Talk:Doctor Fate/Archive 1

Hector Hall

Is there a reason Hector Hall is omitted from the infobox? --Scottandrewhutchins 19:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The Strausses were not in The Immortal Doctor Fate

Eric Strauss was a child until Nabu aged him in the Post-Crisis mini-series. I have those comics, they are Kent and Inza Nelson.

You're right, I checked. That series was unique because the two merged as Dr. Fate, which is what I remember best about it. --Scottandrewhutchins 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish?

Why is Dr. Fate listed as a Jew? I thought he was a magicster. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I've got no idea. For some reason I remember a bit (during Ostrander's run on The Spectre) where Nabu was the magician Moses beat in Pharaoh's presence. In addition, it would be odd for the Loerd of Order component to be categorized as Jewish. That does leave the 6 human components though... — J Greb 18:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The Strauss characters were Jewish. That's why. Also, the heading for this section could've been more appropriate. ThuranX 04:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Kent the 2nd

While a posted solicitation is a strong indication of stories to come, they are not gospel. The publisher and/or writer can 1) change their collective mind and cancel the book and shelve the character, 2) change their mind and have to story go in a different direction, 3) lie, 4) misdirect.

Further, the early solicit does not state unequivocally that the new Kent will appear as the new Doctor Fate.

Leave the info out until the book hits then stands and and it can be verifiable be said "Doctor Fate is once again Kent Nelson. A new Kent, but Kent Nelson none the less."

— J Greb 04:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

If the "crystal ball" is going to be used, it better darn well list everything and stear clear of fan spec... — J Greb 20:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hawk and Dove?

I think I know the answer to this, but is Hector Hall the son of Hawkman and Hawkgirl or Hawk and Dove. I know which one is funnier... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Flansy (talk • contribs) 04:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

He was the son of Carter and Shiera Hall during at least one continuity. After Infinite Crisis writers may have changed that origin. Check his page for more information. ThuranX 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarity in the article

I tried to clear things up in the article ... rewording, grammar and the like. I felt there was a lot of unnecessary information, approaching information unload, so I removed all of that.
The publication history section tells the history of Dr. Fate while also telling publication history. The character Dr. Fate's history is more appropriate for the individual biographies sections. If anyone wants to fix that, that would be awesome.--AppaAliApsa (talk) 14:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for some re-insertions:

• "1960s-1970s" PH
  • The character appeared more places than the revised paragraph implied.
  • Phrasing of the information re Pasko's story are in real-world context. He, as the writer, added that element to the character.
  • All-Star Squadron #28 info is drawn from the writer's statement as narrator that he intended to address the continuity hole in a later story. This is with in PH and worth mentioning.
  • Flash #305-313 needs the clarity that the Doctor Fate strip was a back-up feature in those issues, not the implication that the character appeared in the stories with the Flash. Showing the hands involved with the writing is with in the remit of the PH section.
  • Noting the, relatively early, collection of a full story arc from multiple issues into a reprint series is also a notable PH item.
• Messner-Loebs
  • Since it is a solid time frame, it is real world context to use "After two years ..."
  • As the writer is changing the tone and theme of the stories, it is worth noting as such in the PH.
• Fate
  • Tweaked to come at the information for a RW POV.
  • Corrected the character's name.
  • The line: "He was a mercenary whose weapons were the transformed helm and amulet of Doctor Fate." is debatable for inclusion.
• 1999/JSA
  • Restored RW tone and information.
• Day of Vengeance
  • Restored RW tone and information.
• Gerber and Kent V
  • The cited reference from Gerber is important.
  • As is the clarity that Gerber was initially to writer Doctor Fate' as an ongoing series.

- J Greb (talk) 16:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistakes I made, especially with the name and the use of "Dr." That was definitely a terrible oversight. If the information in the publication history is to be included, I think it should be presented more clearly, perhaps by separating it into smaller paragraphs. If someone with little or no knowledge of comic books were to read the article, I think he would find the article tedious. --AppaAliApsa (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"twelve most powerful"

