Talk:Claire Bennet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Claire Bennet article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Peer review Claire Bennet has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Archive
Archives
  • Archive 1 (Oct 1 2006 - Jan 28 2007)
  • Start Next


Contents

[edit] Claire's age

On the Official NBC Website it list Claire's age as 17. I know in The Episode the Fix Claire finds out that a woman died in a fire 14 years ago and so did her 18 month old daughter. The woman who "died" in the fire was her mother and she was alive. You probably think Hey She is 15. I checked the NBC Website and it list her age as 17. Could somebody contact NBC and confirm her age. Her age is directly revealed as 17 not 15.

  • There's a scene in "The Fix" in which Claire said to her father that she's "almost 16" and she needs to migrate her teddy bears. Perhaps you should check that part out to clarify properly. DivineLady 05:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
To expand on this, the scene is with her father, in Claire's bedroom. She says, "I'm almost 16, Dad. Bears and talks can't last forever." Seems pretty definite to me. --Ckatzchatspy 05:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw the scene and you are right she is 15 since she says she is almost 16. I aplogize. That means the NBC Website list Claire's age in 2008 if it says she is 17. That is 2 years after the first episode of Heroes first broadcast in the United States.

In the episode Run! her mother says she is 16. So should we change her age to 16?

I'm confused - the article lists her age as 15 in the info-box on the right, but 16 in the intro paragraph. However, they both cite the same source! I've not yet got to that episode, so could someony clarify the article please? Much appreciated :) Richard Jackson 00:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Tim Kring has stated that Claire's age is 17. Source: [1] Sstrieu 14:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't know of the legal driving age in Texas (I'm assuming here that it's 16, if it is not, I will gladly be corrected), but in 'Collision', Brody would not have allowed her to drive his car if she did not have a licence, don't you think? He may not be all that intelligent, but he wouldn't risk letting an unlicensed driver drive his own car...Claire could cause an accident (which she did :P) or they could both be in big trouble if they got stopped by police. He wouldn't risk it. Maybe she had her learner's permit, but wouldn't Brody have to be an adult if she was driving? Correct me if I'm wrong about any of this, but if the above is true, Claire is not 15. Baberlp 16:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the brody who is willing to risk charges of rape to get laid - he wouldn't care about a mere traffic violation. And don't forget that the script writers may have just forgotten at that point. The scene in "The Fix" establishes her age as 15.Dejvid 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I realize that the current pic is the publicity shot that NBC gave out, but i wonder if anyone else has looked at it recently. Its quite unflattering, and puts bennet in a confrontational pose that has not been a staple of her life recently.

Does anyone else think we should change the picture, maybe to a screenshot? Futurebillionaire 19:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)futurebillionaire,

I agreee that it might not be the best picture in the world, however, it does show Claire as a cheerleader. As we all know, "Save the cheerleader, save the world." --Arwen undomiel 21:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Gunshot wound

Hang on, did Matt shoot her in the chest or the throat? I was rather under the impression that he shot her in the throat. I could be wrong, of course. --Arwen undomiel 23:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. I just saw the episode and I think I was wrong. --Arwen undomiel 01:09, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power

Shouldn't Claire's power be called a healing factor, I know Suresh called her ability spontaneously regenerate, which is another word for healing factor, also it easier to remember- RREDD13 20:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Becuase spontaneous regeneration basically means she can heal.—++ hippi ippi ++ 13:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. We take what is given to us. Arwen undomiel 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
What do you agree with? — hippi ippi++++ 10:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I assume you, as you make more sense. One thing I don't get... isn't healing factor basically a Marvel term, coming from Wolverine, then Deadpool, Sabretooth and other Weapon-Xers and finally anyone with rapid healing abilities. If so, it isn't even a good NPOV term to use. WookMuff 10:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Healing factor is a Marvel term, but it's been coined as a term for any healing ability. I agree with keeping it Spontaneous Regeneration, since that is her power. For example, in Mutant X, characters with the ability to heal are called Regeneratives, and thats what their wiki page states. Jacobshaven3 11:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Really, its just one fact, spontaneos regeneration sounds more scientific. like super speed, or increased velocity. thats really about it, besides, linderman coul heal, not claire.69.118.144.236 22:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I love how "spontaneous regeneration" makes it sound like she could regenerate at any random time, even when there's absolutely nothing wrong with her, like when she's just walking along..."wow, I just healed. That was USELESS...". Also, does her power stop her having periods? ;-) Kung Foo 19:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Power Limitation

