Talk:Hulk

Archives

• /Archive01 - To February 2006, inclusive.
• /Archive02 - To February 2007, inclusive.
• /Archive03 - To June, 2007, inclusive.
• /Archive04 - To April 2008, inclusive.

Sourcing help needed.

I've been trying to find a solid source for the material about Peter david leaving in '98 for a while. Here's at least one thoroughly independent bit of material about it [1], but that's not enough for a source in itself. I can't find that article online. can anyone with stronger google-fu try? It's also a fair piece of independent confirmation that the idea is out there, let's source it and be done. ThuranX (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a second call for sourcing help with this. ThuranX (talk) 20:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Using a ProQuest account I found among the bits: "Peter David, writer of "The Incredible Hulk" for nearly 10 years, quit last year, citing creative differences. One sticking point was Marvel's insistence that the Hulk revert to a more savage state. Byrne has said the Hulk will go back to his more primitive ways, but not all at once. The cover of "Hulk" No. 1 certainly touts the savage side: The cover blurb screams: "The jade giant like you've never seen him before! Bruce Banner .... forever in the clutches of his rage!"" Is that what you wanted? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be perfect! What's the info, I'll add it later tonight if you can't. Thanks David. ThuranX (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You pick the area you want. The {{cite news}} template for the info would be as follows: <ref>{{cite news|author=Radford, Bill|page=L4|date=1999-02-21|publisher=[[The Gazette (Colorado Springs)|The Gazette]]|title=Marvel's not-so-jolly green giant gets a fresh start and a new team}}</ref> No problem! Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Evolution of Allure

Sexual Section from the Medici Venus to the Incredible Hulk

by George L. Hersey, MIT Press 1996

Has anyone used this source yet?

No, sounds interesting. got a link or locations it can be found? ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actual title is 'the evolution of allure'. I'll look in my library for it. ThuranX (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Naming of article

I have to concur with User:Jc37 over User:King Gemini on this. Wikipedia style for naming of articles is not to have an indefinite article except for formal titles, and certainly in this case, the character is simply "The Hulk." The comic-book series and the TV series are "The Incredible Hulk", and they are separate articles. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Real world assessment of powers

This section may need cleanup, but it's a valid addition.

This is comparable to the book, A Doctor on Calvary, by Dr. Pierre Barbet, a French surgeon in the early 20th century who spent fifteen years researching exactly what happened to Christ during the crucifixion. (Author is apparently different than Pierre Barbet.)

A reference doesn't have to be an online reference. - jc37 23:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's an awful comparison, actually, butNevermind. I added the material when the demands for real world coverage were strong, and they were accepted then, with consensus. It's far better than creeping fandom writing about the billions of pounds of mountain that were fought about at one long point in this article's history. Giving context to the powers is important, and it's a good source for such information. I'd already brought this to Tenebrae with some explanation, so let's leave it in until there's consensus to change it. ThuranX (talk) 00:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're adding in info about this, I've got a great book for a source called Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics - it focuses on the movie version of the Hulk, but its extrapolations are valid for the comics as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I already applied that to the movie's article; I laughed at the stuff in that book. That said, if I haven't added the stuff about the acceleration for his jumps (which I recall being the topic), then let's get that into the movie article instead; perhaps a cross-referencing link put into this article, linking to the powers section there? I'm open to any other applications of the material, but like including it. I seem to remember some particularly interesting essays a while back about Captain America and steroids, and wanted to use those in that article; I really enjoy adding this material, as I think it's an excellent example or direct examination of a less studied aspect of the form. ThuranX (talk) 20:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture section

"Reactions in popular culture" is a poor title for the section. At first glance, it's vague on whether it means people's interpretations of the Hulk or what exactly is being reacted upon. It's a very strange phrase that doesn't even come up on Google. The entire section discusses the Hulk's history and impact on pop culture, which is why "Cultural impact" would be a better fit. --Maestro25 (talk) 00:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No, it does NOT discuss his impact on pop culture, which indicates he somehow actively changes culture from the pages of a comic book, instead of how a real world culture reacts to the comic book, which my title gives. Cultural Impact, on the other hand, suffers from exactly what you suggest reactions suffers from, extreme vagueness. The heading as is is actually quite clear - what reactions to the Hulk are found in popular culture? Well, the counterculture embraced him, in its' protests of the war, and in terms of cultural alienation, asian americans found some parallels to the 2003 filkm, etc. etc. Reactions implied 'what do others see in it and take away?', not 'what did he actively do to the culture?' ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

In the way you define it, "what do others see in it" is closer to "interpretations". How the counterculture interpret the Hulk, how Asian Americans interpret the Hulk, etc. How about a compromise with "Interpretations in popular culture"? --Maestro25 (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Fictional Character Biography

Why doesn't the Hulk have a fictional biography? The K.O. King (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

He does. Just not in the traditional sense. It written in such a way that it isn't called a biography, its called a publication history. That coupled in with the characterization sections creates a detailed history of both Banner and Hulks historical highlights. Rau's Speak Page 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Then howcome Spider-man has a publication and fictional character biography? The K.O. King (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Because different articles can have different structures. See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS for more on the idea that not everythign be handled identically. ThuranX (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

OH!! Gotcha. The K.O. King (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention the Hulk has more physiological-thingamajiggers which ties in better with publication then stating of fiction (although honestly, it would be nice if we could get rid of all fictional bios, because it's the devil to try and keep them clean and concise.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Doctor Jekyll and Mister Hyde

The storyline appears to be little different to Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I think an encyclopedia article needs to explore this sort of literary comparison. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You aren't the only person to think of this, but few sources do much with that comparison. Some have used it in a general reference to the concept, but none that I've looked at so far really go into the depth needed to reflect it here. ThuranX (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

"Recognized" reverts

Twice now, the sentence "The Hulk is one of Marvel Comics' most recognized characters." has been removed, once for POV and once for lack of citation. I am going to remove it again. The statement is both unsourced and POV. In order to go back in, it needs to be reworded to lose POV and it should have a citation. As an example of how another article did this, check out Superman: "Superman is a fictional comic book superhero widely considered to be one of the most famous and popular of such characters[1] and an American cultural icon.[2][3][4][5]". That's not POV, and it's well sourced. – Zawersh 22:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

And the sky is blue [6]. So, so, pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's also not hard to find. So get hopping. ThuranX (talk) 22:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I find this is a common trait of wikipedia, it is split between the people who love to argue over the sourcing of the obvious, people who don't want to spend time proving the obvious, and the mugs who end up having to prove the obvious. I will let it bug me for a few days before I, as usual, move from the second category to the third, just because the people in the first are too lazy to do it themselves.

And as an aside, what is it with this article in particular that people are unable to count or even comprehend LEAD paragraphs. A lead section has four paragraphs. When you people make your 'POV removals' next time, try not to screw up the article in these most basic of ways, as when you do it means I have less respect for your motives in wanting the obvious spelled out to you like second graders, without doing the work yourselves. MickMacNee (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Prove that too. And as for your summary that we're all lazy, go look at who did the legwork to shape this article up. If I'd found a source for that that I felt wouldn't be conflicted, I'd have used it. ThuranX (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)