Talk:Peter Petrelli/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Removing "Benefactor" column from Powers table. 1.1 Arbitrary Section Break (Columns Removed) 2 Hiro's Power 3 Two powers at a time (again) 4 Peter's real power name 5 Better than the original 6 Dispute resolution 7 Concerning Charles Deveaux/First Power 8 The Electrifying Elle 9 Peter's BDay? 10 Empathy 11 Humorous? 12 Sylar's Powers through Peter 13 Infobox image 14 What was archived 15 Don't add Elle 16 Semi-Protection 17 Chart 18 Plot length 19 artwork of peter petrelli 20 Enhanced memory? 21 "Healing factor" 22 Memory of his mother 23 How many categories are we going to add to this poor guy? 24 Extra Boxes 25 Space/time manipulation exhibited in Collision 26 Is Wikipedia the appropriate place for topics based on a fictional universe?

[edit] Removing "Benefactor" column from Powers table.

I'd like to remove the "Benefactor" column from the Power and Abilities table. It adds nothing and only provides a source for edit conflicts. It is becoming increasingly more difficult to determine where Peter received any given power and I can't imagine it getting any easier.

• Remove Padillah 12:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Update Now I vote "remove" if only to keep people from putting Elle in there prematurely. >:( Padillah 13:26, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Update Now we have rationale to argue that Peter didn't get his regeneration from Claire but rather from "Adam Monroe" who he's likely to have come close to through his mother or father. This column is getting more and more OR as the series goes on. And it's still not notable. Who cares where Peter got a power? The defense of this column is only going to get more and more difficult.Padillah 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. It cleans up the page, and will make it easier for new readers to find information. So long as we indicate when Peter first demonstrates the power, either here or in the character history (or the plot of the episode), it should be a simple matter to trace that power back to its source. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Revise The column might just need some sort of renaming or something, maybe "assumed benefactor" or "supposed benefactor", but removing it completely will not make it easier for new readers to find information, but rather hide or eliminate information altogether. I find that indicating the first use of a power is a smart move, but possibly listing other people who posses the power instead of choosing a benefactor could also be a good idea. Maybe, the "most likely" benefactor can be indicated in bold or something so that, for example, the flight power can be stated as "also possed by: Nathan Petrelli, West" but that is just a suggestion. Ed-dg 14:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with renaming it is no matter how we name it, it's speculation. Unless we have a blatant case presented to us like Claire's or Nathan's we can never know. I don't think we're eliminating information, we are admitting that we don't have the information in the first place. I'm liking the "also possed by: Nathan Petrelli, West" but without the speculation of attributing the benefactor. This gives the reader the same information we as watchers have: "these are people he may have gotten it from", without asserting knowledge we don't have. Padillah 14:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK. Scrap the benefactor column. I place my vote. Remove But I still think the information about who else possess the power should be there, if not indicating who the likely benefactor is. The "Episode Absorbed" column would have to go too, if the "Benefactor" column goes, but then a column like "Episode first displayed" can take its place... Ed-dg 14:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The trick with powers is that we link to the power itself - and that power is shared by characters in other shows, books, comics, films, etc. A list of who has what power on Heroes would bury the characters here with countless others elsewhere. Maybe we need to fork the main article and create a "Superpowers of Heroes" article, or something similar - then we'd have everything in one place. Changing Benefactor here to "Shared with" would make sense. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea... I give that my support Ed-dg 14:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit Conflict I think the column displaying who has the power in Heros would be enough. We don't need another page that has the same information... unless you feel it's going to get out of hand for this table. I like the "Episode First Displayed" but that could get contentious if some people think a certain light display is Ted's power and some think it's Electricity Manipulation then we've got an edit war. Padillah 15:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Other than with the phasing power, the show makes it pretty obvious who Peter gets his used powers from, as everyone else has been within range of him. Even if he happened to bump into West before the first episode and absorbed his flight power, Peter still relied on the flight power he got from Nathan. He may have duplicate powers inside of him, but he used the ones from the people he knew. Ophois 15:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The question still remains: is that notable? Of what use is whom he received the power? What information does that give us? Padillah 15:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's useful. People would want to know where he got each power from. Ophois 16:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, you're forgetting the Electricity Manipulation. We have no idea where that came from. Hmmm, so far we've got two we can't definitively attribute to someone, let's see what happens in the next few episodes and determine if we are going to be able to continue to assert whom the powers came from or if the benefactors never get reliably revealed. Currently Withdrawn Padillah 16:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We do have an idea where the power came from, but she just hasn't been introduced on the show yet. Ophois 16:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You know how I feel about gossip sites as sources. Like I said, let's see if it gets clearer or more murky. I'll concede that, so far, there has been a trend to identify from whom each power came. Let's see what happens next. Padillah 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ted managed to create an EMP in the Primatech headquarters with his own ability. Could Peter's electricity manipulation be related to that? ringlerm 10:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The origin of each power is notable because he doesn't come with any inherent powers, per se and they don't just spontaneously come up. Antelope In Search Of Truth 18:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
• Remove We've now got heroes sharing similar abilities with each other. If powers are not unique its going to become harder to keep track of where Peter gets the majority of his powers from. Rekija 01:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is important information. If there is a dispute about the source of the power, then simply add the word "possibly" in front of the benefactor's name, or list the names of several possible benefactors. —Lowellian (reply) 22:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

That is the entire problem. We're not allowed to do that according to WP:OR. If we don't KNOW, we can't say. That's what is causing the problem. If this were a fan site we could speculate all day and night. But as an encyclopedia we have to be able to back up the statements with facts. Leaving this as an eternal conflict field. Padillah 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This in extremely important information. It helps tie Peter to the other Heroes and as many people remember an important part of season one's plot was the character intereaction between Heroes (When D.L. and Hiro saved the people from the car crash, Hiro conronting Nathan as a villian, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.156.72 (talk) 00:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Existing in the same area is not interaction. Peter apparently absorbed phasing from D.L. but has yet to interact with him. This knowledge doesn't change any of the character dynamics. How does knowing that Peter can fly because of Nathan change the results of him using flight to save Claude? What interactive dynamic is changed because of WHO gave Peter the power? It was a plot device in season one to "out" people with powers. We don't need to keep track of it here. Padillah 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It helps see what other heroes had what power when they came into contact with Peter. Tabor 03:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to ask - other than Peter and Sylar who's changing powers? Parkman had telepathy when he met Peter. He's still got Telepathy. What changed? Padillah 15:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Remove. this is note extremely important iformation, and every single time we subscribe an ability to Peter by defining who he was in proximity to, we are committing a WikiSin of original research. We have already seen in the series people with similar or same powers (Nathan and West, for instance). Peter used to live in a city of millions of people and any one of them with abilities that he could have absorbed. We are not here to chew the food for the reader, so we shouldn't be deciding where Peter piced up the abilities that he has. After all, its a plot point that Elle apparently met Peter in the past (I'm guessing he was snagged up by the company and held for months before being secreted out by a fifth column within the company and smuggled to Ireland, but that's just my hypothesis), so who are we to suss that out before its televised? For the nth time, we don't do that here in Wikipedia. We wait until its published and THEN (and only then) do we address it. the presence of the benefactor category is a crufty, OR-by-synthesis-derived piece of garbage that needs to be removed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. If NBC.com decided to make a list or the producers talked about it we would have something to go on. Right now its just OR and causing edit wars. Rekija 20:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Why don't you just change the column to "Presumed Benefactor" or something similar then? It seems ridiculous to leave it "unknown" when we can easily presume who it is for a given ability. After all, few things in a television series' "canon" will ever be confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt--that's what makes for plot twists and the often less popular retcon. The Benefactor column provides fans and new viewers a quick reference for how Peter likely acquired the ability, which will certainly become more important if and when more "repeat powers" start showing up. Scwatson 17:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

While changing the name to something that far more accurately describes the column, you inadvertantly hit the nail on the head, Scwatson. We don't do presumption here, any more than we do supposition, fan speculation or reiterate our personal wishes and whatnot - its kinda why Wikipedia is called an encyclopedia. You are utterly incorrect that information (or "canon", as you have called it) remains unknown; time, interviews, articles and whatnot tend to fill in the gaps of unknown information about a series. Just look at how much JK Rowling tends to fill in the gaps of Potter books in interviews. And you will note that whenever some esoteric fact is added to a Wikpedia article about (and we can still use the Harry Potter articles for this demonstration), it has to be both notable and reliably cited. None of that is happening here. We are assuming that Nathan picks up his powers from one character or another, when the rather significant point of the series is that humans are evolving and learning about abilities all the time. Peter could have picked them up at any point and from any one. We now have at least two rather specific abilities/powers being exhibited by two sets of characters (flight and spontaneous regeneration). That in itself opens up the door to speculation, and we are not in the business of specualtion.

