one that's got some sort of problem. Chaotic nipple is the editor's nick, I just used nipple instead of just saying the typing the whole nick. Nothing disrespectful going on. Get the fact before jumping to conclusions before you decide to lecture somebody. Odin's Beard 23:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Get over yourself. It was a joke. And learn to use punctuation better.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Logan's skeleton is not made entirely of Adamantium. Rather, the Adamantium/Skeletal Bonding Process (created by the Japanese mad scientist Kenji "Lord DarkWind" Oyama) that Logan was subjected to during "Experiment X" only chrome-plates the metal to the outermost layers of calcium specific to the human skeleton. Red blood cell production of the bone marrow is not affected by the metal. Without an accelerated Healing-Factor, the subject would die from the traumatic shock induced by the brutal Bonding-Process. The metal on Logan's skeleton is viewed as a foriegn substance by his Healing-Factor, which constantly devotes tremendous effort trying to remove it from his body. 74.244.63.126 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Strength

This is getting to be a big problem. I have removed Wolverine from the category Category:Marvel Comics mutants with superhuman strength twice now. Wolverine does NOT have super strength within the stipulations of the category Category:fictional characters with superhuman strength. After it was nomiated for deletion several guidelines were set up to make the category easier to manage. One of those is that "the benchmark between those with superhuman strength and those who are simple very strong is roughly one ton." Those like Captain America and Wolverine comes no where near havinge super strength within this guideline. Wolverine being stronger than the average human is irrelevent. I hope this clears everything up and I would apretiate it fi people would STOP adding him back to the category. (Animedude 07:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC))

I was following the category description until "roughly one ton" which then makes "superhuman strength" a neologism until we can find a source for that definition. What is greater than human is a bit more ephemeral than that, I'd say. --NewtΨΦ 15:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
It is actually the rule of the marvel Universe and is in their handbooks. But this rule was mostly set to keep theis category from becoming too crowded. Without guidelines, almost EVERY fictional character (especially in comic books) could be considered super strong, as they have shown strength far greater than an "normal" person. Also I think it is good having a set limit to what is considered "Superhuman", meaning far greater than humans can possibly attain and "almost superhuman" being the peak of human potential. Captain America, Batman and Wolverine all fall into the "almost super human" category. Being "better than human" doesn't cut it. In real-life strong man contests, contenstants have been seen lifting 700 pounds or more. Should they be considered for this category? Byt your (loose) definition it is "more than human" as most humans cannot lift this much. Should all Olympic runners be considered to have "superhuman speed" as you and I cannot run as fast as they can? The rules are in place for a reason. (Animedude 17:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC))
If it's Marvel's definition it needs a cite. If it's not DC's then DC characters (as the parent category is applied to more than just Marvel's characters) are going to be a bit different. "The rules" were made up by Wikipedia editors and thus it constitutes a neologism. Look up "superhuman" it can mean supernatural or it can mean greater than ordinary human. It's not that easy. --NewtΨΦ 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Why is it so hard for you to accept that Wolverine doesnt have superstrenght within the confines of his own world. EVERY comic book character has show feats of strength greater than those of normal human beings in the real world. Does this mean Wolverine is an par with the Hulk? Nope. Batman is not considered to have super strength, but has on times show strength far beyond human potential. Guidelines exist for a reason. Since you wanna be picky, I will try to find a source for the one ton range.

While we can't use handbook stats, canonical comic issues have been mentioned that mention him displaying superhuman levels of strength. The newer versions of the OHOTMU do state that anything from 800 pounds up to the 25 ton range, which is where the character falls, is considered superhuman. Superhuman is meant to be anything beyond the the natural limits of an ordinary human. Maybe he can lift 900 lbs, maybe he can lift 1 ton, I don't know if an exact figure has been given. Superhuman strength doesn't always entail for a character to have the capability to lift and hurl tanks like 60 ton basketballs. If Marvel's position is that he does have some level of superhuman strength, whatver the actual amount of weight might be, then that's what has to be reported. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with Marvel Comics' position on it is pretty much irrelevant. Odin's Beard 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

