Talk:Galactus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Images

What do people think about the images for the article? Should there be more images? Fewer? If more, what kinds of images?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that a few more images would be warranted; for example we don't really have a good view of the character aside from the info box image—everything else are head shots.Mobb One (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I think FF49 should stay, even though it's a head shot. I don't think the cosmic egg picture adds much. I can't think of good ones off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are some good ones in Silver Surfer vol 3, Annihilation, and Beta Ray Bill's books. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

My paranoia senses are tingling regarding your motivations for suddenly not wanting the cosmic egg picture, first after the revision to original in-context state for anybody to check for themselves, but it is the most iconic image for the character, so it should definitely stay.

FF #49 is irrelevant, as it does not convey anything in particular, although replacing the title image with another, full body, image drawn by Jack Kirby might be a good idea. Although the current one is of extremely high quality in itself. Not one of the most relevant to the character history though.

The Trial of Galactus image from FF 262 is also defining, although to a lesser extent, and should preferably stay. Dave (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You think the cosmic egg scene is the most iconic image of Galactus? I'm sorry, but I disagree. Without context, it's not even recognizable as him. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It is the page that most defines Galactus' origin and what he is, rather than what he looks like (a fashion victim, as Plastic Man put it), which is particularly irrelevant considering the second most defining page in that regard (the John Byrne image from the "Trial Of Galactus" displayed in the P&A section).

I generally tend to automatically focus on the essence of people (and concepts) rather than superficiality (and no, I'm very seldom intolerant at all), but regardless, this page is about the character and his history, so showcasing the defining image for that context seems very appropriate in my book.

My suggestion is to definitely keep this history-defining image, preferably keep the P&A (different perceptions) image, remove the headshot cover, and replace the head image with a full body Jack Kirby drawing, preferably one with updated modern colouring, or maybe one by for example Alex Ross based on a Kirby drawing, whichever you prefer. Dave (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Here is one, but I don't like the colouring~. Dave (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I can agree it's an important momement for the character, but one thing that it absolutly isn't is iconic. Part of being an icon is immediate recognizability. It's clear with a little context, but the fact that the image is high enough res for the whole page's text to be readable may violate fair-use. If you want an image that focuses on the essence of the character, then we should find one where he's feeding.Argento Surfer (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

We can use an image in which he is feeding for the head image (Which of the google search images do you prefer?), and keep the other two as his most important historic moments. Also, although the image is kept much smaller than originally, to not violate fair use, the text is there for a reason, namely that there were extremely biased attempts to onesidedly slant the page about very arguable topics, this moment being a key issue.

So to stay neutral, we eventually agreed to avoid specifically describing the event, and sticking to showcasing the unaltered image text itself for all the visitors to make up their own minds about instead. If we leave it out, the bias and pet theories will inevitably return, and this page already has too much of that. Dave (talk) 14:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually...agree with David. The Cosmic Egg scene is one of Galactus' defining moments, and is a scenario that is fairly unique to Galactus. This is one of the reasons it was been redrawn by numerous artists. TheBalance (talk) 00:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was unaware there had been problems with describing his origins. With that in mind, the egg picture should definately stay.Argento Surfer (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Power Cosmic

I didn't propose the merger, but I support it. Most of the content is duplicated anyway. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really seem to serve a purpose, but I don't particularly care either way. Dave (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

'Support - It's a stub article, and its information would seem more relevant and understandable to the general public if it were placed within the larger fictional context. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done Argento Surfer (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The galaxy-moving deal

It has been a while, but here are the three main images dealing with the issue.

I would appreciate if neutral parties (people other than myself, Mobb, or TB) would please browse through them and say what you think.

What speaks for it is that in Rom: Spaceknight issue 27, it is mentioned but not shown that the galaxy is moved.

What speaks against it is that it is said that afterwards only the planet Galador is missing from the position in space from within the Golden Galaxy, and when the Rom is standing there he is clearly surrounded by lots of visible planets and stars, which would not be there without a present galaxy. It is however clearly shown that the planet is missing.

When the storyline of the missing Galador is returned to much later in Rom issue 73, it is clearly stated and shown that Galador is no longer located within the Golden Galaxy, and that this is what makes it so hard to locate.

When both storylines are cited in Rom's entry of the official handbook, it is also only stated that Galador was moved.

Could some neutral parties browse through the images and make snap judgements on the issue, to avoid the tiresome pointless back-and-forth unnecessarily lengthy sniping and arguing semantics that any exchanges between myself and the other two have degenerated into thus far. I, being anal-retentive, would like to get this resolved and done with once and for all.