Perhaps you shouldn't be in such a hurry; there is no rush to get the info before someone else does, as the only requirement is that the info be verifiable and reliable.This example shows the removal of the crufty, speculative categories. that's the way it should look, and is far less likely to end up with four or five separate sections in Discussion arguing from the point of primary knoweldge (I/we/obviously everyone saw it) versus secondary knowledge (it was cited as such), the latter being what Wikipedia uses to the exclusion of anything else. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Remove. Those of us who understand the purpose and rules of Wikipedia realize how pointless this column is. While I agree the information can be important in certain plot details (i.e. Peter and Nathan under the Origins section), but there is absolutely no proof that all of these powers came from the benefactor listed. The point I am making is there are no presumptions, and unless we can verifably come up with a way of listing benefactors we cannot keep this column.--Vg0131 21:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is much easier to keep track of Peter's powers of we see when he got them and who he got them from. I don't see the problem. --The monkeyhate 20:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Remove The long and short of it is, due to the nature of his powers, it is impossible to tell who he got his powers from. Unlike Sylar, no ritual is required to gain the powers, other than proximity, he doesn'teven do it willingly, he just "happens" to get the powers (as evidenced by when he first used mind reading and healing). The only character he expressly states whose powers he uses are Claire,s and even tht may simply be him being a fruit. We have seen countless instances of him using his powers without recalling how they make him feel, most notably when he willingly used his power after losing his memories and ending up in Ireland, he used several powers, most notably telekinesis without even knowing who he got them from, much less how they make him feel. This list is not at all rooted in any sort of fact, and therefore should be removed. There is however another possible use for a similar category, that shows powers he has, but have yet to be identified, or demonstrated, such as those of his mother. On second thought this category would be equally as frivilous (and in some ways speculative). It is FULLY irrelevant what it helps, it is a matter of fact, and the only thing factually confirmed is that he got these powers from somewhere.Adroa (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary Section Break (Columns Removed)

Yeah, It's looking like the end result of the people wanting to keep it aren't really citing anything policy-wise, wheras the people wanting it removed are citing specific policy. I am sorely tempoted to reinstate my example edit, as it is a source of cruft and edit-warring with it in. If you folks feel like mediation is necessary, please feel free to list it as such. Otherwise seek out an admin to point out what no original research is all about. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. I've removed the colums detailing who the power might have come from as speculation. As well, i have removed the column detailing when he picked it up, as that relies on the same speculative mindset that suggest who he got it from. Lastly, i removed 'Notes', as that material is already discussed in the article. It's more neutral, less speculative, and avoids the nonsensical 'must-guess-now!'reasoning that seems to pervade the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That looks a lot better. As long as people don't keep trying to add it back in then we should see a notable reduction in daily edits. Rekija 02:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

By the Healing Brownies of Linderman, form your words to God's monitor... ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the first attempted reversion of your column removal - however, I left the Notes section in, removing speculation. I think having the third column helps from a formatting standpoint, and serves as a place to put relevant information that doesn't necessarily fit into the other parts of the article. I'm not opposed to removing it again, but I think it's salvageable, and keeping it should be considered. I agree that benefactor and episode acquired need to stay gone. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

...and missed a note on Niki's power. Thanks, Padillah. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think ZZ has a good point about the notes, not all of them were cruft. But we are going to have to keep an eye on them or people will just move where he got the powers from into the notes field. Padillah 16:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind the notes being back in. I removed them, though, because I felt the material from there was better integrated into the text of the article instead. I am not 100% convinced that a) the notes section will now become the focus of the speculation and cruft, and b) that the information means that we are chewing the food for the reader (which we shouldn't be doing). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The notes are full of OR and it's going to be hard to actually put something notable in there that we can properly verfiy without it resorting it to "Peter used this power to do this". One of the reasons we removed the benefactor column was we couldn't be certain who first gave Peter a power. We conceded it's possible that Peter learnt to fly, paint, regenarate and so on before the show started...and if thats the case then hadn't Peter already been using his powers without the owner present? Making the note for regeneration speculation... once you have to remove that, what else can you put in these note fields? That Sylar and Peter share telekenisis, but we can't list Peter got it from Sylar...and we can't list that it's the only power they share....so it's all very limited and I'm not sure if its worth having an entire column for. Rekija 02:05, 8 November 2007(UTC)

Well, as we predicted, that people are importing the cruft we sought to remove from benefactor over to Notes. I am going to remove the notes column again - everything that is in the Notes column can be incorporated into the text and I would posit that it already is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree... I think the notes column was a worthwhile experiment, but if it's just going to end up as cruft, then we're better off without it. I have to say, though, that if it's just a two column table, we might as well go with a list - maybe even adouble-width list. It'll look a little cleaner. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys all hit the nail on the head, as soon as everything but the notes was removed we saw, "Got this power from Niki during incident in the episode "HTSAEM". Leaving the notes will result in the same amount of daily edits we had before.--Vg0131 14:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Okey-doke, ZZ - experiment and work that voodoo you do so well (that's Hedley!) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hiro's Power

In the "Powers" table, it says that Peter has Hiro's power and that so far he's shown the ability to freeze time....Where did this happen? The dead don 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

When he and Claude were confronted by Mr. Bennet and the Haitian.Ophois 17:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

false that power was Telekinesis. he shows the ability to use hiros power in five years gone, and it is a power he would of obtained within the current timeline 74.104.90.230 21:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a big discussion on it a long time ago, and the consensus was freezing time. Ophois 21:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I just looked at the episode, and he definitely was freezing time. The Haitian and Mr. Bennet (plus the flashing lights) freeze when he stops the taser prongs. Ophois 21:22, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, it says Peter only used Hiro's power to freeze timeRREDD13 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, he did freeze the tazer, its just that it was portrayed in a bad way. If time stopped, then resumed, in theory, the tazer should have continued to hit him. However, the same thing happens when Hiro rewinds time, and knocks a gun out of that womans hand. Rewinding time wouldnt apply any actual motion, or force to an object, it would be in fact taking kinetic energy away, and moving the objects position back to where it would have been without the kinetic energy applied. Peter displays more of Hiro's powers when he freezes time, and teleports both himself, future Hiro, and Ando away from Parkman in the alternative future. It should be noted though, that Hiro is one of the first people that Peter encounters with super powers, as he walks past Hiro in a casino of Las Vega's long before they ever speak to eachother. Baaleos 20:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that maybe it was just portrayed poorly, leaving things ambiguous to the viewer. However, I could have sworn Claude was still moving or shaking on the ground when Peter stopped the taser. More importantly, the sound effects and Peter's physical reaction were similar to when he stopped Claude's bo-staff and not anything like the sound effects when Hiro uses his power or when Peter uses it in Five Years Gone. And setting ambiguity aside, the taser prongs dropping resembles Sylar's use of telekinesis. For that to happen from freezing time, Peter would have had to physically intervene with them, like when Hiro pushes frozen arrows out of the way, etc. And even then, they wouldn't fall straight down. Peter used his mind to cancel the taser prongs momentum, something that would be done using telekinesis. And just because this issue was discussed in the past and "resolved," that doesn't mean there is no longer room for further discussion and debate. That's pretty much the whole point of wikipedia. Scwatson 18:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it referred to the incident when Peter first meets Future Hiro. It's important to note that everytime Hiro froze time, he was the only one unaffected by his own time freeze. The only incident where this doesn't happen is where Future Hiro went back where he AND Peter were unaffected by the time freeze. I think this is explained in that when Peter absorbed Hiro's power, he uncontrollably activated it to be in the same time freeze state as Hiro showing that they were both exerting power over time. The time freeze wears off only when Hiro leaves and Peter can't use his without him yet. Akuzio 13:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

when hiro reversed time on the girl with the gun. didn't he just reverse time around her? at which time the big guy knocked her over. or are you talking about a diff time? 99.246.102.154 04:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, wouldn't you fellows be far more happy discussing this nonsense in a fan forum or some such? If it isn't about the article, and if it isn't reliably sourced, it doesn't need to be here. Period. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm... most of things you've "edited" are not sourced to anything other than your interpretation of the episode -- apparently your senses are not terribly reliable. The first time that Peter undeniably exhibits his ability to manipulate the space-time continuum (on his own) is in Five Years Gone. Aside from that, it is anybody's best guess. It is most definitely ambiguous as to what Peter does to stop the taser in Unexpected -- unless the writers or Tim Kring did an interview that I missed or that only you were privy to -- if that's the case, feel free to enlighten me. Scwatson 01:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two powers at a time (again)