By this definition this would give both Captain America and DC's Batman super strength. Even though it is a character point that each of them do not have super powers. There msut be some kind of distiction, as almost every comic book character has preformed some fantastric feat which may or may not be a super power... (Animedude 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
First of all, Marvel's rules of what constitutes "superhuman strength" do not apply to DC characters like Batman. If writers and editors at DC want Batman to lift a city bus and say that a human at peak potential can lift a car, then that may not be "superhuman" and especially would not be for Marvel characters. As for "superhuman strength," you may be able to use the OHOTMU definition though there are copyright issues there since we're possible competitors for that product. We run the risk of regurgitating their copyrighted material for free, thus acting as a detriment to their sales and our use would not be fair. --PsyphicsΨΦ 16:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Also, there doesn't have to be some sort of distinction. Marvel's position, and there are other canon comic books to back up the position besides those listed, is that the character possesses some level of superhuman strength. DC can do whatever they wish with Batman, just as Marvel can do what they wish with their character. Captain America has demonstrated superhuman feats of strength before sure. As you mentioned, most comic bookc haracters have at some point. However, Marvel's officially states that Captain America, at least the Earth-616 version, is at the very pinnacle of human conditioning. There might be contradictory feats of strength shown in the comics from time to time, but according to the OHOTMU he isn't recognized as being superhumanly strong, while Wolverine is. Many might not agree with Marvel's position on the matter but, quite frankly, it doesn't matter. The character is their property, they can interpret everything about him in anyway they wish. Odin's Beard 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
In Uncanny X-Men #158, Wolverine punches Rogue so hard that she goes crashing through a concrete wall. This wall is several feet thick and is undoubtedly reinforced with steel. This took place inside the Pentagon, and I doubt that they use a lot of drywall construction in there. This was a punch. He didn't hit her with a wrecking ball or an I-beam, just his fist. Rogue was flying towards Wolverine at the time, so he was not using her momentum against her. I don't care how indestructible his bones are, there is no way that this could have been accomplished without a decent amount of super-strength.Sadaharuo 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Religion

Okay, so Wolvie has repeatedly been removed from the category "fictional atheists". No big deal, as Wolvie's atheism has never been a particularly prominent part of his character, though he is an atheist I'm sure. But he is still in the categories "fictional Shintoists" and "fictional Buddhists". Not only is it more or less impossible to be both, as far as I can remember Wolvie was never a Shintoist, despite his time in Japan. Regardless, Shinto is essentially a dead religion, the Emperor having been depowered, so I dare say he isn't now even if he ever was. We also need a definite citation for his Buddhism, which I seem to remember being shown on and off over the years - he isn't a great Buddhist (after all, he isn't the most pacifistic character in the MU). --Switch 12:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to contest, Shinto is one of Japan's largest religions. That is all. --NewtΨΦ 12:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Self-correction: Shinto is essentially dead as an organised religion. It now makes up much of Japan's native mythology and superstition, little of which is followed, for lack of a better word, religiously. It has many followers who claim not to believe in religion. As far as I can tell, having lived in Japan for a very short while a few years ago, it is not regarded in the same way, say, Buddhism is.
For the sake of the article, Wolvie does engage in some Japanese cultural behaviours at some point or another that are derived from Shinto, so I guess it could be said he is a Shintoist. Then again, so do my parents, an atheistic Liberal Christian and a nonpracticing Catholic respectively, so what do you do? --Switch 13:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheist

Is it possible to be an atheist in the MU? There is people that can confirm the One Above All exists. T-1000 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a character in the MU could be considered an atheist in regard to the various religions of the real world that are portrayed in the comics. I don't know if anyone in the MU, or at least on Marvel's Earth, worships the One Above All. Odin's Beard 23:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the One Above All is actually worshipped, he's something that concretely exists as part of the universe. It's like believing in chairs or oxygen: you don't need to, you know they're there.
I think Iron Man is still in the fictional atheists category though. Yep, he is, I just checked. --Switch 05:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the point in being an atheist or beliving in God if you already know that an omnipotent being exists? T-1000 16:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Omnipotence is a word that gets tossed around a lot in comic books. Beings like Galactus, the Celestials, the Watchers, various members of the "god" pantheons of Earth, and Eternals have boasted about being "all powerful" and all that. Many of these mentioned are close to it, at least by most standards at which anybody can think of. Perhaps out of a combination of ego and having lots of experience with superhuman and supernatural beings that Wolverine doesn't accept any of them as "gods". For every "god" he, or any other Marvel character for that matter, has encountered that claims omnipotence, they don't behave very godlike. Also, there's always a more powerful being that seems to pop up occassionally.Odin's Beard 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I just thought of a similar situation in Discworld. Several people there, including Commander Vimes and the Greek Philosopher-analogues, are called "atheists" (both in-universe and out) even though they know that gods exist; they just don't worship them or engage in religion. Wolverine is the same essentially. --Switch 10:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citing Sources