Since User:Arcayne has reverted with a note to discuss on the talk page but has not bothered to do so him/herself, I'm providing a link to a discussion on his/her talk page where his/her removal of the citation was already mentioned. Pairadox (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noted that discussion was needed. I don't have a problem with it being kept out. If someone wanted to have it though, i was willing to discuss the matter. Should I harvest and mill the wheat, dip the candles and make the cake for you too? In short, if you want iot in, you can explain it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Really? One could say that the burden is on you, since you are the one removing citations. Regardless, I agree that the info should be included; it refers to a specific version of the character at a specific point in it's history. In that respect it is no different than noting the evolution of Hank McCoy from human to...whatever...to feline, or Carol Danvers from Kree-MM to Binary to Warbird to cosmic-MM. In fact, the text you left behind refers to the Who's Who entry, so what other citation could be there? It makes no sense to remove just the citation and leave the text. This article should be a concise yet comprehensive guide to Dr. Fate over his entire history. For that same reason, there should be mention in the P&A of the time when he wore the half-mask and didn't wield the magic. Pairadox (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, for reasons mentioned earlier. The single largest problem that I have with your argument here is that "it refers to a specific version of the character at a specific point in it's history". The article isn't about that particular point in its history. It is a reference of its entire history. Providing a current reference as to Fate's current position amongst the magically-powered supers is necessary. Put simply, the reference is for a version of the hero that no longer exists.

On a side not, more information might be found in one source of the more recent DC issues of Countdown or the sub-series, as they have been retconning a number of the heroes and villains in the DC universe. Maybe Fate has been one of them. That would be an acceptable and current source of information, wouldn't you think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Avoid recentism. Carrying your logic to it's logical conclusion, any mention of Superman's powers pre-Crisis should be eliminated from his articles. Pairadox (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No, this is not an argument about recentism, Pairadox. It is a concern of a more encompassing article. Pointing out what powers, abilities and skills a decades-old version of the character have is not encyclopedic. That the character himself has undergone drastic re-envisioning at least three times over the past few years suggests that relying on information from an old version is misleading and unencyclopedic. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And as for the Superman question, you are actually quite incorrect in your analysis of my argument carried to its natural (and logical) conclusion would be to not out-of-universe style how Superman's capabilities have changed over the years - something that, if I recall correctly - it already does. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The new Fate is a completely different person, so the info from Who's Who was completely accurate for Dr. Fate. I agree that Arcayne is suffering from a devotion to recentism, in spite of his protests. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What was Dr. Fate's name in that older reference? Oh, my goodness - it was Kent Nelson, wasn't it? What was the name of the current Dr. Fate? Oh, yes, it was Kent Nelson, too. Perhaps you are unclear as to how retconning occurs in comics, but I can assure you that it has happened here. And please, don't toss around the big words like 'recentism' unless you are prepared to understand and use them accurately and effectively. The note from 1991 doesn't accurately reflect the overall and current version of Fate - which has been retconned to have always been this way. That's what retconning does, in case ou were unclear about that. Maybe, instead of complaining about the way things are, you could roll up your sleeves and find a more current citation that represents who the character is now (in overview), and not what they were at one point almost two decades ago. I mean, I realize I am fascinating and provide scintillating conversation, but all your complaints about how unfair I am and all that don't really contribute to the article, now do they? Find a source that accurately represents the overall picture of who Fate is and how powerful they are, and we'll be fine. Continue to use terms inappropriately, and you and I are going to have a serious disagreement. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Retconning is what comic book companies do; it's not how we should write articles. We should present historically accurate information. Pairadox (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Some observations:

1. There is merit in filling in how DC positioned and sold the character during it's publication history, thought that requires real world context and phrasing. If DC's marketing in 1986 was that Doctor Fate was among the "12 greatest mages", then it's worth mentioning with the ref. But it's part of the PH, not the powers.
2. In a related not, going by the Comics project guide lines, we are not supposed to be quoting DC's Who's Who for stats, and "In the top 12" is a stat. Please see here.
3. We should be avoiding rankings in the powers sections, period. Rankings fall into one of three categories: 1) plot points that are subject to retconning at any time; 2) publisher hype which does not necessarily reflect what happens in the stories; and 3) fan spec which isn't really all that reliable.
4. The article covers a character concept that has gone through 6 distinct versions. 1 of those was not a mage, and 4 never really got past the "learning the ropes" stage. This makes context all the more important.

The bottom line is that:

• The powers section needs a re-write since it lacks distinction between iterations.
• There is room for putting a bit more flesh on DC's push of the character in the late 80s.

- J Greb (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Go read Steve Gerber's blog. This is Kent V. Nelson, the grandnephew of the original Kent Nelson. It is a wholly different person, so your claim that the two Kent Nelsons are supposed to be the same person is completely and utterly false and cannot correctly be considered a retcon.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Utterly false, eh? Okay, let's gander that a bit more, shall we? First of all, blogs are pretty much out, though I would be willing to consider that spitballing from one of the writers of the series could be considered acceptable. eitehr way, that's not the key logic problem here.

