Talk:Peter Petrelli

Template:WikiProject Heroes

Read this First!

• For convenience, the long-held consensus is that we do not list where Peter obtained his powers, due to the often murky nature of how they are acquired. To list where we think they come from is synthesis, part of our original research policy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: consensus

Could you please show or link to the discussion that resulted in this consensus? Fredmdbud (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, See archive 2-5. You can mostly avoid 1, as that was more of the same fannish crazyness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI discussion

To be fair, there's no synthesis for most of the powers acquired; of the twelve powers so far mentioned, almost every one of them is explicitly mentioned who they were gained from (for example, it's repeated over and over that he got his radioactive powers from Ted, regeneration from Claire, and flight from Nathan). I think we could have a source column and make indications about the few holes that exist; they are the minority in this situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would open the door for every person who comes to the article with every, friggin' power displayed with a pet theory about where they came from. If we have an explicit, reliable, non-bloggy or fanatic source stating this stuff, then there is an opening to explore Without such, it is us playing Sherlock Holmes, and we cannot do that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think saying "Not definitive" is particularly difficult (policing it, though...), I do see your argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And the ability to "cross-possess" people? Who did Future Peter get that from? What other powers are we going to have to deal with in regards to having two Peters now? It started off fine but has been found to be the very definition of slippery slope. Padillah (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to future Peter's powers... so far, he's only exhibited a single additional power, so I think it could just be added as a sentence below the table. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Two actually, he transported Matt to the Desert which is an unobtained power to date. --Stuartjmanton (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah... three, actually; he trapped his younger self in the body of a Level 5 inmate, which is also a new power. Oy vey. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The extra helping is Crazy is now dawning upon you, EVula. By keeping it simple and encyclopedic (ie, remaining true to the base ability), we avoid the Power Of The Week considerations that would inevitably follow.

Persoally, I think the writers are so close to jumping the shark that even Fonzie is scared. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I would love to see "shark jumping" as an actual power of his. ;)
I still think we can do this in a manageable fashion, but that was before I took into account the slew of new powers that Future Peter (*snicker*) has. Maybe I'll whip something up at some point, but I've got more pressing matters... especially now that I'm caught up on all the graphic novels. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(*heh heh heh*) Made you say Peter. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Five Years Gone Peter

In the section about "Five Years Gone" Peter, it is stated that "He has a very prominent scar across his face, although it is never revealed how he acquired it (especially since he has Claire's regeneration ability)."

The part about him having Claire's regeneration ability is incorrect. In this timeline Claire died at homecoming and never gave Peter the ability to regenerate. In this situation it is perfectly acceptable that he could have a scar although I agree that it is never revealed how he acquired it. --demmeister

Remember, Peter doesn't need anything other than proximity to replicate a power. There's no telling how Claire died at homecomming nor if Peter were there and failed to help or was there but ineffectual, or not there at all. There's also no telling if they had met before this or if he had gotten the ability from someone else. This is the big danger with attributing source to Peters powers. We got them out of the list but we have to watch the prose as well. Thanks for the tip. Padillah (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true. There is no way to know if he has regeneration or not though so the comment about him having Claire's power can't be stated as fact. --demmeister

It doesn't really matter, as in the updated timeline, Claire was saved, he obtained regeneration before getting the scar, yet he still has the scar when he comes back to stop Nathan. Also, specifically naming who he got any power from is speculation. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 13:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the comments for "The Second Coming" Peter say "He was able to teleport Matt Parkman to Africa just by touching him without teleporting himself"

There's no reason to assume that he doesn't teleport himself since he can control space and time so he could quite easily teleport away and back again without appearing to disappear at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.5.22 (talk • contribs)

Right. Again, as folk have noted, speculating isn't allowed here. When Hiro stops time and moves all over the place, the folk frozen don't get to see the movement. Trusting your eyes is not a valid defense in a programme like this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To Denmeister: Peter already had regeneration when Hiro and Ando went forward into this future. They even showed Claire alive in this future. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Francis Capra

Should we also put him under Milo's name for the actor portraying Peter? - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.163.140 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If Capra had actually had any real screen time portraying Pete, I'd say yep, but nope. He had no words as Petrelli, and we only saw him in mirrors, miming Milo. God, I hate mimes... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