Wolverine was described as a "warrior-poet" in a previous incarnation of www.marvel.com before it became a wiki. Perhaps the Marvel Encyclopedia Volume 1 and Marvel Encyclopedia Volume 2: X-Men might do so as well. --68.224.247.53 19:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's probably best avoiding statements like "warrior-poet" because it sounds pretty close to POV, that is unless he's referred as such in a canon issue of a comic book that's not an encyclopedia like the Marvel Encyclopedia or the OHOTMU. Odin's Beard 23:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Strength of Wolverine's claws

Okay, let's get this straight, yes, adamantium has the durability to cut through nearly any substance, which, in effect, means that Wolverine's CLAWS can cut through nearly any substance. However, this does not mean that WOLVERINE can ALWAYS cut through ANY substance. Wolverine is not exactly one of the most physically powerful among most of Marvel's powerhouses. Wolverine probably has the strength to cut through substances such as concrete, but I doubt that base Wolverine has the brute strength to cut through most of the very strong suubstances, such as reinforced steel, gold, platinum, and diuamonds. And Wolverine definitely stands no chance at cutting Marvel's other famous fictional metal, vibranium. Say that you have knife made of titanium or solid gold or solid diamond. Just because it's durable enough to cut through most metals does not mean that YOU are able to do it. Wolverine's claws aren't lightsabers.

Second point to get straight, yes, Wolverine's skeleton and claws are currently made out of true adamantium. However, true adamantium is not the strongest substance in the Marvel Universe. As it has been said before, Captain America's shield is clearly stronger than true adamantium. Uru is also stronger than True Adamantium, as things such as Thor's hammer is made out of Uru, and even the gods of the Marvel Universe themselves have trouble welding Uru weapons. Also, Thor himself has been able to dent True Adamantium before. I believe True Adamantium second only to Uru in the Marvel Universe though. XtrEEmMaShEEn3k2 23:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the article is worded in saying that Wolverine's claws are capable of cutting any known substance, other than Cap's shield and true adamantium itself. I can use a pocket knife and cut stone but I can't slice completely through the stone. It's the same with Wolverine's claws. With the exception of Cap's shield and true adamantium itself, his claws have cut any solid substance that they've gone up against. Not completely through, but they have cut it nonetheless. If there's a material that his claws can't cut, other than those mentioned, then provide a legitimate source.

However, your point about Uru sounds like POV. Granted, Thor's hammer did slightly dent a small cylinder of true adamantium, provided he hit it with all of his strength. Adamantium's durability, like that of any real alloy, somewhat depends upon how thick it is. For example, a piece of titanium 6 inches thick is going to be able to withstand substantially more force than a piece of titanium 1 inch thick. There are instances of uru being damaged, and even completely destroyed. I'd have to look up the issues but, during Thor's last monthly series, his hammer was severely damaged. I can't remember all the specifics exactly. However, there was a character named Uroc, a pretty obscure character, who was a rock troll that used magic to transform his body into uru. In Thor #450, Uroc's left hand was exposed to liquid nitrogen and was completely shattered after being shot with a bullet. It wasn't an enchanted bullet or made of adamantium or some other ultra durable metal. It was just a plain old fashioned lead bullet. Is uru stronger than adamantium? I doubt it as there are numerous examples of it being severely damaged or even destroyed within mainstream Marvel continuity. However, if a legitimate Marvel publication can be found backing up the claim of uru's superior durability, in the mainstream Marvel Universe, then that's all there is to it. Otherwise, it's POV. Odin's Beard 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

In the early 90's, when they started renumbering the X-Men comics, the new issue #1 had Cyclops claiming that a wave of Wolverine's arm could slice through cold steel. I think that, given Wolvie's mildly enhanced strength and the sheer toughness of adamantium, its not inconceivable that that he could do so. But you are correct in that he doesn't possess the physical strength required to slice through *anything*, but if he had help (fastball special?) he could cut through quite a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.218.89.103 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Adamantium is apparently so indestructable that the hyper-scalpel sharp edges of his claws are impervious to ever dulling, even on a molecular level. I've seen him drive his claws easily into solid concrete and climbing with them. He's slashed through steel girders. Cut through steel doors. Cut through walls. Cut through alot of cars. Cut through tanks. He cut his way out of the Weapon X Compound. He can cut the Hulk, man. Everyone's scared of them... especially Spider-Man. They'll cut through anything. 74.244.63.126 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How can he stab the Hulk? Very few individuals or weapons are strong enough to pierce his skin. Wolverine couldn't hurt the Hulk without Adamantium. The blades can cut through everything except Adamantium and Vibranium. It's the metal, not the strength behind it.74.244.63.126 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Erase the Ultimate Wolverine Article you BITCHES!?