Worth noting that he clearly was healing from being shot in the chest with a gun while still pinning someone to the wall with his telekinesis? I would say that is a pretty clear indication that he can't use just one at a time. • Lawrence Cohen 21:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

maybe peters power are growing and he is getting stronger and learning how to control them better.--Chrisisinchrist 16:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Regeneration doesn't seem to require any concentration to maintain. Even if he does have to activate it manually, it's pretty much automatic from then on. Similarly, invisibility seems to just be a "switch on, switch off" thing that doesn't require continuous concentration to maintain (I think Claude said he could sleep while invisible). Telekinesis, OTOH, does require active concentration. It may well be that "automatic" powers like regeneration and invisibility can be used at the same time as a more involved power like telekinesis, but not two powers that both require his full attention (like flight and radiation manipulation). Wanderer32 06:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter's real power name

I know that Claude said Pete was an empath, but it's not true.

Here is a link to another article that supports me:[1]

I suggest that we change the article to say Pete's ability is "power absorption". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidwhirl (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Just because comics have a certain meaning for "empath" doesn't mean that it's the same in Heroes. Ophois 22:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

An empathetic person is one who feels the emotions of others. Provide some evidence that Peter needs to feel the emotions of people to mimic their abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidwhirl (talk • contribs) 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't. He needs to remember his emotion when meeting the person to use his power. According to Claude, this is known as being an empath in the Heroes universe.Ophois 23:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

He currently has amnesia, so he can't remember how people make him feel. Seeing as how he has the Haitian's necklace, I think it's safe to say everything really is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidwhirl (talk • contribs) 23:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though I still think Peter is an empath, the user above makes a lot of sense. I mean how can he feel the emotion of the persons powers he is using, when he cant even remember them? He doesnt even know where he got his lightning power or his phasing power from. That doesnt sound empathic to me. I think, and this is speculation, that he may have absorbed his empathic ability from someone else, like a gaurd hero, maybe angela or charles or someone else. But, his actual power could be absorbtion. But he couldnt possibly be empathic with his powers because he doesnt remember anyone, therefore, he cant think about his emotional ties to that person in order to use thier ability. like i siad, his empathy or clairovoyance may have come from charles or angela or his father. although i think charles has a dream or astral plane power, since peter dreamed about nathan crashing the car with hiedi. but anyway, back on subject. Empath needs some review.--Chrisisinchrist 16:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

As shown in the show, he can still use his powers based on instinct. To consciously use his powers, he needs to remember emotions. Ophois 04:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

In the first or second episode in which we meet Claude, he calls Peter an empath, referring to his ability. If the writers have labeled his power as such, we've got to keep it as is. (Specialk22 14:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

empathy may be one of his abilities, but not neccesarily the same as his power absortion ability.--Chrisisinchrist 16:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It was in "The Fix" that Claude called Peter an Empath. In that same episode, Mohinder told Nathan that Peter was like a sponge, absorbing other "special genomes" DNA and replicating it. Are we going to call him a sponge because that's what the writers labeled him as?

Pete attaches a trigger to the powers he absorbs. It can be an emotion, but does that make him an empath? My answer is no, because every other character has emotions attached to their power. Are they all Empaths? Again, my answer is a solid no.

When Peter absorbed Ted Sprague's nuclear power, Peter couldn't have done it empathetically because Ted's existence wasn't even recognized until after Peter's hands started glowing, and Ted asked a question. If Peter's powers are based on feeling other people's emotions, he would have felt Sylar's feelings toward all special people multiple times. Is that a scary thought? Rapidwhirl 20:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Peter was within the range to use a power without needing an emotional attachment, and after that, anger or stress caused it to instinctively activate.Ophois 03:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

He seemed to freak out when his hands started glowing, that should be the emotional trigger he attached.

You are repeatedly stating that writers have the right to change the definitions of established words as they see fit. I challenge you to prove that Claude was referring to Peter's ability to absorb other abilities when he called him an empath. Here is my proof that Claude was referring to Peter's personality.

Peter doesn't have the "empath power" (for lack of a better term). He does go rather nicely under the definition of the empath personality. Currently, Peter does recall emotions in order to use the powers he absorbed, we think. The thing is, Peter isn't a robot; his character will always feel emotions. Peter has shone anger when using his telekinesis, except for last week's episode, He didn't look angry when he moved the armored police vehicle. If anger or stress activates Ted's power, why didn't it turn off when Peter freaked out in Kirby Plaza? Why didn't it activate after he used lighting when he freaked out in the shipping crate? Why didn't it activate after the traitor shot him in the last episode? This last example would make anyone angry.

These are inconsistencies in the statement that Peter's emotions are his only triggers. It proves that he doesn't need them. Maybe Claude was right all along. Rapidwhirl 17:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This is supposition, and not bassed on anything but a bunch of amateur Dick Tracey's. Can we please move on now? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Got it. It's power mimicry. (If Heroes ever crosses over into the Buffyverse, I'm betting that Peter will absorb the power of the Slayer.) Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 11:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better than the original

There has been evidence that Peter could manifect the powers which he absorbs and use them to a far better degree compared to the original wielder of the ability. This was first seen when he first consciously mimicked Isaac Mendez' power of precognition within the latter's proximity (Isaac wasn't able to access his own powers at that time, mainly because he's out of drugs to shoot himself with). Another was when he managed to successfully recall Future-Hiro Nakamura's powers to stop time around two taser-projectiles (in time to prevent himself from getting hit straight in the eyes) fired at his direction, despite the Haitian within the immediate vicinity; which is something that the Present-day Hiro, as well as his Future-self, has not shown to be capable of whenever that Haitian is near —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.247.98 (talk) 08:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall Hiro ever being around the Haitian. But Hiro has personality issues that lead to problems controlling his power, all on his own. Peter doesn't suffer from the same personality issues. As far as Isaac painting, the power itself was no better or worse. It's just that Peter was never physically dependent on heroin so that dependency never manifested in him. Isaac's power was never physically dependent on heroin, Isaac was. I've not noticed any indication that Peter can use powers stronger or weaker than the person he acquired them from. Better maybe but that's a question of training, and most of the Hero's have not had any training. Padillah 17:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can tell me how this discussion adds to the article? Remember, this isn't a fan forum. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite a few editions ago several editors were trying to find a way to work in this facet of Peter's power. I was simply trying to dissuade any further attempts before going to edit war. You really need to work on your WP:AGF Padillah 11:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but when I see what appears to be cruft (after repeated enjoinings to avoid such), I tend to get a tad annoyed. There is no clear, citable evidence that Peter's ability is better than the original. Any argument to the contrary can be resolved by asking them to cite the source of such statements. When they can't, the matter is resolved. It really isn't that hard, and if I tend to be a bit brusque with folk wasting (both of) our time with speculation and original research in the Discussion page, then mea culpa. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I understand the desire to bruise toes and apologies if I'm stepping on any with my remarks. I know the written word is more difficult to imbue with nuance than the spoken and I'm a bit of a smart alec. Hope I didn't go too far. Padillah 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I do find you to be a good influence in keeping all the crufty talk to a minimum. My comments were more directed towards those who feel this is as good a place as any to discuss their deductions regarding the show. That in particular drives me nuts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:12, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute resolution

There appears to be a dispute as to the nature of Peter Petrelli's paranormal abilities. Rather than create a brand new section for each and every comment, let's see if we can confine them to here and find a workable solution. As I understand it, some are considering Claude's comment about Petrelli being empathic as proof of that being a supernatural ability, whereas others are considering the power duplication/absorbing ability to be the sole power. Am I missing a key piece of the arguments? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the following might help:

Rachel H writes in with some praise and an interrogative that we received from numerous readers this week. "First off, awesome episode! I was watching with seven other people and there was a collective 'OHHHHHH' when Claire eyed the scissors, the toe went flying and the stump grew back. Awesome effects! My question: We've been told that Peter can only access his powers by remembering the people with those powers. However, in 'Lizards,' amnesiac Peter exhibits quite a few powers (awesomely, I might add). Does this mean he remembers more than he lets on?" Or have we discovered his powers may work more instinctually?