It's your contention that the current Dr. Fate is the grand-nephew of the original Kent Nelson - the one who has faught alongside Batman, Green Lantern (Jordan) and Atom (Ray Palmer)? Gosh, that would make Bats, GL and the little guy older than the Rolling Stones. Amazing how good those guys look for being octogenarians.

With respect, perhaps you need to define what you think retconning is. I do not think it means what you think it means, to quote the Sicilian, because it almost assuredly is a retcon. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne,

The blog isn't the only cite used for the current character not being the 1940s vintage. See ref #4.

At this point, there are no grounds to ignore the writer's statements, either in his blog, or in interviews. He's writing the grand-nephew. So unless you have a ref for it being the resurrected original or a retcon of the original's death, all you're doing is pushing your opinion as a reader.

As for "retcon" - it refers to adding or removing "hard" points in a fictional time line after the fact. That is different that the "sliding 10 years" which the modern stories happen in. That mechanic allows stories published in the 1960 to have happened within the past decade, give or take. It's also the continuity hobgoblin readers' hate when they start looking to closely at some "hard" points, such as The current apparent ages of the original Teen Titans or at what age the members of the JSA started having kids.

Kent worked with the JSA and the JLA before his death. That's a "hard" point. Two other "hard" points have never been given: the calendar date - day, month, and year - of Kent's death, or exactly how long ago it was from the "now" in any given story. - J Greb (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I get that, J. My problem is with the specificity of the information for the prior character with the same name. I think it would be better to use the citation to note that past incarnations of the character have been considered in the top dozen magically-powered heroes in the DC universe. That seems fine, and it seemed fine when i first mentioned it several posts back. the problem I have been having is that another editor seems to think that if the title was good enough for the grand-uncle, it is good enough for the current wearer of the Helmet of Fate. its misleading, contrary to what we are supposed to be doing, and just plain wrong. I have no problem with Uncle Kent being considered a jim dandy sorcerer, but lushy-loser Kent can barely stay awake, much less throw spells. In the current set of stories, the helmet is doing most of the heavy lifting. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Which sounds not much different that the way the character was being portrayed in the 70s.

The wording can be tweaked to clearly indicate which version of Dr. Fate is being referenced, if that's the concern; I hadn't realized Arcayne thought they were the same character.

J Greb, I can understand the reasoning for not using Who's Who info or stats in general, but I notice they are "discouraged" and I think this may one of the exceptions to the rule. Magic-users are a hard bunch to pin down as far as powers and abilities, even for creators. One could include a laundry list of known examples, and indeed this article is lacking in that regard, but they do little to put this particular character into perspective. Mystic bolts, teleportation and matter manipulation are stock-in-trade for magic-users. Even saying he's one of the most powerful wizards (unsourced, BTW) doesn't do it. However, saying he's one of the twelve most powerful heroes gives some indication of the sheer power this character has been capable of. By crediting it to Who's Who, we are fulfilling the condition of "not present[ing] the statistic as anything other than it is; a meaningless statistic within both our universe and the fictional one in which [Dr. Fate's] adventures are portrayed." It's not like we're listing the other eleven. Pairadox (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And it sounds like there is a rough consensus that the "Powers" needs reworked for clarity about the iterations. Likely the section will need the KISS principle kept in mind as well as an out of universe tone.

As for the Who's Who bit... frankly, if it's kept in context of DC marketing the character and the iteration profiled in the Who's Who, it relevant to include. - J Greb (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, i agree with Pairadox here. the "Who's Who" cruft doesn't belong without substantive rewording to note the iteration of the character and its relative nature in classifying the character in terms of the 1991 DC universe. And while I have never been in doubt of which iteration of the character we are talking about (as has been suggested, in an apparently accidental dig), I think that you focus on the character as a whole. Clearly, the different iterations of the character have had different power levels, and there isn't the slightest bit of recentism about that. We should note these interpretations of them - in the proper way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"twelve most powerful" - Arbitrary break

Just as a suggested re-work of the powers section...

All of the characters to use the title “Doctor Fate” possess a variety of mystical powers. In general, wearing the Helmet of Nabu or not, the host can fly, is highly resistant to injury, has minor telekinetic abilities, and has greater-than-human strength.

The characters are also shown to have varying degrees of skill with wielding magic. Most of them are shown as beginning as novices and slowly learning from the knowledge contained in the Helmet.

Kent Nelson is the exception to this. From his first appearances he was portrayed as a proficient sorcerer, though the power he could draw on fluctuated over time. In regard to the height of his ability, DC credited the character as “one of the top twelve most powerful heroes in the DC Universe” in DC's Who's Who^{[cite needed]}.