I am getting tired of whoever thie bum is that keeps on erasing my fucking article so stop Bitch!? User:Redbird 41 22:42, 08/12/06 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to read the talk page for your "fucking article," you'd see that there was consensus to merge it into the main Wolvie article. So no, it will not stop and any attempt to recreate without discussion will be reverted. CovenantD 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha, stupid. Since we're talking about Ultimate Wolverine, I have an issue to bring up: why the hell is everyone assuming that Hulk tearing him in half would damage his Adamantium skeleton? I thought this was Wikipedia. Come on guys, get with it. All references to this should be removed immediately. I'm too lazy and busy to be bothered, but I'd appreciate it if someone would, you know... get on that. -- Nick Begovich 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WOLVERINE ORIGIN

It states in the origin that is posted that Wolverine is the illegitamate child of Thomas Logan. That does not seem to be the case. In the Origin Series, the Howlett grandfather was seen with bone claws, and it is eluded to that the mother of James Howlett has suffered some sort of dimensia and has scars on her back that could be explained by the claws raking her back from her husband, the natural father of James Howlett —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.195.66.48 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't remember the first - when exactly is the grandfather shown with claws? As for the second, it is implied - Logan speaks of Howlett as "not deserving a woman like that" or "not knowing how to treat a woman like that", or something similar - it is implied, but never stated, that they had a relationship in the past a few times. I gathered that the claws were from Thomas Logan or another child; the mother was obviously disgusted by mutants, and she would not have stayed married to one.
I guess the question is, are we allowed to mention events that are implied, but not explicitly confirmed, to have happened? Obviously we can't out-and-out say that they occured, but I do think it's permissible to mention things that are implied. -Switch t 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Things that are implied are fine to include as long as it's clearly stated that it's an implication. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The origin series did mention that his mother had another child who was not normal and that caused her to behave the way she did. That other child is unknown and that other child could be responsible for the scar she displayed. That other child was the first born. Now... we must admit that Thomas Logan looks a lot like our Logan! Thegrayone 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)thegrayone—]]12-14-06

Think about it. Thomas Logan's appearance was crafted to be virtually identical to Wolverine's but it is never stated that Thomas is Wolverine's biological father. Part of the Wolverine character's appeal is the mystery that surrounds him and his past. This was another of those little mysteries. It might be a general consensus that Thomas Logan was Wolverine's biological father, but Marvel decided to leave it as a mystery. We can assume he is, the resemblance is extremely difficult to get over, but, let's face it, unless Marvel confirms or denies it, we'll never really be able to know for complete certainty. As for the claw marks on Wolverine's mother, she did have a child that died prior to the events of the Origin mini-series named John Howlett. When Wolverine's mutant powers first emerge, after seeing Thomas Logan blow his father's head off with a shot gun, he uses his claws to kill Thomas. Wolverine's mother loses it and screams "No!! Not again!! Not James!!!" or something like that anyhow. So, that is an indication that Wolverine's older brother also possessed bone claws. You'll also notice that when Wolverine's grandfather first notices the claws, he's holding Wolverine's hand and examining them, doesn't seem at all surprised. Now, Wolverine's older brother features prominently in the Wolverine: The End mini-series. The mini-series reveals that he did develop powers like Wolverine's and that he was sent away to an asylum for several years. But, the only problem is that Wolverine: The End isn't part of the mainstream Marvel Universe. In the end, it's merely another alternate reality/timeline story. Odin's Beard 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Logan's mutant genes were inherited from his mother, Elizabeth Howlett, who had become severely unhinged at the fact that she constantly gave birth to monsters. His physical appearance and psychological temperament were passed down from his biological father, Thomas Logan. These statements are pretty obvious when reading "ORIGIN". It's not up to Marvel to confirm or deny these facts, it's purely up to the whims of the next writer they hire with a notion to retcon whatever he pleases. 74.244.63.126 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed "... James becomes tall and strong, ..." to "... James becomes strong, ..." Wolverine has never been tall. Gethe 23:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This page definitely needs clean-up