Quoted from before my edit: "The only limitation of Claire's powers shown thus far is that she cannot heal herself if a foreign object is left in the injured area. The episode "One Giant Leap" demonstrates this when Claire is "killed" after being accidentally stabbed through the lower part of her brain by a branch."

So, am I the _only_ one who watched that episode and was under the impression that the reason she didn't heal was not because the "foreign object" was still there, but, much more specifically, that it was still in her brain? I'm seeing revisions between edits over the bullet issue conflicting what was already written. Is it possible that she healed past the bullet's damage because it didn't put a halt to her brain activity, as the branch did?

As there is more than one explanation, I removed the speculative bit from that paragraph. I further removed the bullet information, which appears to have been noted only because it conflicted with the possible reasoning for the limitation.

I bring this up here so that some discussion may be brought forward and a consensus reached. Valaqil 22:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There was also the scene in Genesis right after she jumped off the tower thing, she didn't heal completely because her ribs had penetrated her skin. She had to physically push them back inside before she healed completely. 192.203.136.254 13:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to add that there has been a definate display of her (and Peter's) body's inability to dislodge foreign matter or realign bone quickly. I say this in defference to the fact that we have never had the opportunity to witness what would happen if a large foreign object remained lodged for an extended period of time but we have seen her dislodge bullets (after Matt shot her) and realign digits (after her hand was mangled). Therefore I can only come to the conclusion that the severity has a great deal to do with the healing time. However, since we have not been shown a severe injury over an extended period of time to base this conclusion on it has to remain speculation for now. I think any reference to supposed limitations should be left out since we can't be sure what the limitation is: Brain trauma or severity. Padillah 14:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I definately agree: there should not be speculation on the limits of her healing ability. Until some notable source (primary or secondary) gives it up, any guess on the subject is just original research on our part (though I'm personally guessing the "stuck in the brain" route). --mordicai. 15:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I think it should be included, but I just found an interview ([[2]]) that states: In this week’s episode, Claire Bennet presumably died until the wood was removed from her head. Was she indeed dead?

Tim King: It’s safe to assume that whatever power Claire has, eminates from the brain (turned on and off by a switch). There is a clue there as to why the major villain of the show is interested in brains.