Peter has learned and will continue to learn that's it's more about his heart than his memory[2].

hope that helps. Padillah 19:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It helps in that we have a quote eliminating the whole question of tying memory of folk to his powers. Was that the actual conflict here? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The disagreement is whether Peter is an Empath due to his powers. I say Claude called him an empath due to his personality, and others say it is the name of his power.Rapidwhirl 20:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidwhirl (talk • contribs)

Yeah, what I understood was a whole "are his feelings tied into his powers" kind of conflict. Padillah 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If I may weigh in on the matter, I think - and I realize it is OR, just as others should realize that their assessments constitute OR without specific citation - that Claude had noted something in Peter that was sorely lacking in himself - empathy. That isn't a superpower, it is an aspect of humanity, ie. felling another person's pain. I don't think that Claude for a moment that naming Peter's ability, In fact, Petr himself has referred to his ability as "absorbing" other's abilities. I think we need to call it that.

That said, I think we are moving very close to the edge of speculative reasoning here, actually collating characters' powers with their wikipedia comc-book definitions. It is technically OR by synthesis, so I think we are far better off not trying to be too exacting in the infoboxes, and confining the deeper explanations to the actual text, perhaps in a section in the article. I am going to bring this matter up in the wikiproject as well as a couple of admins and editors I know; I would prefer to bulletproof our reasoning for including these abilities, and avoid getting stomped at GA and FA candidacy time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Charles Deveaux/First Power

After reviewing the first season of Heroes I have reason to believe Peter has another power, linked to Charles. Seeing as how around the time everybody was realizing their powers, Peter began having dreams around Charles, and that he entered some sort of flashback and had a conversation with him, I find it not hard to believe that Charles' power is somehow linked to that. I'm not saying we should add it to the powers and abilities section but perhaps mention it, in the visions section. That is of course, unless enough people support the idea. The power might somehow have to do with reacting to dreams in certain way, or having dreams that somehow provide guidance, which is what Charles was doing in the season finale.

LinkSlayer64 | SPEAK!, Speak NOW! 22:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a pretty widely believe theory, but unless we have a good source for it then it can't be included in any part. We can't speculate, and we can't say what others are speculating unless that person is notifable. Ie, if Milo says that he thinks he got his visions from Charles then we can put that in the visions section (although not in the powers/abilities section as its still just his theory). But for us mortal men and women? Our theories and opinions don't belong on wikipedia. Rekija 08:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Electrifying Elle

Elle made her debut during last night's episode, Fight or Flight (Heroes), and demonstrated the power of Electrical Manipulation. Peter obviously has this ability, but we aren't shown that he got the ability from her. I agree that it's likely, but until it's shown on screen (or we get another confirmation from Beeman or whomever) that he got that power from Elle, then we need to keep the source of that power as "Unknown". Unless I missed something, which is always possible. Best, ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for saying what I was about to. We don't cite anything in the article that we do not have written in cold-hard stone. We are on treacherous ground as it is, what with the synthesis of the article on comic book superpowers into the heroes character articles. We need to keep a tight rein on our speculation where it regards stuff that might be true. Better that we include too little, than include one wrong thing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The writers said in an interview that the woman Peter got this power from would come looking for him[3]. Then in "Fight or Flight", Elle does just that. That pretty strongly suggests he got it from her. Wanderer32 22:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

How do we know its the 'her' they are referring to? Not to be flip, but it points out an assumption on your part - an assumption that's called OR by synthesis, specifically prohibited. Maybe you are confusing Wikipedia with a fan site, or with one of those sites that try to scopp things. We don't do that. Ever. We are an online encyclopedia, which means stuff goes through a lot of verification. A LOT of it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, do you really expect the writers to introduce two separate female characters with the power of electrical generation to come looking for Peter? As a writer in the TV biz, I can tell you right now that if that happens, it would be a shark-jumping moment for Heroes. That, and Behind the Eclipse has proven to be rather straightforward in hindsight with some of its clues. I think based on the writers' comments, we can safely say that Elle is the source of Peter's newest power. (unsigned comment by User: 150.108.232.33)

Gosh, two people with electrical abilites looking for Peter? That would be about as shark-jumping as, say two people who can fly being connected to Claire. Oh, wait. That has happened, hasn't it? That bit aside, we cannot make that assumption because it constiutes something that's called OR by synthesis. We cannot make those connection which seem increible obvious to us until we have a citation specifically saying so. When someone says he got the powers from Elle, we can include it. Not a single moment before then.

And honestly, I would not really admit to being a write in the "tv biz", as that means I could blame you for all the dreck that has ever been on tv. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

At the very least, what the page says should be briefly noted. Doesn't have to say Elle, just that the benefactor will track him down. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't quite sidestep the synthesis issue, and using different words to accomplish the same that is not permitted doesn't reallt sway me. If you wish to push for a different interpretation of the policy, you can always visit the Village Pump - that's where that sort of stuff usually originates. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree that elle probably met up with him before he lost his memory, and that they are trying to hint at that, but until they provide sound evidence it isnt cannon and we shouldnt assume anything. the only thing i suggest is listing it like, in parentheses and saying that it might be her. --Late Leo 22:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

We cannot even list it in parentheses, as we are interjecting our supposition into it. Again, we don't do that. Our opinions don't matter in the article and cannot be included. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There's a source that apparently lists the description for the upcoming episode Four Months Ago, which describes an encounter between Peter and Elle. Is this a good enough source to list her as the source of the ability? It hasn't been broadcast yet and, though unlikely, it could change. I think we need to wait to add her in. Thoughts? ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we going to have to protect the page just to keep this one field stable? Even if the forthcomming episode will put the issue to rest we can't use a forward looking statement as a citation of fact. By definition the future is not a fact. What's it going to take to make people wait 'till Monday? Padillah 13:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

...Probably. I don't think anyone doubts that Elle did indeed give him her power, but we can't add it to the article until it's happened on-screen. That'll be on November 12th (I think), so - barring a release from the producers on the topic - that's when we add her to the list. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. Perhaps perople can jump off the Heroes fandom bandwagon long enough to remember that we aren't in the business of "scooping" or getting info earlier than anyone else. The is the purview of fansites and other places. This is an encyclopedia, and our information is sure and solid - or at least it is supposed to be. Solid, reliably-sourcfed unchanging links are supposed to be the Holy Grail for us, not the cheapest thrill of being the first kid on the block with the new info. Anyone who doesn't get that needs to find a different place to edit, to my reckoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