The skills Nelson exhibited included throwing bolts of mystical energy, teleporting across the universe, crafting solid objects out of energy, and transforming objects into other kinds of matter. Prior to the Crisis, he could travel between alternate Earths at will, one of a very few DC characters with this capability. The full limits of his magical skills were never shown, and varied greatly from one appearance to the next depending on the needs of the story. For example, in Swamp Thing #50 (July 1986), he slays the demon Abnegazar of the Demons Three with very little effort. Conversely in Justice League of America #148 (Nov. 1977), the Demons Three control him and set him against his fellow heroes.

At perhaps the peak of his abilities, he was able to take control of Etrigan the Demon, Darkseid, Highfather and Orion and harness their powers to take on the Anti-Life entity. In this instance, he was powerful enough to destroy a reality in order to halt the advance of the entity using a "Mystic Firebreak".

- J Greb (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

J, I am not arguing that at different points, the character has had different powers - and keep in mind that we are talking about the hero Doctor Fate, and not the individuals who have used the name, which include a woman (who strangely isn't really discussed here). If we are going to attempt to quantify those abilities (an exceptionally bad idea, as every writer and artist who gets his mitts on the character tends to fundamentally alter DF, so as to make their own mark), it might be better to note which iteration has a certain power level/ability. With more than one Kent nelson, the lines all get rather blurry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair points, but keep in mind this is a draft rework of what is currently in the article. And this is also an attempt to lay it out for the characters that followed the same general format - Stevens and Nabu having different power sets/styles.

The first paragraph is common in generic terms. Te "skill with magic" may need to be rejigged so that Kent is covered, then the Strauses, Inza, Hall and Kent V for clarity.

As for the ranking, aside from DC's push of Nelson, I don't think any text has ranked the later iterations. That blurb is the only one that is reasonable to have. - J Greb (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your discussion that each incarnation is different, but to me the "powers" section should incorporate the full extent of the powers at the height of their potential. Yes when a new host is chosen they start out weak (not always) but in general they eventually grow in strength to become one of DC's powerhouses (ie., top 12 or so) and meant to be used sparingly as a deus-ex-machina in the large scale cross-overs. Regardless of whether its Kent in Legends or Inza in War of the Gods or Nabu with the Infinite Crisis/Spectre or Hector with Mordru. So while a note in the powers section should definitely be made about the varying nature from incarnation to incarnation (and writer to writer), I think full extent of the powers once ANY host has become experienced in the role should be the focus of the powers section. Anything else would be "recentism", and we are dealing with an iconic character that is nearly 70 years old. I was the person who wrote most of the original powers section, and the one to bring in the Who's Who article source which was actually in relation to Inza, not Kent. Similarly in Dr. Fate #41 1991, Kent brings up that Dr. Fate is "one of the top 10" most powerful beings in the universe (I can bring up the page # if necessary). -AdamP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.12.110 (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't "recentism", it's putting things in context. Yes, we are dealing with a character concept that was first put to paper almost 70 years ago. But that concept has been edited and revised heavily before it was applied to a new character in 1987. Since then the concept has has been applied to 3 later characters with minor tweaks and a 4th with major revisions. It is just plain wrong in a general encyclopedia to blanket all of the iterations as having exactly the same powers when that isn't the case. In other places, where each iteration may have its own article, it may not be an issue.

As for the cites... I'm taking on faith that the Who's Who is from the first run (1985-1986), which would be Kent the Elder. The full cite is needed, and for hashing things out, a full transcript of the text — the paragraph without omissions or ellipsis — posted her would be helpful. The same goes for the dialogue from Doctor Fate vol. 2, #41. Again, this is to put thing into proper context. - J Greb (talk) 22:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The citation which Arcayne kept removing is to the '91 Update, as seen in this diff. Don't make me break out my longboxes. Pairadox (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

But they actually DO all have the same powers (Jared Stevens aside, I don't consider him Dr. Fate though, he's "Fate") its just they haven't yet reached the potential yet of the Golden Age because none of them were Fate long enough to reach that point. Eric/Linda and Hector both had references in their comic runs that made that exact point (ref: Dr. Fate #4 of the mini-series in 1987 and when Nabu taunts Hector in the latest mini-series), that actually they could have exceeded Kent/Nabu in power not just equal him if they got experience. That is why I wrote "at his most potent" in the powers section to preface it. Everything in the current powers section is accurate, it just apparently needs a blurb to say that as a new host is chosen they go through a period of learning where they are not up to their potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.112.12.110 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification: "potential" versus "demonstrated" (since "actual" is darn near meaningless in context to a character in a work of fiction)

What you've put forth, Nabu taunting/goading later bearers of the Helmet, is a good argument that any of the individual characters wearing it and calling themselves "Doctor Fate" has/had the potential to access vast power. The key word is "potential", by the in-story reference, none of the mortals ever had the experience to fully exploit the Helmet and Nabu.