Take with that what you will. Meiran 23:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Really, its just one fact, spontaneos regeneration sounds more scientific. like super speed, or increased velocity. thats really about it, besides, linderman coul heal, not claire.69.118.144.236 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops! wrong section, my bad!!69.118.144.236 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this section on the main page "(although it is strongly implied that having her brain removed would permanently kill her), though she does need to have foreign objects, such as a branch or a shard of glass, manually removed from her body and bones pushed back into position for the wounds to heal properly." Is not quite correct and needs revising. Only objects that enter her brain need to be manually removed in order for her to recover, this has been demonstrated twice, once with Claire (The Branch) and once with Peter (Glass Shard) objects entering other places on her body would not prevent regeneration. Also, manual manipulation of serious wounds and broken bones is not required for the wounds to heal properly, it merely allows them to heal quickly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.5.183 23:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I placed you comment here because it's more appropriate place than at the top of the page.
As for Claire's power, one reason I reformatted the text from before is the phrasing made it look like Claire had to remove the object, rather than just somebody taking it out. I do believe it has been shown that leaving the object in place only allows a portion of the healing to take place, in as much as an object is in the way of the rest of the process. For example, how would a vein repair itself if a knife were between one half and the other? Claire needs others to remove objects that lodge in her brain because this incapacitates her and doesn't allow her to remove it herself. Yes, I suppose she does have the ability to walk around with a sword sticking out of her gut but I'm not sure I'd call that healed. Padillah 11:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It has been mentioned on the show that the brain is the focal point of the extraordinary abilities these people have. In the late episodes of season 1, Peter tells Claire that shooting him in the back of the head through the brain would stop him healing himself and thus kill him, presumably this is because the brain would be damaged too badly for the ability to function. This is why the branch had to be manually removed from Claire's brain in order for her to come back to life and heal herself, because the presence of the branch in the brain disrupted her healing ability until it was removed. It has also been shown that Claire's body will expel foreign objects itself, bullets were demonstrated on the show but there's no reason to believe other objects wouldn't be expelled also. The ONLY objects that need to be removed manually are ones entering her brain, and thus stop her regenerating. Manual removal of non-cranial objects would only assist in the speed at which the wounds heal, but her body would expel the object eventaully with no manual intervention. I'm not just saying this as my own personal belief, what I am saying is correct and verifiable very easily by watching the series closely. The information on the main page about this particular subject is not correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.233.50 (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petrelli Name

It seems to me that her birth father's name is Petrelli--therefore her birth name is Petrelli. It's not speculative at all. Claire Petrelli should be included as an alternate name. It's not speculation. It's not original research. It's sound and solid based on the evidence presented in the show. "Claire Petrelli" should be somewhere in the article, not just a simple redirect. MahlerFan 15:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

actually, it is speculative, you are not automatically given a name at birth, Nathan wasn't in Claire's life at all, so why would the mother give her the last name of "Petrelli"... its speculative... -Xornok 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, who is to say her name is really Claire? WookMuff 01:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Her birth certificate would say that her name is Claire Bennet, because when you are legally adopted as a newborn infant the paperwork is filled in as if you were born to your adoptive parents.—MJBurrage • TALK • 06:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Her fake birth certificate, with fake details of her life. I don't think a court would find a falsified document like that legally binding. I am not saying that her name isn't Claire Bennet, just that her Birthcert in this instance is hardly the most reliable form of documentation. WookMuff 07:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

My Son's surname is his mothers. thousands of people take their mothers name, rather than the fathers. Saying she was Born Claire Petrelli, not Claire Gordon, is subjective and speculative. Though just as a note, if the adoption was legal, her birth records would still have her real original name because she was 18 months old, and therefore no way near a "new born". Though since she was legally recorded dead (according to the newspaper), I'd say a legal adoption is far fetched. Jacobshaven3 12:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. It's entirely possible to arrange a specific adoption. In fact, it's much easier than trying to establish a birth that never happened. It's a simple matter of declaring the baby abandoned and begining adoption proceedings. Therefore her actual legal birth certificate would read Jane Doe (with some form of middle name to distinguish from the other babies abandoned that year). It's much simpler to claim she was abandoned and do things the legal way than to try and bribe and blackmail and coerce your way through the system. Padillah 13:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I highly doubt that The Company would really stop or care about how "easy" it is to falsify papers, and I also don't think that their fakes could possibly be determined or distiguished from real documents. They've been doing this for far too long, so legality shouldn't even be part of this argument. If the Company is anything like all the other organizations like it in fiction (and with Linderman's actions, they certainly are) then the records are there and are concrete that list her as Claire Bennet, likely with a COMPLETLY false original name, also likely saying she was adopted as a newborn since that's the lie told to her by the fake biological parents. So paperwork and legality are all lined up, ducks in a row, to declare her Claire Bennet. If you want to speculate as to what her birth mother called her, you can. But it is entirely speculation. It wasn't listed in the article about the fire, it wasn't said or mentioned in the flashbacks. Her mother also made it clear in conversations that she never expected Nathan to be a part of their life. Calling her Petrelli in any way can't be cited and it's never been done by official sources. Meiran 23:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claire's Age (again)