The Fictional Biography, like the Magneto one, is basically a fanboy's bio and totally in-universe. What time scale does it offer to someone who isn't an X-Fan? The Wolverine: Origins and Civil War sections also suffer from recentism, the former being well to do with it's own article. Wiki-newbie 09:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to clean it up, but the fanboys will have little of it. --PsyphicsΨΦ 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but, since Wolvie's made few apps outside X-Men or his own minis, AFAIK, it'd be a bit hard to go outside. Unless you mean cover date? Which the ish #would do, N? Trekphiler 03:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sharper than a Wolverine's claw

I deleted "published in June though" and "and inker Jack Abel". The cover date is the important one. And while I have no intention to slight Jack Abel, it's traditional for writer & penciller alone to get credit (or you'd always have to mention Terry Austin's inks on Byrne, & I've never heard anybody do it, even me, when, IMHO, they're better than John's own)

Moreover, I rewrote:

"Wolverine is initially overshadowed by the other characters, although he does create tension in the team as he has a crush on Cyclops' girlfriend, Jean Grey. As the series progressed, Claremont and Cockrum considered dropping Wolverine from the series"

to this:

"At first, Claremont and Cockrum considered dropping Wolverine from the series, in part due to his similarity to Thunderbird; Claremont, and later other writers, added layers of complexity."

based on remarks in X-Men Companion. I've never heard Wolvie might have gotten dropped, & it was Thunderbird that got croaked. I'm inclined to add a [citation needed] tag to "dropping".

On other business, do we need a cite for, "Wolverine can read and speak Japanese"? And was it 113? (It followed the escape from Antarctica, and since the circus was 110...) Can somebody confirm the Mariko engagement ish was 118? I recall it being later. (Unless I'm thinking of the wedding, which was, what, 173?)

I'm fairly sure that Wolverine and Mariko's engagement was annouced on the last page of the original Wolverine limited series.Gethe 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

About his psi resistance, I'd add "as well as his innately very strong grounding in the real world, thanks to his enhanced senses." This is suggested by a New Mutants (I think) ish, the "homecoming" in the Brood saga, where Dani tries to slip him a fake image, & he says, "Get outta my head, kid." Ditto "resistant to psionic atack than usual", if somebody can cite the ish. Trekphiler 04:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The first known example, that I'm aware of, of Wolverine displaying an understanding of the Japanese language was in Uncanny X-Men #118. He's reading a Japanese newspaper to which Cyclops asks "You read Japanese?" It's also the same issue in which he and Mariko Yashida meet for the first time, where he also speaks Japanese for the first time that I'm aware of. As far as when they were engaged, I think that happened at the end of the 1982 Wolverine mini-series. She calls off their impending marriage right at the alter in issue 173, under some type of mind control or something. As for the psi resistance, the statement you suggest in adding is extremely POV.Odin's Beard

[edit] SNIKT!

I added a small phrase about the sound his adamantium claws always make when he pops them out. If you think it should be in another section, move it. Vicco Lizcano 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)

it's suposed to be metalic + tearing sound--87.65.165.85 11:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that when his claws were made of bone, they made a different sound, that's why I specified the bit about the "adamantium claws"; besides, I believe the "Snikt" originated prior to his film incarnation with the claws coming out of his fingers (instead of the classic representation above the hand (contrary to his palms).
My point:
Adamantium Claws: Snikt!
Lame Bone Claws: a different sound.
Hope someone can find a source and clarify this. Thanks Vicco Lizcano 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)
The bone claws made a "SCHLIKT!" sound (or something similar to that spelling) when extruded...I think it was supposed to be a wet tearing/sliding sound. The only other sound was when he first extruded the bone claws in #50, in the Danger Room; that sound wasn't used again to the best of my recollection. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] teeth?

He don't have a silver smile.Are he's teeth the only part of his skeleton without adamantium?--87.65.165.85 11:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not really been addressed in the comics because it's always been stated that his entire skeleton is bonded with adamantium, which would include his teeth I'd imagine. He's taken all out slugs from characters like the Thing, the Sentry, Gladiator, Namor, the Hulk, and numerous other characters particularly known for their strength, without suffering any knocked out or broken teeth.Odin's Beard 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose his teeth could be adamantium except covered with some sort of enamel that recovers once it's broken or cracked like the rest of his body recovers. But this probably wouldn't make any science scientifically, or be internally consistent but then again what part of the character is/does?Wikidudeman (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Also would Wolverine look cool at all with a smile like a rapper. It can just be assumed that maybe his body does naturally create enamel over the teeth giving them a dulled appearance.Until its addressed any answer would be speculation. Thefro552 03:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

His teeth are adamantium with white enamal which grows over them. In every comic where he has been depicted getting incinerated (partially or totally) down to his skeleton the teeth become silver once the tissues are incinerated. See the recent issue where Nitro incinerated him. It has been addressed indirectly in this manner and this is not speculation.Doberman Pincer 22:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

wouldnt it make sense to assume that since teeth can fall out and arent actually attached to your skeleton inexorably that adamantium teeth, though impossible to destroy, can be knocked out and therefore probably have been? i accept that in the comics they were shown to be adamantium but to look at the logistics they could be removed, since teeth arent connected to your skeleton.

it doesnt take bone breaking strength to remove normal teeth.