That boils down to, at best, putting the framework of the section, the bulk of it, into a gender neutral format, ie "The Helmet/regiments grant the wearer access to..." or "The wearer can tap the Helmet for knowledge and power so that her or she can...". Within that frame, each barer can be cited for specific examples, ie "Kent Nelson was shown to have the most versatility and experience, bringing forth magic and spells that could...", "Hector observed that one of the Helmet's 'gifts' was that he could see how others were fated to die...", or "The Detective Chimp noted that the Helmet granted him instant access to all knowledge...".

There would still need to be the point that the powers were dictated by the story, but it needs to be crystal clear that the characters were not all the same in approach or expression. - J Greb (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

As there have been different users, with different learning (and thus power ability) curves, why not avoid the specific and say something along the lines of 'The different wearers of the helm of Nabu each exhibit different abilities and levels of magical proficiency.' That seems to cover all our bases. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Fate as Dr. Strange stand-in

To Arcayne, concerning his/her reverting my restoration of the ref. source for the statement that in the Justice League Unlimited episode "The Terror Beyond" Dr. Fate was a stand-in for Dr. Strange in a parallel of Marvel's Defenders made with DC characters:

1. "...the words 'doctor' and 'strange' do not appear anywhere in the citation." I moved the ref. note to before the Fate/Strange sentence, and I can't see how you failed to notice that. It's an effective admission that I had observed what you described. The cite simply was no longer being put forth as a direct source for that specific fact. It is, however, an inarguably solid cite for the rest of the passage about the DC heroes/Defenders parallel, which is precisely what it was presented as in my version. Therefore, your quoted claim here is patently irrelevant to the issue.

2. "If you've read the comic, you aren't a citable source." What comic? We're talking about a TV cartoon show here. My edit summary read, "I have read the source." That means the material linked in via the ref. note. If there was a comic involved, it itself would be a citable source. Your comment here is blatantly invalid on its own terms, and in more than one way, yet.

3. Just because neither Bruce Timm nor Dwayne McDuffie specifically pointed out the Fate/Strange parallel among everything else they did say (or that whoever wrote the piece did not see fit to include a quote from either to that particular aspect of the episode) does not mean that the analog isn't there. It is unmistakable, and to not point it out for any uninitiated reader of this article is to the detriment of the encyclopedia as a source of information (and I repeat that I moved the cite so it was not claimed as directly supporting this particular sentence). I have pointed out on several different Wiki article talk pages that such strict definitions of "original research" and of requirements of sources is just that, and there has been no direct dispute of that on any such instance (no direct admission that it's a good point, either, I admit—see how fair I am!).

Pre-emptive strike: I consider it quite uncivil to revert somebody else's edits and give such a patently invalid "defense" of the act. When one can make a good case for a reversion, one should do so; when one can't, one shouldn't perform the reversion in the first place. Nevertheless, I will wait for further discussion before restoring the edit. Ted Watson (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ted, and thanks for bringing your concerns to the discussion page. Allow me to address your concerns. My issue withthe statement in retrospect is with the OR statement that:

"This team is a disguised version of Marvel Comics' Defenders, including Aquaman for Sub-Mariner, Hawkgirl for Nighthawk, Solomon Grundy for the Hulk and Amazo for the Silver Surfer. Fate is a stand-in for Doctor Strange."

Whereas you were correct in citing the episode being described, you were mistaken in supporting the speculative (and wholly inaccurate) assertion that the JLA is an analog of the Defenders. The Justice League, first published in 1960, predates the Defenders by eleven years (and, in the off-chance that you might ask, the Avengers by three years). If anything, it would be the other way around, with the Defenders being an analog of the core members of the JLA; however, that last assertion is my speculation, and I cannot include it without citation. I think it is clear enough from the text to point out the subtle preference given to the Defenders - the older team being a "disguised" version of the newer incarnation. At best, the person adding the statement might have been more familiar with the newer team than the old. At worst, its a bias. In either case, we cannot include it without appropriate citation.