In the episode Run!, her age, as said by her biological mother is 16. My edit, reverting someone who changed her age to 15, was reverted. I am going to change it back, but I am trying to avoid an edit war. Please reply here if there are any comments/concerns/reasons about this, before reverting the edit again. --WillMak050389 01:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It is all about context. When Claire said she was "nearly 16" that was fairly straight forward. However, when Claire's biological mother said something along the lines of she is a 16yr old girl, it was just a throw away comment. So unless their is proof that Claire's celebrated birthday and her actual date of birth are different, or until claire has a birthday, she is 15. WookMuff 01:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that we can prove that this is a "throw away comment". Her mom explicitly states she is "sixteen-years old". We do not know that she hasn't recently turned 16 and it just wasn't in the show. I think we can use her mother's quote as a reference. But my comments are by no means the law, so if anyone else has a thought, please reply here about it. I think we need to come to a consensus about this. --WillMak050389 02:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
The two conversations take place within at most 72 hours. The end of Fix leads directly to the beginning of Distractions and ditto Distractions to Run! and each of those episodes takes place over the span of a day, give or take. I think that Claire's birthday would probably have been mentioned. The only way that Claire is 16 is if the birthday she knows is not her actual birthday. Also, if Claire was 18 months old 14 years ago then she would be 15 & 1/2 years old. But then I don't think 14 years is anymore of a definite figure than I think 16 years was WookMuff 06:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
and with the moms mental state slowly diminishing and the years of having of her memory wiped affecting her memory, its more reliable to go with what Claire says rather then her adopted mother... -Xornok 03:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it is Claire's biological mother (Meredith Gordon) that mentions that she is sixteen. --WillMak050389 03:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of that, but a random comment by someone who misunderstood doesn't change the validity of MY statements WookMuff 10:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It's verifiable that Claire is stated as sixteen, what is not verifiable is your opinion that it's a "throw-away comment". Matthew 16:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It is also verifiable that she is nearly 16 and that she doesn't have a birthday over the three ep span between the two comments, because there IS no space between them. They follow directly on. WookMuff 22:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

N Dot W 02:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Claire has said herself is 15, due to be 16, but then again she doesn't know her real birthday, does she? Whereas Meredith would know when she was born, and, having mentioned her as 16, I think that's her real age. Maybe we should introduce her biological age(16) and chronological age(15), meaning officially as found by Bennet, or biologically by her mother.

But that would be OR. As it stands we have the following comments about claire's age. She is nearly 16 by her own admission, she is 16 by her mothers statement, and she is 15 and a half if you judge by the news reports (18 month old baby, died 14 years ago). So until Claire has a birthday, either on screen or mentioned, I still say we leave it at 15. WookMuff 06:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but why is this such a big deal? 15, 16, does it matter? Thats only one year apart, which really is nothing. —++ hippi ippi ++ 13:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Because I am picky? Because there are a lot of statements but to my mind (and I assume the other people who have reverted the changes) the most definitive statement was Claire's "nearly 16" (or was it almost 16... it has been a while). I don't know about you but I often use "near enough" ages when referring to people, calling a 15 year 11 month old person 16, but I have never used "nearly 16" to mean 16. WookMuff 10:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
sorry, but I don't understand you. You said you would refer to people who are 15yrs and 11mths as "16", but you wouldn't say "nearly 16" to mean "16". You are contradicting yourself becuase 15yrs and 11mths is nearly 16. — hippi ippi++++ 09:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You not understanding doesn't mean I am contradicting myself, it merely means you don't understand. I might call someone who was 15yrs11months 16, because I am lazy. But I would never say that I was "nearly 16" if I was, in fact, 16. WookMuff 09:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That is different to what you said last time. Initially, you said that you "have never used "nearly 16" to mean 16" and now you are saying that you wouldn't use the phrase "nearly 16" if you were 16. Your first claim is completely different to your second claim. But anyway, I agree with your second claim as it's simply illogical. Can we just get back to Claire? She says she's "nearly 16", her mother thinks shes 16 and according to the timeline, she's "15 and a half". So I agree with the current information in the infobox. Oh but wait, so do you. — hippi ippi++++ 11:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just changing the way I explained it in the hope it would make the point better. As you now appear to get it, it can't have been all that bad. WookMuff 12:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Family and Relationships section