LMFAO, you guys have no idea how close I was to adding Elle. Granted, anyone can delete it, but I was so close. I think logic dictates that its going to be her, as the only "repeat powers" we've seen have been with people connected to the Heroes (all save West, who I can almost guarantee is going to end up connected to Nathan, beyond just sleeping with his daughter). We should put money on whether or not it's Elle, because I am 100 percent sure, without fail, that it's her TomUsedToBeRob 18:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sucker bet - why waste cash betting against a sure thing? Unfortunately, we haven't seen it on screen yet, and might not before Peter and data return to the present. Once we know for sure, though - it'll be a race to see who adds her first. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but how #*$* obtuse can you people be? Seriously, we've seen the trailer for next episode, Elle is shown zapping Peter on the nose and we get the impression that she's been/enjoys using her power on him ("He's not a toy Elle" - Bob). I TOLD YOU it's her, everyone else knows it her, you're just holding back for the sake of being OFFICIAL. Wikipedia IS NOT official, it tries to be but it isn't. Just do the right thing and put it up there. Stop playing around...TomUsedToBeRob 05:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine... prove it. That's all we're saying. No name calling. No stomping of feet... Just prove it. In point of fact, there's no proof. Heck, now we can rationally argue that Peter did not get his regeneration from Claire. Knowing what we now know about "Adam Monroe" it's perfectly possible that Adam and Peter came into contact through Peter's mother or father or both. This is the basis behind my assertion that the whole column NEEDS TO GO! I'm not being obtuse I'm being down-right obstinate. The column needs to go. Padillah 14:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just change the column to "Presumed Benefactor" or something similar then? It seems ridiculous to leave it "unknown" when we can easily presume who it is for a given ability. It has never been confirmed one way or another when Peter's powers first manifested, and thus, when and which powers (if any) he may have acquired prior to Season 1. Moreover, we have no way of knowing how many powers he has acquired, only those he has demonstrated on-screen or in the graphic novels. Thus, the entire table is certainly not the final word on anything. It could be argued that Peter has every one of Sylar's powers (save Candace's), but has never accessed them for one reason or another. We just don't really know how Peter's ability works. We know it is a relatively passive action, but that is about all we know. The Benefactor column provides fans and new viewers a quick reference for how Peter likely acquired the ability, which will certainly become more important if and when more "repeat powers" start showing up. And regarding "repeat powers," I'm surprised that the writers didn't have Claire wonder why her new boyfriend can do the same thing her bio-father can do before making out with him—especially given how Nathan is prone to "folly." Scwatson 17:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In the sneek previews for the next Heroes yo see someone tell Elle that Peter isn't a Toy and she says I know and she shocks Peter's nose, also you see Peter talking to Adam and the HAtian forcing Peter into a crate.RREDD13 17:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason why we don't change the column to 'presumed benefactor' is that , while certainly more accurate a description of the category, the point is that we don't give any weight - or article space - to presumption, supposition and/or speculation. Wikipedia has a policy about that, called original research. If the website publishes a list of where Peter received his powers, or it shows up in the show, then we can list it. Until hten, it's just a bunch of people playing fan forum detective, thinking they can come here and push everyone around with their great, big brains. Where Peter receives a power is part of the plot, not part of a listing. We are not trying to get the info ahead of anyone else; we are making sure it is the most reliable and cited information than anyone else's. Your opinion and what you've managed to suss out of the plot doesn't amount to the testicles of a flea if you cannot cite it reliably. I am not sure how to make it any plainer than that. Feel free to ask an admin to help you out if you need furhter clarification. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

By this logic shouldn't we throw away the reference to Sylar under Telekinesis.....I mean he could have gotten it from anyone right?Master Shan —Preceding comment was added at 16:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and thank you for pointing that out. If these are the kinds of edits you are going to make, then, by all means, be bold and edit away. Nice catch. Padillah 16:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Well by this logic there are few powers we can actually accredit to anyone, for all we know he could have the ability to fly from his mother. The only power ever specifically mentioned being linked to anyone person was his healing factor. Due to the nature by which he acquires his powers, with no visible ritual, it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell what powers he got from where. With all the people with super powers running around he could have gotten some of his powers from anywhere, and we simply didn't see it. Just as it is very likely he has powers he doesn't even know about simply from brushing by somebody. Sure he links his powers to his emotions, but there have been several instances of him using his powers without remembering people, such as telekinesis. An even better example of this is WHEN HE LOSES HIS MEMORY, how can he possibly "think about how they make him feel" when he doesn't even remember them. If judging this article is going to be so stiff, I believe we should abolish the benefactor section all together. Another point worth mentioning is that in this chart he has powers that he hasn't used (and very likely doesn't know about), for example he has definitely gained powers from his mother, and very likely Charles Duveaux. The bottom line is we can only confirm that ONE of his powers come from a specific person, and by Wikipedia standards she (Claire) should be the only person listed.134.53.180.89 (talk) 20:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter's BDay?

When did who reveal Peter's birthday? Padillah 19:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It was probably on the passport. If the numbers were legible, I didn't get a chance to read them. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:43, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is perfectly legible (for 5 frames or so) on his passport in Fight or Flight: 23 Dec 79. Now, how do we cite that? Padillah 04:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, you should read what you just wrote, you will realize how silly that is. Most frame rates on US television is anywhere from 50-60 frames per second, which puts that rate at slightly faster than the human eye blinks. I am not sure that translates to "perfectly legible". As well, remember that it is you that is observing the image (through DVR or TiVo or whatever), and you are not a citable source. Therefore, we cannot include it. If it turns up in a reviewer's article we can include it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep it's perfectly legible and it's not 5 frames it's 2 seconds and if this is seen on screen i don't see any reason to not add this  Neoarchon   Talk  05:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, what part of OR by synthesis wasn't clear? :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

If the Driver's License DOES say those specific dates, then perhaps they can be added to the article, as long as it is cited that the date is hard to make out. Baaleos 09:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm yeah either the passport wasn't meant to be looked at closely or Peter is a chick Rekija 10:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could that be another ability we haven't seen yet? Seriously, though, if information is shown on screen, then the episode itself can be cited as a source for that information. We do this already when characters demonstrate powers. Here, we could note that "In episode X, Peter Petrelli's passport gave his date of birth as 23 Dec 1979." We can't put that as his actual birthdate, because we create the synthesis when we assume that the date is accurate. It's trivia and it's just slightly crufty, but it would probably prevent the date from being added to the infobox repeatedly. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Arcayne, just because I used "pause" to read it doesn't mean that's not what it said. I don't have an HDTV so I had to use the second time they showed it for it to be "perfectly" legible, but it is. I'm sure if I had a better TV I'd have seen it even more clearly the first time they display it. If, when the DVD comes out and anyone can pause it and see the date are you still going to call it into question? BTW frame rates on US television is 29.97/sec, not 60. Which amounts to 1/6th of a second, you'd be surprised what you can see in 5 frames.

And, ZZ, why would we call a U.S. Passport into question? There's no reason to suspect the validity of the passport, at what point to we accept the information to show presents? Yes, it's possible this whole thing is a plot by the Company to get Peter caught with a fake passport and arrested and sent to GITMO where he's tortured and experimented on by the government... or it's just a passport. I have no issue with the data itself, just the method of citing the data. Without specifics a person will most likely miss it. Padillah 13:22, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I would have no reservations about using the passport to firmly establish Peter's birthday as fact... except for the fact that it lists him as female per Rekija, above. I concur that the date itself is likely accurate, in the absence of contradiction on-screen. We'd cite it using the "cite episode" template. I already have the reference written out for use; it can be copied from Maury or Matt Parkman on the list of characters. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have aproblem posting the birthdate either, but if we do, we must correctly - as per the image of the passport - identify Peter as female. Of course, there is that pesky rule of Wikipedia preventing synthesis of information, classifying it as OR. Look, humor aside, we cannot include it for a number of reasons, chief among them that it isn't at all noetworthy. Tell me even one time where his birthday has come into play in the storyline - just once. Since you can't, let's move on, shall we? This isn't a fansite. When it becomes important for us to know Peter's birthdate, they will let us know. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I gotta give you non-notable. All right, I'm done with it then. Padillah 13:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OKAY PPL. there is a problem. Maybe he was planning to use a plane to get away thus using a fake passport. This is speculation off course as to his dob. There will never be fact because the program is one of the programs in which one wonders, and the audience need to be able to make that choice themselves.--FragRebel 17:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, thanks there, superman, but i think we had a handle on it 2 days ago, Thanks for the assist, though. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empathy

Not sure who keeps adding in the bits about the power absorbtion being empathic, but its getting a tad old. Claude describing Peter as an empath has nothing to do with his ability and just about everything with Peter caring and understadning the feelings of others, whereas Claude has foregone empathy, living as an invisible person and seeing hte icky things people do to one another. It is simply an example of Occam's Razor; the most obvious explanation is usually the correct one. Maybe we could move on? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

An empath is one who can sense the feelings of others and can sometimes even link with another person. "empathy" is a term used to describe this ability. If you aren't sure whether he is talking about empathy as in the emotion or empathy as in the ability don't jump in. --130.156.169.25 22:16, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am going to do your single-edit-having junk the largest favor by not ripping you a new one here. There was no call for your uncvil response. See, if I were uncivil and not at all willing to follow the policy about not plunging the newbies into a desperate depression, I'd point out how you might want to pick up something other than a comic book and read up on what empathy actually is. Being polite, however, i'd simply point out that empathy is the very real, very normal ability of people to pick up on the feelings of others. Power absorbtion is not really something you see outside of a tv series or comic book. People who have no empathy are usually considered sociopathic. Power absorbtion and empathy are very, very different things, my new user friend. I hope my exertions (and restraint) have served to help edumikate you on the differences. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I am torn over if "remembering how people make him feel" is actually part of his power, or simply how he finds it easiest to access that power. Issac used drugs to access his power, Niki had Jessica tap into that power, Peter's need to draw out powers based on feelings may simply be how he learns to control them. On the other hand, it has been said in interviews it has to do with Peter's heart. Rekija 05:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we are trying too hard. "More about his heart than his head" has so many nuanced meanings (even if we don't take obfuscation into account) there's no way to tell what is meant by that.

• It has been established that he doesn't remember anything.
• It has been established that he can access powers he has absorbed, even ones he wasn't aware he had absorbed (D.L.'s phasing).

It should be clear that he doesn't need to "remember how people make him feel" to access his powers. We need to stop reaching for explanations we WANT to hear and go with what we can verify. Padillah 13:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for saying that. I was beginning to think the no one understood the difference between speculation, OR via synthesis and good, old-fashioned citations. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:29, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Humorous?

"On a humourous note, Boul. Saint-Jacques is spelled as "Boul. Saint-Jaque"."

Maybe it's just me, I'm not quite getting the joke.--MythicFox 12:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bond. James Bond. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sylar's Powers through Peter

If Peter is able to absorb the powers of those around him and he was able to absorbed the acquired power of telekinesis from Sylar, shouldn't he absorb Sylar's innate power and all of his aquired powers up to the kirby plaza? I mean it's only logical. - David Firestorm 02:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

He has. Just because he has them, doesn't mean he knows how to use them. PureSoldier 03:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, it doesn't mean we should waste time in a non-fan-forum talking about them. When they show up, they show up. We write about it, then. this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper seeking to scoop the competition. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

While wikipedia articles should not be overloaded with fan theories and the like, this discussion page is certainly fair game for posting ideas that could potentially impact the article either now or in the future. Or at the very least, it is certainly the proper place for inquiring why something is not in the article (in this case, Peter absorbing all of Sylar's powers), and then getting an answer--which is what happened above. Scwatson 17:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles and discussions shouldn't contain ANY "fan theories and the like", Scwatson, and that's wiki policy. The proper place for asking such questions is in a fan forum, not here. The reason the person's question was answered was that someone had the time to respond to it. If you take the time to look at the tippy-top of this page, you will see a yellow box that discsusses how this isn;t a fan forum for theories and whatnot. Perhaps you missed it in your rush to respond. Now, maybe that last bit is a little bit unfair, but you are defending the inclusion of cruft, which is going to get you smacked around a bit. I am just the mailed hand in the velvet glove doing the slapping. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, how much time out of your life do you spend policing this one article? Sheesh. Hell, I added something to this article months ago that is PURE speculation, and nobody took it out. Perhaps you are right -- maybe I don't know every single "rule" in the realm of wikipedia -- so I'll leave this article to your dubious guardianship, as you apparently have the time to monitor it 24/7. Scwatson 01:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox image

What happened to the previous image of Petrelli, and when was it deleted out? I don't recall any argument of substance taking place here at all. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

never mind, i fixed the issue, and added two more images, illustrating how Mendez illustrated the exploding man and how Peter embodied it at the first season ender. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What was archived

A listing of what was previously archived (not reproduced here as it would be redundant)

[edit] Don't add Elle

Apparently, the very new or very obstinate continue to add Elle as the source of Peter's apparent Electric Manipulation. Please stop doing so, for the following reasons:

1. It isn't cited anywhere reliably yet.

2. No one in the series has pointed that out yet.

3. It is giving me one mother of a headache restraining the urge to editorially rip you a new one in a most uncivil way in reverting your failure to read the no-wiki or actually look at the Discussion page.

4. And lastly, we are not in a hurry. We are an encyclopedia, so there is no rush to get the information first. It's only vital that it is 100% correctly cited. Please understand the distinction, because I and other will revert any and all uncited information that shows up. You will be effectively wasting your time. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Padillah 12:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you two are the ones wasting your time. Scwatson 17:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, now they've shown her zapping Peter in the new promo. That pretty much solves that. It's also fair to say that he has Adam's immortality.

Go back through the history and see how many times just ONE of us has had to revert some fanboi edit and you wouldn't think so anymore. Tuesday's are the worst, but it goes on all week. Next week is going to be bad as well (see above). Since they will show Elle with Peter there will be arguments galore that this proves Peter absorbed her power... yadda yadda. Since we can't lock pieces of an article this is the best we can do. I've come real close to requesting protection on this article just to keep this one field stable. In a sense, you are right. We are not wasting our time but others are wasting our time, putting in edits that we will revert. Padillah 19:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank Padillah for responding first; I would have been sorely tempted to editorially roast you alive, my clever little fellow. If you think that protecting the article from fancruft is a waste of time, I would like to point out that you might want to re-acquaint yourself with what Wikipedia is all about. Until you do, you are going to run into successive editors who are somewhat surprised that a relative newbie hasn't had someone help them to learn some of the basic ideas in play here. Please learn what Wikipedia is about. If you need some personal assistance with grasping some of the concepts, you might find it useful to have someone guide you in that learning process; you can find an admin willing to act as a mentor. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I note further that, even if they show it in the preview, it's not official until it's in the episode. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

When did Peter get near Elle? Besides, he automatically gains their power, Just because he doesn't use it doesn't mean he didn't get it. ------------- Besides, Arcayne, Ive only been looking at this page for a few minutes, and your like, over obsessed, who cares if its for the long run, thats why we can delete things. Please, stop freaking out about everything, this isn't your life, your not getting paid, this doesn't affect you in any real way, so tbh, just stop complaining.Anow2 04:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've redacted my previous comment here, as I've noticed that you are new and don't know its uncool to make snipes at other editors. I am sorry that you are new enough that you are unaware how clear-cut the policies are here. If you cannot cite it, you cannot include it. It really and truly is that simple. If I choose to get a bit ornery over people who are either too arrogant or too stupid to read the caveat that says to not add Elle, then that is certainly my prerogative. I appreciate your input, but usually, when people have user-specific comment to make, they make it to that user on their User Talk page. I appreciate your opinion, and you may rest assured that I am neither obsessed norfreaking out. My comments are infraction-appropriate, if a bit on the harsh side. Be thankful that you've only had a limited enough experience to consider my comments 'harsh'. there are significantly less polite contributors editing in Wikipedia who are far more unpleasant. I am one of the better ones, i think.

Again, thank you for your concern. I am okay, though. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well do not add immortality as a power from Adam. Arcayne is right. It's incorrect and it hasn't been proven. Yet. It's called regenerative healing factor. He already has the same power from Claire. I just guess from Wolverine as an example, I guess the spontaneous regeneration drastically slows aging and growth after young adulthood. Even though it's obvious as it is inevitable, Elle does not belong on here yet. It could be another hero (or heroine) he got his electrokinesis from. Only time will tell.Elemental5293 14:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Now it's officially confirmed that he met Elle during the four month break, and he spent most of that time isolated, where he didn't get the chance to meet any other electricity manipulators. What more do we need? Wanderer32 19:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

We were waiting for it to be shown. We didn't need to be ahead of the curve; in fact, we never need to be, and shouldn't want to be. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Elle did provide Peter with the power of electric manipulation. Remember, he did meet Elle once, and when he was discovered by those Irish mobsters, he exhibited the ability of electric manipulation. Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 09:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I think everyones cleared on that. Even before it was confirmed we we're all pretty clear on that. It was if we had the ability to source it or not which was a problem. But we've decided to get rid of that part of the list entirely so not sure why this conversation wasn't archived with the rest. Rekija (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

JUST TO FINISH THIS ARGUMENT. Elle had known Peter long before he ended up in Ireland. Not only that, but if someone wanted to make the argument that her powers were created (her dad accidently created electrical powers) I could say. She, everyday Peter was imprisoned, zapped him with electricity. He even kissed her and she zapped him. Also I think the producers thought it was pretty obvious that she gave him the powers, he gets powers when he is near someone, I think that is obvious enough. Case closed. Elle gave Peter electrical manipulation. Hooty88888 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We didn't need to add immortality from Adam because he has the same power as Claire and Peter already absorbed that. According to Angela Petrelli his immortality has something to do with his regenerating so much. Elle did have the chance to give him, inadvertantly, electical manipulation because she kept zapping him as she is a sociopath and seems to enjoy causing pain. She was plenty close enough for him to absorb her powers and the way he asked her that last time after he was sure he had them back was probably to absorb them to give him an extra power.

[edit] Semi-Protection

I've asked for this article to be semi-protected in hopes of creating an article that's worth reading instead of fanboi cruft. We'll see how it goes. Padillah 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, excellent idea.--Vg0131 00:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chart

Will someone turn the chartback into what it used to be it was very informational, thanks- RREDD13 14:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The concern was that unverifiable spam was continually added to the chart, meaning that it has to be constantly watched for what amounts to vandalism. Since all of the information in the chart is referenced elsewhere in the article, it could be removed. We tried keeping the notes section, but people just added nonsense as before. I agree that, in some small measure, it was useful - but not enough to keep. See the above discussion (here) for more information. ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the notes were bad is firmly established, but the characters that he received the powers from should be in the chart. Therefore, could someone please put them back in? Mundaneman 00:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no firm determination as to where Peter received most of his powers. Those powers which clearly come fromothers is actually discussed within the article, which is kinda the way it is supposed to be (prosify vs listing). As well, since we are starting to see folk with the same powers (like Nathan and West), it is speculative to hazard even a guess.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, during the reshuffling the 'precognitive dreams' part of the powers section got lost. While I realize it has not been conclusively shown what the origin of this power is (or even whether it is an ability Peter mimics from somebody else or an extension of his base empathic power), it is an ability he has exhibited, as far back as in Genesis, and it is separate from his ability of prophetic paintings, which he exhibited much later. It should be listed somewhere in the powers section.

Since the powers chart currently lists 'the abilities Peter has demonstrated' rather than 'the abilities Peter has mimicked from others', can't 'Prophetic Dreams' simply be added to the chart? 82.95.191.164 (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

At some point, Occam's Razor must be used when it comes to the sources of Peter's powers, guys. As bad as providing unsourced speculation is, refusing to provide logical conclusions is almost as bad. If Peter displays Power X, and we've been watching Other Main Character display Power X all season, its likely that Peter at some point came within sniffing distance of Other Main Character at some point and gained the ability. Let's not get into the ridiculous "Was Peter close enough to DL Hawkins to gain his power"-style bullshit arguments regarding his powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are not in the business of providing "logical conclusions", User:68etc. That's a fan forum you are talking about, or perhaps a blog. It is not our job to make the connections, suss out the likelihood of one thing or the other, or to follow the evidence. We are an encyclopedia. there is no rush to get the word out before anyone else does, because we operate solely upon the idea of getting out facts verified, and there is nothing - I repeat, nothing - "bad" about avoiding speculation. We aren't here to outguess the Heroes writers. they are doing all the driving, and our job is to shut up and write down where we go, and not to try to anticipate curvy roads or the next pee stop

And in answer to your Occam's Razor comment, I counter with two words: West Rosen, as in "Yet Another Person Who Can Fly". If there is a duplication of powers occurring, then where Peter gains any specific power requires that much more certification and citation. Why, when the second season started, people kept adding that the power of 'light blasts' was a power he had picked up from Ted Sprague; which we now know to be utterly false. That is the problem with "logical conclusions"; in the absence of all the info, the logic is flawed,and false conclusions will be drawn.

Without citation, we include nothing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot length

Current length is over 2,200 words. Don't get me wrong, it's a good read but its not encyclopaedic. I know his journey shows who Peter is, but we need to be able to tell readers about Peter without telling the story.

I think we should be focusing more on sections that focus on the relationships of characters, like Peter and Nathan and Peter and Claire. Things to do with powers can move into the powers section. Peter's travel to future can go in a section with 5 years gone to discuss Peter's role in saving the future and what he was like in the future we've seen.

It's a lot of work, and it will undo a lot of work that has already been done but neither is an excuse to leave the article in its present state. Rekija 21:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not sandbox your idea, Rekija, and show us what sort of things you think would work better? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Havn't had time to flesh it out yet but a bit like User:Rekija/Peter. Under family you can describe the relationship he has with his brother, mother and niece...maybe not mother if its not notable. But the idea was to get away from the article being plotcentric. In personality we can have how people have described him, and mention some things that show his character like how he reacts to his brothers cheating etc. Rekija 03:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

A problem that I have with the sandboxed versionis that it moves further into the in-universe format (which we need to avoid as unencyclopedic). maybe since there is a writer's strike on, some editors will have the time to weigh in with their thoughts. Cross your fingers, me maties... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] artwork of peter petrelli

do we need to add a small section on the artwork that peter has drawn? is that important. i know we have on on isaac. what about peter? i mean he hasnt done much

1. stick figure drawing
2. completing the homecoming picture of sylar murdering debbie
3. new york blowing up and ted sprague in ep. the hard part
4. montreal at monroes apartment

are these notable enough for inclusion on this page or the artwork by isaac page??--Chrisisinchrist 18:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't done much but I guess so if we condense all of the plot to make some room. I vote yes, we should. Speaking of which, I think we should add the 8 prophetic paintings Isaac painted that are being posthumously recognized. Elemental5293 14:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that Peter has drawn and will draw more in the future. So, yes. Hooty88888 (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enhanced memory?

I don't know if this is worth mentioning, but in the most recent episode, he recalls a past memory that wasn't there. Does anyone think that this could be from Sylar's stolen enhanced memory? --Sivak 02:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what we think, as it wont be able to be put in the article unless its stated in the show or one of the writers mentions it. But anythings possible. Rekija 03:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see this as a separate ability. Instead, this was likely a natural recollection of his past based on reading his mother's thoughts. If anything, this may lend credence to Angela having some ability to project her thoughts as she did with Matt earlier in the season (or at least having a highly trained mind). Stevenbdjr 00:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Not really pertinent, is it? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way to rebut this is to explain that she didn't project her thoughts. As we have now learned that was Peter's healing factor kicking in and repairing the memories. Angela's power is still no where on the horizon. Padillah 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Healing factor"

I've removed text from the article that said Peter's healing abilities allowed him to "reform" after the explosion. Given that we don't know what happened, we can't say that he "blew up". (For that matter, we don't even know if he had to heal - Ted never seemed to suffer from his energy bursts, so there is no reason to suspect that Peter would.) Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 08:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks for catching it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In the latest episode you see what happened. Nathan flew up and Peter wriggled free burst with energy then fell without a scratch on him. Yes, he cannot be hurt by his own power. (After that Adam Monroe/Takezo Kensei heals Nathan using his blood, showing that Claire's blood can be used for healing. This only opens a door into Linderman's power.) Hooty88888 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ted could be hurt by his own power. Yes he couldn't be hurt by his normal bursts of radiation he released but when he almost went nuclear and Claire stopped him it did seem to be hurting him. It was indicated that if Peter went nuclear he would only survive because he could regenerate.

• Well, um...at that particular moment, Ted was shot in the shoulder. The radiation wasn't hurting him, it was the gunshot wound. Elemental5293 (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I disagree with that: he was shot in the shoulder but I doubt it caused him so much pain that he was writhing around like that. Also Angela Petrelli (HATE her) basicaly said that his regeneration would be what caused him to survive that explosion.