All I know is that Wolverine has always been stated by Marvel as having every bone in his body laced with adamantium. He's never been shown having any of his teeth removed in any way, at least as far as I know. So, until or unless, its ever shown otherwise, its just baseless speculation. Logic doesn't have to apply, and usually doesn't, in comics. Every natural law known to science is completely shattered frequently. Odin's Beard 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
IMHO he got some teeth knocked out by Gambit - by no means a superstrong individual - in Contest of Champions #2, but that was the "boney" Logan, without adamantium skeleton. However in that very fight, right after losing the teeth, he stated that his bones, even without metal reinforcements, are 'so strong, they virtually can't be broken'. I doubt he would have said that if he considered those knocked out teeth a bone-breaking incident. Inner Circle 2.0 12:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

teeth aren't bone gentlemen. I think I learned that in 3rd grade. You guys must have been sick that day. But regardless, teeth are not bone, and while they may have been covered in adamantium anyway, aren't required to have been via marvel's declaration that all of his bones are covered. TEETH AREN'T BONE

Given Wolverine's regenerative ability, I'm sure he grows back any teeth he loses (he's regrown eyes and such, teeth aren't much of a stretch). Noclevername 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why diagram of claws is not appropriate

thumb|left|600px|A Detail of Wolverine's Claws and Their Housing

This diagram of Wolverine's claws that has been recycled in various Wolverine books from the 80's is not appropriate because it relates information that has been ret-conned away. More precisely, it states that Wolverine's forearms have mechanical devices which lock the claws in or out internally and that there is an artificial silicon sheath within his arms around the claws when they are retracted. It also implies that his muscles were surgically rearranged to control the claws (an assumption often stated in the 80's books). This diagram originally came from the original Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe from 1982-1984 (which was written by a writer who did not consult the writers of the X-Men books) and was later ported to several other books without the authors of those books actually looking at the text in the picture, otherwise they would have noticed that it contradicts the canon of the character.