May I ask what is the signifigance of the Family and Relationships section if nearly all of that information is shown in the infobox? ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 00:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of that would be to describe how she relates to those family members (i.e. 'Peter and Claire met when Peter saved her life. The two have not been together very often, but they appear to share a sort of bond. Later it is revealed that he is her uncle') and with others (like Zach or, in the alternate future shown in 'Five Years Gone', Andy) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gigawolf1 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Hayden go seek

As of Parasite, Claire is the only character to appear in every episode portrayed by the same actor.

Who played baby Claire in Company Man? I suspect it was not Hayden Panettiere. -HiFiGuy 22:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, Panettiere did play Claire in Company Man. It was the episode where Claire was shot and she saved Sprague from the house, so she has still been portrayed by the same actor in every episode. Arwen undomiel 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe they were referring to the flashback, but in the scene where they were testing out the glasses that was Hayden Panettiere. Now, the question is do the scenes on the roof with the infant Claire count? Meiran 23:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading a bit more and thinking, I suggest it be changed to say that Claire is one of only two characters to be in each episode, along with Hero. Then MAYBE add a sentence saying that the actress has been in each episode, though that seems to belong on the actresses page, not this one. But the way it is stated now suggests that Panettiere is ALWAYS Claire if Claire is on screen. Since she has a scene as an infant, this isn't true. Meiran 00:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Claire didn't appear in this week's episode (Fight or Flight) and Hiro didn't appear in last week's episode ("The Kindness of Strangers") so nobody's appeared in all episodes unless Mohinder has.--Syd Henderson 08:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alter time line

Shouldn't we make a note some where in either Hiro's or Claie's pages the because of future Hiro travelling back in time to tell Peter to "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World" because in the ([[3]]} that claire died?- RREDD13 00:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No. This was simply mentioned by future Hiro and doesn't bear enough weight to be considered encyclopedic information on a particular character's bio. Were there a page devoted to various alternate realities in the Heroes universe, then maybe. Windmillninja 15:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sylar's effectiveness

According to the 'Five Years Gone' section, a note is made about how Sylar is at killing those with Spontaneous Regeneration. This is based on the fact that Peter Petrelli was able to heal from the process that Sylar uses to kill people and take their brains. In fact, this is because he was startled, and Claire in the novel 'String Theory' was killed by Sylar. Therefore, he could easily kill someone regardless of healing abilities

[edit] Real last name?

Before she was adopted by Bennet, would her real last name be Clare Petrelli? Claire Gordon? I've been trying to figure this out for awhile.Nocarsgo 12:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do people assume her real first name was Claire? Anyway, until something verifiable comes along, Claire Bennet is the only name that matters. WookMuff 12:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Before she was adopted her real name was "Jane Doe". She would have to be reported as an abandoned baby and as such have no name yet. Padillah 13:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, there's no way to have any clue in an official context. We don't know how The Company faked the adoption, if they listed her as abandoned or what. We just know she is called Claire Bennet and refers to herself that way. It's the only name that matters. Meiran 23:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character article or episode summary?