He is shown speaking lines as Peter in the first two episodes. Ophois (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What do others think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

But he's credited as Jesse. It has never been suggested that the change was permanent or that Milo was going to be a different character and Capra was taking on the "Peter" persona. He never played Peter, he played someone possessed by Peter. Padillah (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Total agreement with Padillah; Capra was playing Jesse, not Peter. The fact that Peter was possessing Jess is irrelevant; Capra was only portraying a single character. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How is he only portraying Jesse? He has lines as Peter, therefore he is also portraying Peter. Ophois (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But his physical performance was as Jesse. Compare this to Anakin Skywalker, where three different characters have portrayed the exact same character in the same medium. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Forum-sniffing hair-splittery, really. I think its not only non-notable, its moot, and crufty as trying to pretend we know where Pete picked up all his powers. Focus on the character, and not the story in progress. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• So is Milo portraying Jesse then? --172.134.194.254 (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Milo plays Peter, and Capra portrays whoever the character's name was. There was little in the way of Master Thespianism going on with Capra.

Hey could we impose upon you to use the Indent (:) to begin your paragraphs? You mark yourself as a noob when you do that, and i am sure you want to be taken seriously, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The actor was not trying to replace Milo as the person to portray Peter. This isn't One Life to Live, so far Peter hasn't died in a car crash only to be brought back but there's too much plastic surgery and now he looks different. If "Peter" got stuck in the Capra character and had to continue his existence that way, then yes, Capra would then be portraying Peter on an ongoing basis. This was a one-off and now it's over. Padillah (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm used to the asterisk on Heroeswiki. I look less like a noob in here than you since I can remember Jesse's name and you can't after I had just said it.... Clearly he wasnt being "replaced" padillah, but neither was the actress who played Candice when Ali Larter and Tawny Cypress played her. And neither was Zach quinto when Adrian Pasdar played Sylar. Anyway, someone is playing the other character in this scenario one way or the other. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's make this astoundingly easy, then. Find a citation for an interview where Capra discusses how he chose to play Milo's character, or how Larter portrays her different characters, or Pasdar when he portrayed Sylar. That will help, since we are, y'know, citation-driven. Without that, this discussion page is looking ever more depressingly like that sad little mock-up fanfluff, HeroesWiki. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another attack. Classy. I wonder where people really go to get info on heroes...--172.134.194.254 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, the local library? There are stories about fireman, policemen and famous pioneers and such...

What attack? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There actually is an interview or something somewhere on how Pasdar got Quinto to do all of his parts first so he could see how Sylar would say and do things.... Ill see if I can find it later --12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that would be awesome, anon12. It sounds like something Pasdar would do, as I remember him stating in an interview during his Profit series (this is before the internet took hold) about how he would play all the other roles, so he could change his body language while around them - more in keeping with the chameleon-like Jim Profit. Yeah, I have watched too much tv. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[1] About 2/3 the way down of the post. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That will work nicely for Nathan Petrelli's article as an out-of-universe aside. What about for Peter Petrelli? After the posting by Beeman is a lot of commentary from various users, and none of them are notable enough to cite. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Acquired powers

IMO we should list the sources of his acquired powers in the table as we do for Sylar. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But the problem with that is there isn't a future Sylar yet (I say yet because I saw next week's previews). Future Peter has already displayed 1-2 (depending on if teleporting Parkman was just Hiro's powers or some new guy/girl's) and I can be reasonably certain that if he stays around for another episode or two he'll show some new powers. Anonymous (yes the same anonymous person as before)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.172.179 (talk • contribs)

Maybe if you weren't concealing your IP address, we wouldn't have to guess, anon 75. How many times do you have to be asked to start an account. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Read this first

Angela tells Peter "Where do you think you got your first power from?" in the Season premiere. Its blatantly stated now... 12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't remove the speculation involved with the other powers he has acquired. Padillah (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And that isn't a blatant statement. A listing of where he gets his powers from would be a "blatant" statement. Cruft and speculation is indeed subtle. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What if the person he gained the power from is confirmed by a reliable source, such as an interview, commentary track or Peter's dialogue? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Then, I'm sure, it'll be noticed by a great many editors and added so fast that Wikipedia might just catch on fire. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 07:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny. I was going to say it would happen so fast that the the US financial crisis might magically resolve itself. Yours is funnier. :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been established that he gains powers by being in the presence of those who have them. Would it count as synthesis of published material which advances a position if we had a "possible sources" column listing everyone with the same power who Peter is known to have been in the presence of prior to exhibiting it himself without making any claims about who he gained the powers from? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question lies within the question, Gordon. "Possible" means we have to speculate, and we don't do that here, as that violates a host of our core policies. As well, the creation of such would act as a Sextupole magnet for cruft. I frankly shudder to think of the wackiness that would ensue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Angela tells Peter he got his first power from her. CONFIRMED. 12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

At best that just moves the source of speculation from us to her. How does she know what the first power someone else absorbed is? Or if that was the first power he absorbed? Or if he got it from her? This doesn't help. Even though the writers have stated some power sources unequivocally, it doesn't matter. What is the significance of whom the powers come from? Why does it matter? What possible impact could it have? Sylar uses a method that renders most people dead when he learns others powers so there's a significance (death of the original power holder). Peter could walk past you on the street and you and he never know (case in point, it's widely accepted that he has Eden's power but he dosn't know it so he has thus far failed to use it). So, aside from being able to only support about three of his 12 powers, it doesn't matter to the article. Padillah (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Im not even necessarily saying add it to the article, I'm just saying we know now. And I think a woman who can see the future and who apparently knows what she should not would know where Peter got an ability. 12.103.23.19 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, in that case please stop. This is a talk page to discuss improvements to the article. If you are not discussing the article, please don't clutter the page with fan forum.Padillah (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

'Neccessarily' being the key word, Mr. Article Squatter... :) Its up for discussion. So here is our first case of being blatantly told like you and the other guy that hovers over this article have asked for. --172.134.194.254 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you are referring to me or not, but I will chime in now (and my power is not hovering but the utter emotional dismantling of rude folk). I see your point, anon. I really do. I am a humongous believer in discussion over editing - seriously, ask anyone (it tends to drive some of them absolutely batshit). However, we tend to confine our discussions to how to improve the article and thusly the encyclopedia. Speculating - ie,, adding your own connection of what powers belong where via deduction, elimination or midnight consultation with the Great Pumpkin - is not allowed here. If you can cite it to a verifiable, reliable and neutrally notable source, then we can include it. If you cannot, it cannot be added. If you think these rules are too constrictive, I direct you to the one-stop shop for new ideas on policy changes, the Wikipedia Village Pump.

As for Angela stating that Pete's power came from her, I think its a fair assessment that the Machiavellian bitch says whatever keeps the trains running on time. Did she program his genetic structure to do that? Did she give him the power? Did she have someone else give him the power? The incestuous way that some of these powers keep popping up (flying, cryokinesis and telekinesis, not to mention healing) pretty much guarantees that a clear line of succession isn't going to emerge for most of these powers.

Ever more importantly is the same line of reasoning that keeps having to be repeated when folk don't bother to actually read the prior article discussion: the story isn't about the powers, folks. Its about the people. The same sorts of people who want to catalog all the powers are the same sorts of people who go to see Batman movies and wonder how he takes the occasional dump while in costume, or how much lubrication is needed for the 'bots in the Transformers movie. It's like being in the forest and then complaining about not being able to see the inside of the forest because all the trees are in the way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