The mechanics of the claws are now known to be entirely natural with no surgically rearranged muscles, mechanical locking devices, or internal artificial silicon sheaths around the claws within his forearms. Doberman Pincer 21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the diagram is outdated now, but it was canon back in the 80's, before Magneto took his adamantium from his bones. Maybe we should remove that picture or better yet, replace it with an up to date diagram. (Damn intranet, can't show me pictures in wikipedia) Vicco Lizcano 23:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)
It was never canon. It was a mistake in a comic that almost no one read, by an author who didn't bother to consult the creators of the character. The same mistake was copied into a at least on other book by people who didn't bother to read the text that went with it. If you look at the Weapon X series in Marvel Comics Presents (FROM THE 80's) that describes how his skeleton was originally bonded with adamantium it demonstrates clearly that even before Magneto removed the adamantium the claws were not artificially built mechanical devices. Majestic Lizard 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm I'll have to find those copies of WeaponX to check that out... then I've been living a lie my whole life!!! Vicco Lizcano 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)
As far as I know, this is the only attempt that Marvel's made to show the mechanism of the claws. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Read the weapon X series from Marvel Comics Presents and the stories after he had his adamantium removed and the bone claws were revealed. Its in there. Majestic Lizard 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Then perhaps we can add a note, saying this diagram refers to the original way Wolvie's claws worked, before they were ret-conned. Just a tought. Vicco Lizcano 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)
An error in a book that was factually included into the continuity does not equate a ret-con. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majestic Lizard (talk • contribs) 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
Only It's not an error. This is the way Wolverine's claws were supposed to work originally (or at least at the date of the printing of the book). Wolverine's power was only his healing factor, the claws were added by the Weapon X program. The "Wolverine was born with claws" story was created later, thus, generated a ret-con. So people is partly right, the diagram at the least is outdated, but it sure is not an error. Vicco Lizcano 16:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)
Aside from being outdated, if the diagram is only found in the OHOTMU, just like the OHOTMU stats, wouldn't adding it to the article be a violation of copyright?Odin's Beard 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
It would qualify as a fair use image, so copyvio wouldn't be an issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
This article shouldn't treat Logan like a real person, it should treat him as a fictional character. Include the image in whichever part of the article discusses his claws being changed from mechanical to natural in the canon. If there isn't a part that describes that yet, make one. Caption the image with something like "Diagram of Wolverine's original claw mechanism, now retconned." Easy. ~Switch t c g 02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The reasoning for not using OHOTMU images is that they are from a reference book, a potentially competing purpose. Inclusion doesn't add anything that can't be described in the text. CovenantD 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
The classic "Days of Future Past" two-parter's second part, "Mind out of time" features a close-up of Wolverine's lower arm with the flesh burned away, clearly showing a mechanical device. One may argue that even the claw extending-retracting 'propulsion' is visible. Little of the rest of the skeleton is show, but that is mechanical too. (BTW the "Wolverine: The End" summary's last paragraph is completly bogus. Can't say I can correct it at a moment's notice. Shall I post that as a new topic?) Inner Circle 2.0 15:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The cover art by Jim Lee for X-MEN #5 (February 1992) reveals Wolverine's right forearm with the flesh stripped off by Omega Red. Clearly illustrated is the mechanical claw apparatus and circuitry that lies within his arms. 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that issue is over 15 years old. A lot of retcons have taken place involving Wolverine in that time.Odin's Beard 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Just because it isn't canon is no reason not to include it. This isn't meant to be a biography of a fictional character. ~Switch t c g 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, that's the perfect reason to not include it. The information in the article has to reflect Marvel's interpretation and presentation of the Wolverine character as he is right now. They have rewritten Wolverine to the degree that not only does he not have a mechanical claw apparatus any longer, its been written that he's never had it. No reason or explanation has to be given, it just coincides with what Marvel wants to do. Marvel has tinkered with this tidbit of information on Wolverine to make it coincide with a current interpretation of him. If they up and decided to retcon that his claws were actually just pieces of super hard rock candy, then that's what'd go in the article. Odin's Beard 02:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course the article should report what Marvel's official position is, but there's no reason not to discuss changes and retcons. Look at the Batman article: it doesn't treat him only as he currently appears, it treats him as a fictioal character who has been modified, adapted, redefined and even recreated over the course of his publication. It's an out-of-universe perspective; that's how articles on fiction are written. It just simply should be mentioned that for much of his publication history, Wolverine's claws were regarded as being artificial - early, they were even considered to be part of his gloves - and that that changed, and now his claws are part of his mutation. I'm not an especially huge fan of the image, it's rather wide and short, but that it isn't canon is no reason not to include it. Read the article as it is now: much of the information is already non-canon. ~Switch t c g 06:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(reposted)

The reasoning for not using OHOTMU images is that they are from a reference book, a potentially competing purpose. Inclusion doesn't add anything that can't be described in the text. CovenantD 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] What If?

In the Alternate Versions section, it seems reasonable to include his appearances in the What If? comics. Along with the mention under the Weapon X article, I remember seeing a What If? issue while I was in college that posited that the progress of Wolverine's mutation caused his bestial nature to take over his mind and personality. I distinctly remember this issue because it was the first time I'd seen his claws come out between his knuckles instead of behind them, and the issue ends with a failed attempt to capture him resulting in him losing a hand and becoming completely animalistic, more like a modern depiction of a werewolf than anything. What say you? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable addition, though it'd be nice if the exact issue number could be tracked down. EVula // talk // ☯ // 07:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I remember another one: "What if Wolverine Battled Weapon X?" The Weapon X program passes on Wolvie and operates on a nameless (and pretty damn brutal) Canadian, who then decimates Alpha Flight. The government calls Wolverine in and, with the help of some guns and a katana, he saves the day. Judging by the "List of What If issues" page, that would be #62 in the second series. In fact, it looks like he's had several major appearances in What If. 72.81.112.154 06:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titling

I'm a little concerned about the titles used for the article. As they are at the moment, if you wanted to change parts in both Pre-X and X-Men histories for this article, it wuold take two edits, instead of one.