Many portions of this article appear to be episode summaries. For example the background section is nothing more than a summary of Six Months Ago that just pulls out the parts about her. For example:

Jackie brings Claire her cheerleading uniform and tries to force her to put it on. Claire says she will try it on later and Jackie explains that there are other people on the list who would like to be cheerleaders. At this remark Claire tugs the uniform from Jackie's hands but in doing so smashes into a glass case cutting her hand. When they show Claire's parents, Mrs. Bennet says that Claire might need stitches. After Claire, Jackie, and Mrs. Bennet leave for the hospital the phone rings and Mr. Bennet answers. It is Chandra Suresh informing him of Claire's power.

This is too detailed for this article and sections like these need to be shortened up and made more concise. I'll be working on it off and on but could use some help. -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  05:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, go ahead. Remember, be bold (but don't leave out anything important... or anything that supports something important). It's the inclusion of comprehensive information that has led to the situation you are describing. Most of us are not professional editors so we wouldn't be very versed on how to cut the above article to the relavent information and it's supporting facts without making it sound like we're hiding something. But, by all means, feel free to clean away! Padillah 12:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
This goes for a lot of the character related articles. Cloud02 18:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Hey, I have only seen a few episodes of this show but I was at the Wikiproject page and noticed that this article has recently been peer reviewed. It's a shame when nobody responds. I recently ran a peer review for Paulo (Lost) from Lost and it did not really help me at all. Actually I have nominated the article for featured article status and it may be helpful. One thing that should happen is the plot summary shortened. I have heard that Heroes is a complex series, but every detail does not need to be listed. The first season is just finishing and (based on commercials and the odd information I hear about the show) Claire seems like she might stick around for a while, which mean that this page can only get longer. So, if in one episode Claire plays a minor role (i.e. camera shows her walking or having some conversations that have little effect on future episodes), you don't need to mention it. Also, search through a Heroes fansite of TV Guide.com to find interviews with Hayden Panettiere or Tim Kring about how the character was created or developed. You should also read and quote some entertainment reporters at Entertainment Weekly.com to see how fans have reacted to the character, and mention awards that she has been nominated for. --thedemonhog talk contributions 22:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly agree with you. However, the Heroes pages are filled with Heroes die hard fans, who insist that every detail about each character must be mentioned in the article. I also find this to be annoying and pointless, as most of these articles simply retell the events of each episode. Peter Petrelli is just as bad as this article. I have not tried to edit the articles myself, because I know my efforts will be reverted. Talk:Peter Petrelli#Too much information is an example of a slight edit war. — « hippi ippi » 13:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cell Phone

What kind of cell phone does she use in the show? Steviedpeele 18:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this important to the plot or character? — « hippi ippi » 13:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It's important because it is a part of the show and specific information about the character. It's information about a character that needs to be recorded. Your own views on what is important and what is not are somewhat irrelevant. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide all information about a subject, not just information someone personally thinks is important. The type of cellphone used by Claire is just as valid in terms of factual information as the kind of sword Hiro uses. I'm sorry hippi ippi, this is not a personal attack, but you don't quite understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. This article should contain ALL information about the character of Claire Bennett, no matter how small or trivial.

Two things; 1) Please sign your posts. It's difficult to address a person without some sort of handle. 2) You are completely incorrect. It is not the function of Wikipedia to record every fact regardless of how minuscule. This can be attested to by reading the avoid trivia and notability articles. And most especially by reading what Wikipedia is NOT. What cell phone she uses is simple product placement and thus an advertisement (which wikipedia also shouldn't support). All in all, other than getting Hippy Ippy's name right, I think you missed full stop. Padillah 13:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I was commenting on how an encyclopedia should work, Wikipedia is far from the definition of an encyclopedia if it tries to remove trivia. Claire's cellphone is a fact about her, it's part of her character, product placement or not, and thus relevant. What are we going to leave out next? Is her hair colour relevant? Is what she wears relevant? Who decides what's trivial and what is not? While we're at it, why don;t we cal the whole show trivial seeing as it's not actully real life and has no impact on anything in the real world??? If that's not the ultimate definition of trivial, then what is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.177.243.233 (talk) 15:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No wonder wiki has the reputation of the world's worst Enyclopedia. Written by the uninformed, moderated by the uneducated and maintained by the uninterested.