you say the show is about the people, yet the argument here is to add the OBVIOUS people Peter gained his abilities from, but you are against it. Now Angela has stated Pete got his power from her (i think the show itself is a refutable source), The writer's have said things along the lines of "got from nuclear ted.." (which is obvious since Peter first manifests radiation when Ted walks up to him.. it couldnt get much clearer than that unless ted said "Where do you think you got that ability?" like Angela does. Oh wait.. HRG [the most knowledgable on abilities at that point] literally says "He is absorbing your ability!") they have said "Isaac's precognition." Blah blah balh. There are so man sources... but you and padillah will just keep shooting it all down to make the article your own. BTW, to determine I'm "one of those people" and cast them in a negative light is a personal attack, too, Mr. Teapot. You rather consistently do it, but using a different tone doesnt make it better. And relegating everything else to the history page doesnt help either. Anyone interested, read the history to see what went here originally. --Kettle12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, look up refutable, we are on the Internet after all, it isn't that hard. I believe you mean reputable source, and it's not. The show is a representation of the characters in it and as such it is clouded by their misinterpretations. Quick example, when Peter was in Jesse's body Noah thought he was Jesse. Noah said he was Jesse. Does that mean we should believe that Peter turned into Jesse? The show has represented Noah as Claire's father when he's not. It put forth the idea that Peter's ability was to fly, it's not. The show has depicted Sylar using the vocal intonations that indicate Eden exerting control, and then the director denied it saying he just wanted it to sound "cool". Need I go on? The show is only as reliable as the characters in the show. (BTW, the saying is "Pot calling the Kettle black", not Teapot) Padillah (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I meant to say "irrefutable". But you are right about the pot thing. CONGARBULATIONS! WOW! Its funny how you keep talking over yourself though. If the show is only as reliable as its characters... then we have to assume Angela is right. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Has Angela been shown to be infallible? What makes her any more knowledgeable about what powers Peter has than anyone else? Padillah (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So then everything on this site based on what a character has said must be assumed untrue... --12.103.23.19 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember, WP is not about truth, it's about verifiability. I am currently dealing with this, the Pontiac Hispanic History Preservation Project is supposed to be named "Pontiac Hispanic History Project" (it's my mom's project so I just asked her) but since the news articles refer to it as "Pontiac Hispanic History Preservation Project" I can't verify the correct name so I have to take other steps to get the name corrected. Yes, we all know who Peter got his healing from, the show was pretty unambiguous. We all know who Peter got his invisibility from, especially since we have never met another person with this power. We know all this stuff, it would take an especially dense person to not have picked this up. Our problem is verifying these assumptions. Inasmuch as we can't verify any information, in-universe or out, we can't publish it here. Padillah (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So, thats kinda the point. If NOTHING can be verified, then how can anything be in the article? -------172.134.194.254 (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that a sort of zen koan? Lol. Almost anything in the article requires citation. You will note that plots are exempt from this because anyone who contributes to the article is going to be able to spot something inaccurate and correct it/address it in discussion. That's how discussion, as a tool, benefits the article. To hlp you along, read WP:SYN; that will help you understand how we try very hard not to inject ourselves into the analysis process while writing the article.

I would have told you all this on your talk page, but you seem content on deleting posts of folk who give you advice there. This way, you see it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, i read and then delete it. And I've read that page as well. Just seems like the abilities and their holders are part of the plot... :) --172.134.194.254 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They are, but not nearly to the extend that you feel they are. The story is character-driven, not powers-driven. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that your POV? --172.134.194.254 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no. In two words, Nuh-uh. All entertainment beyond that appealing to an average 9 year old (or NASCAR fan) is necessarily character-driven. Now, do you have something to add, or do you want to waste more time making this about li'l ol' me? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So Daily Show isn't entertainment? Nor is a documentary? They arent character driven, but they sure do entertain me. Look, clearly I know the show is character-driven, but the appeal is the power, and I dont think Wikipedia exists to document what entertains you. It exists to document, period. I'm making nothing about you, I'm simply pointing out your continued hypocrisy on these subjects, so that perhaps we can include relevant information in this article. Obviously that wont happen til Tim kring knocks on your door and tells you this stuff himself with a promise he will never change his mind and make sure it entertains you, but this is a discussion page, so I am discussing. Please do not discourage discussion and debate. It is of no help to the article, and clearly you care about the article as heavily as you guard it. --172.134.194.254 (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to say this once, because clearly, no one has told you to make it about the edits, and not the editor. I know this particular game, and once upon a time, I would have simply shredded you with words and sent you packing. I am thankful and so should you be that those times have mostly passed. You are not the smartest person in the room while editing in Wikipedia. Ever. I'm not either. There is room for growth by everyone. Calling names is just going to get you marginalized and ignored. Until you take more time to read about how we actually discuss things, you are going to learn the hard way that not all types of discussions are fruitful or tolerated here. We do not speculate. EVER. You want semantics? Join your junior high school debating team; this isn't the place to even attempt throwing your weight around, as you will likely get schooled but quick. Learn how things work. If you don't know, ask. Be civil and polite and professional. This will be the last time you are asked to do so.

Now, do you have something to ask about without couching it in an attack?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I never had a question really. Just came to state the truth. And I guess you are done debating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.134.194.254 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Break

Anon, if you truly feel that nothing can be verified then this might not be the place for you. I've got a good feeling about some stuff (the John F. Kennedy assassination and Westward expansion seem pretty solid to me) but if you need more, than so be it. Yes, there are some things that can be taken for granted (that "Peter Petrelli" is a character in the show "Heroes" is moderately self-evident). There are some things that are questionable (if Angela really is Sylar's mom) but have been treated as fact by every source thus far so we have to accept what we are told. Then there are things that look like they are facts but when examined really aren't - who Peter gets a power from is one of those things. On the surface, and to the viewing audience, it looks pretty cut and dried, and it was - until season two when they introduced acquired powers off-screen. Then the entire thing was thrown into disarray. There was a huge debate about where Peter got the phasing ability (which only got worse when it was revealed that more than one person can have the same power). And the Electricity was stalled for ever due to the fact that Elle wasn't introduced until the third or fourth episode. And, unfortunately, once origin of one power is called into question the origin of the other powers must be questioned and now we've decided that we can't identify the sources with any amount of verifiability. This is only exacerbated by the fact that it's not worth fighting about. As I've mentioned before, the origin of the powers, while interesting to know, doesn't impact anything at all. Peter has the power and can use it as he sees fit, where he got it is not a factor in it's execution or use. P.S. Please don't be driven off by harsh words, this is a perennial sore spot and we knew it was coming but dreaded it none the less. You may even notice my preparatory statement above regarding the onslaught. We're people too and everyone has bad days. Padillah (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, ok. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Powers in a table or not?

Would someone care to discuss the rationale for removing the acquired powers from the wikitable? Padillah (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Empathic Mimicry.. again..

I see it's back as his main ability, with citation! Does it hurt?.... --12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anywhere that the citation actually has that information, so...the citation doesn't support the claim, as far as I can see. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. Very sharp eye, anon; I definitely applaud the effort to seek out good citations. :)

The problem with the cite is that it is a link for an ARG, which is what all links to fictional companies that feed in as viral marketing into series represent (recent examples include the Blair Witch site, Lost's Dharma Initiative, and Fringe's Massive Dynamic Corporation). While the information is indeed interesting (and the websites are often pretty spiffy), the info being added isn't really good as source material, as info can be removed in accordance to plot developments, and isn't as reliable as published material from a review or news article. I hope that helps explain matters better.

I've removed the link from the infobox, placing it as an external link at the bottom, and reinstated the older, more accurate name for his ability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OH MORE ACCURATE OK. 12.103.23.19 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sory, that is the same source, without a navigational tool to find Petrelli. As it is an ARG, it is doubly unreliable, as it is part of a plot-assisting device, and therefore not consistent. Maybe find another source - one not part of a bogus website, like a news article or review that points out the issue specifically. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[2] Says on Peter's verified tip that hes an empathic mimic. This is show material. From the people who create the show. How can this not be considered? Its as reliable as a news article, because they can be interviewed and change their minds as well... --12.103.23.19 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources. There is no source provided that explicitly gives his power as "Power mimicry". I have provided a source that gives it as "Empathic mimicry". Ophois (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources. An ARG does not meet that particular requirement, or verifiability, for that matter. Please do not add material to an article after it has been reverted. If you are unfamiliar with WP:BRD, please familiarize yourself with it now. You made a bold edit, it was removed, now discuss and seek a consensus for its inclusion. Otherwise, you are spitting into the wind, my friend. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

and your source for it being called power mimicry is...? Couldn't he just as easily already HAVE the powers and he just needs to be around someone else to figure it out? That wouldnt be mimicry. Ophois, I'm here to throw my hand in to say it is empathic mimicry based on show content you have provided. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon, while I appreciate your willingness to throw your hat in to support Ophois' version, this isn't a haberdashery. We use reliable citations. As for why we are using a generic title for the ability, take a closer look at the link. While I personally think that linking to a wiki list of comic book superpowers is synthesis, the larger consensus saw it as an acceptable connection. Are you now arguing that we should not refer to that list? Hmm, I sense a disturbance in the Force, and am fairly sure you might want to take that up at the talk page for WikiProject: Heroes. They might have a word or twelve to say about that.