My response regarding your edit summary which stated, "Try it this way, then--I have read the source." ¹ suggests that we misunderstood each other. For my part, I maintain that while you may describe matters of plot without (an exception to the NOR rule), when you begin making connections from different issues, comics or media, your comments must then be supplemented with external citation. In effect, your noting that Batman's back being broken is okay. A comment comparing (for example) Batman's crippled state to that of Professor Xavier of the X-Men is one that requires a reference citing that comparison.

Your observation that such might be "unmistakable" and 'invaluable to the uninitiated reader' is not supported by our rules and guidelines at this time. Common knowledge is not that common; precisely because some of our readership is uninitiated is why it is our responsibility to present the information from external sources that allow each reader to arrive at their own point of view, without coaching from us so-called experts in the topic. If Timm or McDuffie or someone else notable doesn't cite a connection between the Defenders and the Justice League, we don't get to make that decision for them.

Lastly, I think that perhaps you might want to consider assuming a little more good faith on your fellow editors. Calling arguments "absurd", "patently-" or "blatantly invalid" this or that is a bit uncivil as well. I do appreciate you bringing your concerns to the discussion page as I requested, and am going to consider your minor lapse in good faith to have been borne from the frustration of having your edit misinterpreted. Please forgive my lapse in explaining that the good faith citation you were adding was to a broken statement that was wrong on its face. For my part, I apologize.

I will be removing the OR (and slightly biased) statement that compares - without citation - the connection between the Defenders and the JLA. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you actually read the passage or the cited source ? Your statement about certain words not being in the latter notwithstanding, it appears you have not. What was being claimed and irrefutably cited is that one episdode of the JLU TV series contained a sub-group of characters deliberately put together (if not from the very beginning of development of the storyline) as a parallel to Marvel's Defenders. There was no claim whatsoever that the Justice League itself was originally modeled on the Defenders, although I'll now admit that the passage in the article didn't make the intended point as clear as it could have. However, the cited source which you've clearly indicated you had read would have left no such ambiguity in your mind had you actually read it; I presume you merely scanned it, looking for a reference to Dr. Strange. This is not being a competent and fair editor (and a lack of competence and/or fairness is not a lack of good faith; I'm just sick of the number of times I've pointed out irrefutably incompetent behavior and had the phrase "assume good faith" thrown at me). I will NOT "assume good faith" to the point of letting good info get blocked from or garbage stand posted in the encyclopedia, and I will not accept being faulted for this. I am going to put the passage and cite back in, and make the point irrefutably clear this time. Ted Watson (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2¢ or so — Don't use the primary source, the television episode, as the citation for the parallel. That is a conclusion you are drawing. Find a cite, either by a reliable reviewer or in an interview focusing on the episode, where the parallel is presented. - J Greb (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Greb, first, I did not initially post this passage. Secondly, there is and has been a post there, with quotations from producers Bruce Timm and Dwayne McDuffie expressly stating that the parallel is there, and was, albeit not from the very beginning of development of the storyline, intentional. It is in no way, shape, or form "a conclusion [I] am drawing. If you can't say anything more reality-based than this, don't say anything! Ted Watson (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Now Ted, do you want me to respond in the spirit in which you did, and say, 'why no, Ted - I was just using the Force on the advice of the Great Pumpkin to suss out whether the article covered the statements.'? What would that get us, aside from you getting more upset than you already are, and even less likely to listen to reason that I would be, in getting a response like yours?

The better answer, of course, is to say: of course I read the source statement, Ted. And no, the citation doesn't say that. Here's what it does say:

‘That’s our backward homage to the Defenders...You know, we’ve got Aquaman here and Dr. Fate; we’ve basically got two-thirds of a DC Comics alternate universe version of the Defenders.’ Little light bulbs started going off over everybody’s heads. I said, ‘All we need now is the DC equivalent of the Hulk.’

Now, here's what I purged citing WP:OR:

This sub-group is a disguised version of Marvel Comics' Defenders, including Aquaman for Sub-Mariner, Hawkgirl for Nighthawk, Solomon Grundy for the Hulk and Amazo for the Silver Surfer; Fate is a stand-in for Doctor Strange. Only after this episode does it seem that Fate maintains any continual relationship with fellow superheroes (miscommunication being the reason for the struggles between his group and the League in "Terror), including joining the expanded League in Unlimited.