First off, it is not the function of an encyclopedia to include all knowledge, that would be a ludicrous goal in print media (and pretty far-fetched for Internet media too). That's why every encyclopedia has guidelines for inclusion, so they know when to stop and print the darn thing. That Claire uses a cellphone or text messages frequently speaks to her comfort with technology. What brand of cellphone she has says nothing about her character. It doesn't indicate how honest, or libelous, or quick-tempered, or snide she is. It's just product placement, like the Nissans. Now, to answer your questions in order: No, No, everyone, and in point of fact, that is a very good argument. Seeing how the presence of this show has not impacted anything real-world it is not notable and should be removed. If you visit the Mohinder Suresh article this is a current issue. Now you are starting to catch on (but you are still not signing). Padillah 16:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Save the World?

how is saving claire saving the world? it didn't seem like she did anything to stop the explosion to 'me. please help

it might be because claire convinced nathan to help peter. because of that nathan flew peter away so that he wouldn't explode the NY - KnoItAll

Claire does not save the world, saving claire, is what saves the world. If sylar killed her, he would be able to regenerate, thus when hiro stabbed sylar, it would be inneffective.69.118.144.236 22:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


I assume that perhaps it has to do with her powers of regeneration - her blood holds the power to cure the "Shanti Virus". Maybe this is what Hiro meant........ I just assume there is much more to come which will make that statement make more sense. Such is often the case with prophecies - they usually aren't completely clear until they come to surface. Matt Holzner (talk) 02:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Comparison to Adam Monroe

Recently, there have been edits made comparing Claire's powers to Adam Monroe. The most current wording seems better than the previous entry, but still appears like speculation. I am suggesting that comparisons be left out until there is more hard evidence. Jmjanssen 05:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm not a registered wikipedia user, but I made one of those edits. It seems to be a logical inference, especially considering that, in the Heroes universe, there have been several other individuals who have demonstrated identical powers. I'd love a better explanation as to why it seems like speculation; if given, I will humbly and wholeheartedly accept the deletion of this vital (albeit allegedly speculative) aspect of her power. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.65.194 (talk) 05:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

a logical inference yes, but wikipedia is not a place for inferences. I personally agree that you are probably right, but there is no evidence as such. As far as it being speculation, you have said so yourself, it is a "logical inference" = speculative. Reasonable, yes, but without a source it is not encyclopedic. Thank you for discussing this! Jmjanssen 08:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup attempt

I have attempted to condense the character history to be more concise and without describing every detail of what happens to her in every episode. I also condensed the art section. Please make comments and changes before I put this version up live. It can be seen at Talk:Claire Bennet/Temp. --iTocapa t 05:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I would do away with the constant episode references and simply cite the episodes. It really interferes with the flow of the article. Padillah 13:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I somewhat agree. I think since this is relevant to every character article, you should also bring it up on the Project Talk page, as there is currently a discussion going on over there regarding the need to condense all the character biographies. --iTocapa t 17:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian-American?

I notice that the Petrellis have been categorized as Fictional Italian-Americans. Since Claire is the daughter of Nathan Petrelli (who is Italian-American), would she count as well? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there's no evidence that any of the Petrellis are Italian-American. Josh (talk | contribs) 05:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree, which is why I asked the question. Though the name Petrelli is indeed Italian, that doesn't mean the family is. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Not this "the suriname is Italian" buissness all over again. Just because someone has an itlaian suriname that is no proof that they are meant be at least particually Italian. 1 as this is a fictional show the author can pick any suriname in the world and it has no actual relation with the carachter Petrelli is a good sounding name and it was most likely chosen for that reason. 2 even if this was real life, people can change their names legally to whatever they want. (Electrobe (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC))