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)

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 [[WP:V}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)