Please, tell me how that extrapolation isn't original research. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Fate as Dr. Strange stand-in - arbitrary break 1

There are a number of statements you made previously that I missed in the revelation that you (1)didn't have any idea what was actually intended in the passage (something you haven't even implicitly acknowledged yet), and (2)hadn't actually read the cited source (nothing you've said here gives me any reason to think you had then, since, as I said, your misinterpretation that the intent of the passage was to claim the JLA itself was inspired by the Defenders would have been completely cleared up if you had). One was, "Calling arguments 'absurd', 'patently-' or 'blantantly invalid' is a bit uncivil...." Not when that is precisely what those arguments are, and that fact is relevant to the discussion. You accused me of a "lapse in good faith." Get a dictionary; acting without good faith means deliberately committing wrong. I begin to suspect that I am the only person genuinely and significantly working on Wikipedia who knows that. On to your current post. When you say "the citation doesn't say that" I have no idea what you are referring to by "that" (One more time: I moved the "Fate/Strange stand-in" statement to after the ref. cite because there was no specific statement about those two there, but given another look at what is said, that Aquaman and Fate constitute two-thirds of a DC parallel of the Defenders, that's good enough, because it is stating that those two are analogous to Namor and Strange; so if by "that" you mean the alleged lack of a statement paralleling the two Doctors, you are wrong, it is there). No matter how many times you (and J. Greb) say there's no source cited for it, that won't make it true. Despite what you say above, you have not deleted the "continual relationship...miscommunication" part, which I would have no objection to going as OR/spec. I simply moved it to follow the Defenders stuff because it expressly refers to Fate's attitude/actions after the events of the "Terror" episode. And come to that, I didn't put up any of this to begin with, I merely agree with it, so don't call it "your [meaning me] edit". The rest of what you said here in your most recent post is uncivil sarcasm. Concerning my edit summary as addressed in your edit summary, I meant "my discussion on the talk page" as a parallel to your previous edit summary, not "the discussion on My Talk page." I had, as I'm sure you know, a very limited amount of space available to me there, and apologize for the unintended misrepresentation of my meaning; I see exactly how you took it the way you did and it was my fault for not seeing that potential interpretation in "preview" mode (no matter what your behavior here as caused me to think of you—and note that I am not saying what it is—I owe you an apology for that and I have given it; don't tell me I am not fair and civil). Now I'm going to put the Defenders parallel stuff back in, and if you take it back out, you damned well better have an objection to it that reflects reality. Ted Watson (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

With respect, if you are feeling that you are "the only person genuinely and significantly working on Wikipedia" who understands the dictionary definition of 'good faith', I would suggest that it is you who might need to set aside the dictionary and start using the same definition the rest of us are, as per WP:AGF. While you are at it, perhaps you could peruse WP:CIVIL, as suggesting that I don't know a basic definition term, or that i haven't read source citations that I am discussing. In short, treat your fellow editors here not with disdain but with the lasting hope that they are going to treat you in the manner in which you would hope to be treated yourself. I am sure you were unaware of how your words (and likely, a little bit of your frustration at being misinterpreted through the medium) were translating into something a bit more hostile than was your intention. At least you are willing to address the concern, and I applaud you for that. :)

That being said, the source problem here is one of synthesis. You need a specific citation that says that Doctor Strange is a stand-in for Fate; you cannot use an allusion to a statement to replace an actual statement. To do so is in fact synthesis. If I can assist in clarifying this more, please do not hesitate to ask. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect, if you are feeling that you are "the only person genuinely and significantly working on Wikipedia" who understands the dictionary definition of 'good faith', I would suggest that it is you who might need to set aside the dictionary and start using the same definition the rest of us are, as per WP:AGF.

What incredible arrogance! Wiki has no right whatsoever to not use the same dictionary as the rest of the world. The correct action in the situation would be to suggest to administration they put a more appropriate label on what they currently call "good faith." However, I clicked on that link, and the definition there is indeed the one I use, which is completely incompatible with your earlier accusation of my having a lapse in good faith, which I quoted and refuted above, including the comment you alluded to.

While you are at it, perhaps you could peruse WP:CIVIL, as suggesting that I don't know a basic definition term, or that i[sic] haven't read source citations that I am discussing.

Not a coherent sentence, is it? But I realize you intended to finish that with, "...is not very civil," or something of the sort. Your own words support both claims, as previously laid out, and I stand by them. It can't even be argued that the lack of having read the linked-in source wasn't relevant and could have been left unsaid. If you don't like being told you hadn't read such a source, then be damned sure you do read the thing. The only other hypothetical possibility is that your reading and comprehension skills are very low, and your vocabulary and writing skills are too high for that.