Secondly, although less importantly, the titles do seem to give the impression that the two history sections are disconnected. Is there any way to change this (even if it means ignoring the rules)? --JB Adder | Talk 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] bub

is bub a canadian or american slanG word12:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Killing Wolverine

The line talking about the failure of the Xavier Protocols to account for Wolverine's adamantium skeleton seems to be faulty. It is still possible to kill Wolverine using the method described in the Protocols, as only Wolverine's bones are adamantium bonded. If his neck was severed between vertebrae, and then his head removed from his body before the healing factor took care of the cut, he'd be dead. Ultimate Hulk vs. Wolverine proved that this type of injury to his spine is feasible; I see no reason why this wouldn't extend to Earth-616 as well. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

An adjustment to the statement could be made. Given the details revealed about Wolverine's mutant healing factor over the last six months or so, it can't be stated that beheading him would kill him for an absolute certainty. It might not make any sense, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time. Natural laws and limitations are frequently ignored in comic books. The whole thing about the Ultimate Wolverine vs. Hulk is still just speculation at this point. Logically, it was connective tissue that was destroyed, but Marvel might say otherwise when its all said and done. Who knows, Marvel writers might say that Wolverine's joints were coated in some sort of chemical that allowed his joints to retain their flexibility and it was just the UMU's version of adamantium that was damaged along with connective tissue. What holds true for one alternate reality doesn't have to hold true with another. Odin's Beard 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main image

I'm not satisfied with the image showing Wolvie in front of Captain America's sheild. I think it fails Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines#Superhero_box_images guidelines because the sheild is so prominent. I also don't like it because the caption contains a spoiler about another character, a totally unnecessary move. I'd like to remind people that Wikipedia is not the place to show off the latest solicitation covers just because they're the latest - they should contribute something that is not already present in the article. CovenantD 20:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but it shows Wolverine's healing powers and hair, alongside his distinctive claws. I wouldn't oppose or support an image change. As it is, this article is out of control. WikiNew 20:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

To be blunt, it's "image de jour".
The guideline is that the "most universally recognisable appearance" and "clearly-defined primary costume" are preferred. While Wolverine has had so many "looks" there is one that the publisher keeps coming back to: the full cowl, two-toned yellow and blue with black trim one. That's what should be in the 'box, without competing elements. That being said, the guidelines give no weight to "visible use of powers" so the healing is a non-issue.
As far as the article goes... if it is as condensed as it can get, then it may be time to look at which section or sections might be best to split off. "Alternate versions" and "Appearances in other media" would be good candidates. But a concerted effort to weed out cruft and trim should be done first. — J Greb 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wolverine Origins Survey

  • split-such a large and dense page, doesn't need the detailed plotline of a comic book series. Origins could get its own comic book series wiki article and the entry in the main article could be reduced to a brief summary about the series.66.109.248.114 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • leave There should be other priorities than pulling a section that is entirely plot summary for a second article. The article would be better served by:
  1. Having editors that are up to speed on and care about the character, but not wedded to keeping trivial detail, go over the article to remove obvious cruft and condense the plot summarizing as much as possible.
  2. Cleaning up the references for consistency.
  3. If the result of that is still running over 45k, then looking to split off sections. But not sections that are integrated into wither the "Publication history" or "Fictional character history/biography" sections. A better plan would be:
    1. "Alternate versions": Even though some of these should be mentioned in the Pub history to reflect the publisher's value of the character. At that point an argument could be made to split the "Ultimate" version off into a 3rd article as was done with the Supreme Power Hyperion and Nighthawk.
  4. If that still leaves the article at 45k+, then it may be time to look at the need for an article dealing with the 5 self titled Wolverine comic books. That's a harder sell though since the articles would have to deal more with the production history of those books, creative people involved, and plot summaries as condensed as they should be here. And even then there would be a sizable overlap between the "(comics)" and "(comic book)" articles.
— J Greb 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Leave I agree with J Greb. The real issue I see is deciding exactly what information is trivial and what isn't. Otherwise, what we'll have on our hands is an edit war. I personally feel that the alternate versions sections needs a lot of trimming. There are, I think, 13 different alternate versions mentioned in that section and there's another section right after it talking about even more alternate versions. Aside from the Weapon X/Age of Apocalypse version and a couple of others, most of the rest don't seem to offer very much to the article other than just little tidbits that take up a lot of room. I also agree that Ultimate Wolverine needs to be seperated into its own article. I was against merging the Ultimate Wolverine article into this one to begin with. Just like Ultimate Spider-Man, Ultimate Wolverine is involved in an ongoing monthly title and has his own seperate and distinct ongoing adventures different from his mainstream counterpart.Odin's Beard 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/o/l/Talk%7EWolverine_%28comics%29_4bf0.html"