[edit] Memory of his mother

Someone should remove this crap: "He inadvertently uses Parkman's mind-reading ability to unlocks all of her memories of him." It is nowhere said, shown, told, proven that he used a power for it. And why would his mothers memories include HER face and not his? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.128.253 (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm usually more on the ball than that but it looks like we've got editors that are very good at hiding their edits behind spelling corrections. It's a common trick. Padillah 13:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

While I won't speak to its relevance to the article as a whole, I think it's pretty clear from watching that scene that he's using his ability to read minds based on visual and audio queues the show uses to indicate when Parkman is doing the same (and when Peter has done it in the past). Clearly, the producers are communicating these queues to the audience for a reason, and to simply ignore them because no one comes out and says "Hey, you just read my mind!" is irresponsible. Stevenbdjr 19:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Then you are watching a different show than I am. I've never seen Matt get pictures from reading minds. When have they ever used the effect of zooming into Matt's iris to indicate he's reading a mind? If you can clear-up the complete inconsistency with any other instance of either Matt or even his father, let me know. Otherwise they best we can gather is that it's the same effect as when Peter consciously activated his healing to "heal his mind". Padillah 20:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, maybe I should've been more clear. I wasn't referring to the picture sequence which I admit has been unique, I was referring to the "jumping" picture and that sound (sort of like a "thwap" noise) they use with Matt and Peter when "reading" minds, which they used with Peter in that scene just before the sequence of pictures. Anyway, it's not that important so I don't know why I'm banging away at it, and I don't want to turn this into a Heroes discussion forum. I think we can say that Peter began to recover his memories upon meeting his mother, and recovered them in whole after talking with Adam and using his regenerative abilities. Stevenbdjr 20:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He regains his memory from his mind healing using his healing factor.75.69.70.83 —Precedingcomment was added at 01:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

the anon user is correct. Adam told Peter to heal his memories, and thusly he did. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam told him to think of someone that matters to him to heal his mind. He looked at the picture to think of nathan to heal his mind. The same could be for another member of his family.Akuzio (talk) 08:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me quickly try to clear things up. Adam Monroe talked Peter through gaining his memory using his own healing power. There is no way Maury or Matt could have done this because the memories weren't there for them to read. Sure, Maury could have put untrue memories in, but he didn't. It is that simple. You are correct on the sound cue. This means they are reading or manipulating someone's mind. Hooty88888 (talk) 20:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by what your saying. From what i get from it, you think people are saying that maury or matt unlocked his memories. Nobody is saying this. they are saying he used the telepathy he ABSORBED from matt to read angela's memories.Akuzio (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm a bit confused, since I kinda thought that the matter was resolved. This isn't a fan forum. If it doesn't specifically address the article, take it elsewhere. please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm a bit confused, since I kinda thought that the matter was resolved. This isn't a fan forum. If it doesn't specifically address the article, take it elsewhere. please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't saying thats what happened, only that people THINK thats what happened. I believe, as is consensus, it was peters healing factor. And yea, no further need for discussion.Akuzio (talk) 13:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Adam's helping him fix his memories occured in the episode after he apparently regained some of his memory thanks to Matt's telepath so SHUT UP and stop fighting about it!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit] How many categories are we going to add to this poor guy?

Can we decide on a number of categories to place him in and leave it at that? Given his power he has every opportunity to be in EVERY SUPER-POWERED CATEGORY ON WP! That's just fancruft. We need to decide the most pertinent and leave it at that. Padillah 20:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Rely on his root ability (empath) and leave the rest to the article. There is no one acquired ability that distinguishes him more than any other, so this could quickly get out of hand. Also, is the "Fictional Nurse" category even relevant to his character anymore? Stevenbdjr 21:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I kinda like this idea, but the base power isn't empathy (as if this hasn't been talked to death at least twice before), but instead power mimicry/absorbtion. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

There, ditched them all, including Italian American since it's never been mentioned on the show. I looked for "Fictional characters with Power Mimicry" but couldn't find it. Padillah 14:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extra Boxes

There was a specific reason we refused the benefactor column from Peter's powers. It contained OR and speculation. The page today was infested with fancruft.Don't believe me. Click here:[4]--Vg0131 03:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

when the hell did he meet hana? so many things wrong with that. its still uncertain if he absorbed bobs power or if his mimicry was surpressed by the haitian and same goes with the haitians power. and im just saying this to show there is reasonable doubt and therefore not fact. wow. some people just don't know what FACTS are i guess

Snarkyness aside, you are missing the point: the criteria for inclusion in WP is not truth, but verifiablity. We cannot verify it, we cannot include it. that be da way dat it be. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I realize I'm coming into this conversation late, but would it be in our interests to add a small section within Powers that lists on-screen "run-ins" with other verified supers? Perhaps it would cut down on the constant attempts to re-add the unwieldy benefactor's column. Just a thought. Stevenbdjr 16:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Space/time manipulation exhibited in Collision

The article says Peter first used space/time manipulation in Collision, but there's no proof that Peter was actually using the power. It could be that Future Hiro can choose what to leave unpaused. (In this case he left Peter unpaused.) The first exhibited column should be changed to "Disputed" for this power. Josh (talk | contribs) 18:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You are a little late on the discussion. Please check the archives for the complete discussion that took place. Writer of the show, Aron Coliete, who recently wrote "Out of Time" or "the line" (cant remember which one) already stated in a question and answer at comicbookresources, that peter froze time. You can go to comicbookresources.com and research in the archive for an article entitled "behind the eclipse" you can also check the archives of the peter petrelli discussion board for the actual arguements from other users. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything at comicbookresources and previous discussions in this page's archives were about Unexpected, not Collision. Josh (talk | contribs) 03:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is Wikipedia the appropriate place for topics based on a fictional universe?

I admit it has been fun to come to Wiki to see what others were saying about the show, but after seeing the fights and dissensions on how the article should portray certain characters, concepts or whatever, I have to ask, is an encyclopedia an appropriate place for this information being that it is not factual (I admit there are articles such as Superman in Britannica, but it's quite short (~213 words) and doesn't go in depth into any specific plot)? That's what fansites are for. Of course, I am but one person and most likely this comment will go largely ignored. But it's my $.02 nonetheless. Jshatch (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I understadn wht you mean, but Wikipedia isn't a normal encyclopedia in that it tends to have articles on whatever folk want to write about. The idea is that there is no snooty sockbat telling someone that they cannot writean article on, say Green Lantern or 300 or Anne Coulter. Sometimes the articles are - for lack of better words - stupid, repugnant or trivial, but the larger portion of the regular folk who contribute to Wikipedia tend to weed those out. As well, most of the articles tend to be viciously pruned to remove fancruft and uncited information, If you think that this isn't addressed enough. maybe you can take a moment and tell me what (about this article) which you feel in not encyclopedic. It would help me understand what you are aiming for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

He makes a very good point: These articles are about fictional universe, they should be about the impact the show has had on the real world. WP:FICTION says we should be writing about the impact and impression this show has on the real world. I don't agree, I have no problem with synopsis, so long as it's kept clean. But it is a good point. Padillah (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't looking to destroy all of what has been done to date, and I know next to nothing about how to write a proper encyclopedia article. It is definitely an interesting read, however I am unsure how in-depth an encyclopedia article on a work of fiction should go. At this time anyone can read the main Heroes (TV Series) article and surf from there for a bit and have most if not all the same knowledge of the show as those who watched it (short of reading the transcript). Not that it's a bad thing -- I often come here to revisit something that I might have missed. But again, that's what fansites are for. I appreciate the control Wikipedia has over the induction of OR in articles, and I even like reading the talk pages so I can catch a glimpse of the OR people are discussing. :) But, the fact that I (and many others) enjoy coming here doesn't keep me from asking the question I did. An encyclopedia covers all branches of knowledge, and I suppose that includes fiction too. :) I'm just wondering how much these topics should be covered... Jshatch (talk) 07:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well the reason they have a discussion page is to discuss. I know that you are supposed to keep plots and stuff out of here, but it's best here than in the main article. When all said and done, what is posted in discussion is pretty much unimportant, so what does it matter? The good bits are picked out, cited, and placed in to the main article. In fact, the very nature of this whole disjointed discussion on the subject of Peter Petrelli I think displays a rather large degree of mis-management.80.176.233.50 (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)