To the material under discussion: Let me clarify this more for you. Here is the Bruce Timm quote to be found there:

"I mentioned, 'You know, we've got Aquaman here and Dr. Fate; we've basically got two-thirds of a DC Comics alternate universe version of the Defenders.' Little light bulbs started going off over everybody's heads. I said, 'All we need now is the DC equivalent of the Hulk.' Somebody mentioned [Solomon] Grundy and it all went from there."

The three original Defenders were Dr. Strange (a sorcerer, as is Fate), Namor the Sub-Mariner (a fish-man from Atlantis, as is Aquaman) and the Hulk. Just because Timm did not expressly state which Marvel characters Aquaman and Fate were analogous to (or did not have that part of his statement quoted) does not mean that the point is not right there, period. I am not reading something into Timm's statement that might not be there, that might not be his intent. To deny that fact from representation in the encyclopedia because Timm did not spell out every last detail is incredibly dense (or evidence of a hidden agenda). If you still don't see it, then for God's sake be reasonable: just take my word for it that the citation does support the passage (since I trimmed out the other analogous-characters claims last time, anyway; I began to suspect that, though you were far from claiming that, it was your real problem with it, but no), and let it stand. Ted Watson (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Fate as Dr. Strange stand-in - arbitrary break 2

Okay, let's try this again, as the comments need to shift away from the editors and back onto the edits, so as to avoid rancor and maintain some professional courtesy. Suggesting that someone is either "incredibly dense" or operating from a "hidden agenda" isn't going to garner that politness, and might very well inspire responses that make everyone unhappy.
We cannot make the intuitive leap of mentioning Doctor Strange without a citation that specifically notes that the Defenders' counterpart to Doctor Fate to that of Doctor Strange, no matter how clear it might seem to the comic-initiated. Wikipedia editors are not sources for either comment or verification. We need citable sources from those who are notably reliable to comment thusly. In the absene of which, we cannot fill in the gaps. This isn't my rule; this is part of wiki policy and guidelines. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Their is no "intuitive leap" here. The fact that Bruce Timm did not say (or get quoted as saying) every single detail out loud does not mean that it is not there, as I explained. To not fill in the gap (only one, which is nothing but a technicality) for the comics-uninitiated is to fail in our mandate to be informative to the users. I note that despite this posting you have yet to make the reversion, so perhaps you have changed your mind. I will not shy away from "suggesting that someone is either 'incredibly dense' or operating from a 'hidden agenda'" when that is exactly how it appears. I will, in fact, never shy away from dealing with reality on its own terms. Ted Watson (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not changed my mind, Tbrittreid/Ted Watson - I was awaiting newer citations from you prior to removing it as unsourced. Since you haven't provided an explicit source noting the connection that you claim in almost a week, I am removing the comparison as uncited. I would recommend that you discuss the strength of your claims and how they measure up within the policy and guidelines structure of Wikipedia before continuing with this discussion.

As well, I am sorry that you do not feel the need to be polite in your dealings with your fellow editors. Some will simply refuse to engage in conversation with you as a consequence, and choose to ignore your edits and questions. If you are sure that this is the tactic you feel is best suited for community editing, you may wish to consult with an administrator regarding such. I am of the firm opinion that if I called you "dense" or suggested that you had a "hidden agenda", you'd likely become a tad unhinged. Excuse me for saying so - as I tend to call em as I see them as well - but your behavior is unwarranted. I would ask that you modify it before responding if you wish a response. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As per the request that Arcayne (talk · contribs) made at WP:AN/I for an uninvolved administrator to review this dispute, I have researched the situation and come to the conclusion that this edit made by Tbrittreid (talk · contribs) does not appear to be supported by the listed source [1]. Wikipedia's official policy on verifiability is very clear that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" and that "if no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." As such, I have reverted the changes from the article until such time as they can be properly sourced and cited.

This would also be a good time for me, as an outside and otherwise uninvolved editor, to remind everyone that edit warring is considered to be a prohibited hostile behavior. If someone challenges your edits, discuss it here until you reach a consensus, rather than try to "win" the dispute via brute force reverts or increasingly un-civil comments. Likewise editors who break the three-revert rule will be blocked. Generally speaking, a great way to avoid either of these pitfalls (edit warring or three-reverts) is to follow the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.

Wikipedia works at its absolute best when editors from divergent cultures and backgrounds work together collaboratively to build the best possible encyclopedia. I hope the editors involved in this -or any other- dispute bridge their differences and form a new consensus that ultimately improves the article. Please let me know if you have any questions or issues, or if you have any concerns regarding the Wikipedia policies and guidelines I have described. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 12:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)