And again, you might want to dial back the incivility, anon. Being polite and friendly makes the editing go far smoothly than trying to edit after more experienced editors metaphorically pimp-slap you into a coma. Be polite, or begone. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to chime in but I can't - I can't access the page. The link doesn't directly access the information. With that, I'd have to say it's not a valid citation (citations should not require login access). Padillah (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to log into. The link pulls up the map. Toggle on only "verified tips", and Peter's file is within Texas on the map. Ophois (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is one of the many reasons why its a bad source, Ophois. The link needs to be clear, not navigation within a non-searchable ARG to find a name with infor that we cannot show the provenance for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm forced to ask, what is the importance of naming it one thing over another? This information, as incredibly obfuscated as it is, is in-universe and, much like Angela's assertion above, has no authority. With that in mind I'm left with the impetus to call it one thing over another (assuming either is even remotely correct, I wouldn't advocate calling it TK). Padillah (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I will visit the haberdashery and then head to the apothecary to meet a gentlema.. wait.. I ACTUALLY MEANT HAND! As in "all hands in"! As in "Hands in the middle, GOOOO TEAM!" WOW!Pimp slap? Lets start calling Invisibility phasing too, while we are at it. I mean why not? It doesnt matter what we call it, and we are just making assumptions that its mimicry anyway (we cant be sure, after all. He might just have ALL abilities. There is no good enough source to tell us otherwise.) RIGHT? --172.134.194.254 (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, when you actually read my posts and not perceive them all as the Big Bad World out to complicate your life, we can interact. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So how is a concensus reached on a subject exactly? ---Action figure (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A really good model for learning how consensus works can be found at WP:BRD. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense, Arcayne, but the anon has a point. If you demand politeness and respect, it's probably best not to say that you and other editors are going to "metaphorically pimp-slap [him or her] into a coma". Ophois (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I never said that I (or anyone else present) might be tempted to such an action. I guess my verbiage was colorful enough that it missed the point. A better way of getting hte point across would be to note that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. Edit-warring doesn't change anyone's mind, except that some people become more resistant to allowing that person's edits in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem calling it "Power Mimicry", "Empathic Mimicry", or "Better Than Rogue's Ability", but my problem was the link. I'm not sure what the difference between the "Verified Tips", "Tips", or "Assignments" are. Verified by whom? The Company, players of the ARG, the writers, or some intern that was told to code the page. NBC may have authorized the page, but it seems quite anonymous as to who is actually writing the material that shows up on the page. The graphic novels, the webisodes, interviews, and the series can all be identified as to who's actually coming up with the material, but this ARG doesn't have credits and could ultimately be written by some minimum wage lackey in a cubicle who's makin' stuff up. As for the name of his ability, how about "Empathic Power Mimicry"? At least until we get a more concrete citation. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We had this discussion before, wherein a lot of folk confused normal empathy with being an empath; two related yet totally different things. Power Mimicry is a term that we have previously agreed is the best definition of what Peter does. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Assignment" is an agent of the Company. "Tip" is a character that anyone can add for fun. "Verified Tip" is the official characters and information. Ophois (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I get that, Ophois, but that information can be altered or changed in furtherance of the series plot, and is therefore unreliable. Find a reliable, less transitory source that says the same thing, and we'll be on the right course. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ophois, if you look at the javascript you can see that Tip is a randomly generated point on the map. I means nothing at all. In hopes of illuminating Arcayne's "changing data" complaint (that is a true "strawman"); Ophois, do you really think any one or any thing will suddenly concretely establish the name of a made-up power? Let's all face at least one fact in this argument - the name of these powers will, most likely, never be made concrete. Barring the outside chance of a first-person source book on the Heroes universe being published, it's just not going to happen. With that in mind, coupled with the pragmatism that we must call them something, how do we determine that something? Padillah (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian Roulette? ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Stone breaks Scissors breaks head? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)