So if you could do a back-and-forth evaluation whether or not this is enough of a done deal to be cited in the article, without us muddling it up, this would be very appreciated. Thank you. David A (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I would go with the text, not the image, which would be moving the galaxy in this case. I read Rom not too long ago, and the whole galaxy needed to be moved to protect it from a collision course with the Dark Nebula. When the later issue says Galador isn't in the Golden Galaxy anymore, I would assume Galactus moved both of them, just not to the same location. I'll check the Annihilators mini to see if it mentioned Galador's location. If it disagrees with the original series, I'd go with the most recent update. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, okay then. You have always been neutral enough. Does anybody else think that it should stay, or that it is too contradictory and unclear a point to remain (like myself)? David A (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cosmic Egg Image

After reading back over several archives I was unable to find where a consensus was reached on the wording of this image caption. I did see extensive discussion over it, but the use of word "merging" seemed supported up by user nightscream who appeared to be moderating the discussion. The evidence presented over the usage of the word "merging" also seemed much stronger than the evidence against it. Immodicus (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The text itself in the following image clearly shows the sentience and Galan to be separate entities after Galan's transformation, but since biases differed/the non-moderators couldn't agree, rather than state "transformed by" or "merging with", after long tedious back-and-forths we finally simply let it become a completely neutral "these two characters are present in this iconic image, but we aren't stating any interpretations whatsoever", which is a text that is neither for nor against, as such shouldn't bother anybody, and left it as that.

If it makes you appeased, there is a cited mention in the P&A section though, but that's from another story.

Of course, as he's an existential "god of oblivion", imho it is probably unhealthy of any of us to act as cheerleaders for the character. David A (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The text contained within the image confirms that:

A. Galan and the Sentience "become as one"

B. Galan and the Sentience would both "die" "in mere moments" but be succeeded by a "new form of life". (Galactus)

The text in the following image could be any number of things, it could be the Sentience speaking from within Galactus, or it could be its spirit or essence speaking to Galactus as it passes on. In my view that passing statement doesn't contradict the more concrete statements made in the former page. A merger between the two took place, from what I can see of your statements the only point of contention is the type of merging. Immodicus (talk) 05:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

No, it only says "Come into my embrace. Let us become as one", i.e. a metaphysical thryst allegory to spawn a child. And the following panel says "Go now, and let a universe aborning beware" and displaying their child Galactus being sent away from the Sentience, as separate beings, well after the thryst was completed. He is clearly stated as the child of the previous universe (and going by the "beware", its spiteful revenge on the universe replacing it), not the universe itself.

In addition, he has called Eternity "father" in the "Trial Of Galactus" and Thanos has stated that it was Eternity who spoke to him during the "hunger" story, i.e. the previous sentience didn't even die, it just metamorphosized into the current Eternity. David A (talk) 08:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Please note the Sentience's statement to Galan, plainly stating that both will DIE but they would be succeeded by a joint heir. This is a concrete statement. Also note Death's statement to Galactus under Byrne's FF run, there she says that Galactus and herself (and by proxy, Eternity) are but mere babes who will not know maturity until the universe's final end. The implication being that Eternity, Death and Galactus will further evolve when the universe reaches it's ultimate end. It is only logical that such an evolution occurred with the previous SoTU as well, it simply spoke to Galactus as it moved on to it's next evolutionary phase, as it passed on from it's previous state. This writer intent is made especially clear since Galactus' origin was expanded to reflect the changes/revelations made for the character during Byrne's FF run, and everything ties together neatly.

Also, Galactus referring to Eternity as "father" is an obvious over simplification, as Galactus has referred to Death as mother/daughter/sister/wife. Galactus has also referred to Eternity as brother further emphasizing the fact that the Galactus/Eternity relationship is a lot more complex than a simple father and son dynamic, just as the Galactus/Death relationship is. Immodicus (talk) 20:18, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, for one thing the story was written by Lee and Kirby not John Byrne, for the second I don't see how any of the above has anything to do with the previous Sentience and Galactus being separate beings or that Galactus is simply the child of the former, and in the Thanos series the title character did a recap of the page in question in which the current Eternity was clearly shown as the one who communicated with Galan. David A (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The original Thor story was written by Lee and Kirby, additional panels -- including the Cosmic Egg image -- were drawn by Byrne for Super Villain Classics #1. Byrne and Gruenwald expanded the Galactus origin to fit with revelations made about the character during Byrne's FF run. The *previous* Eternity communicated and MERGED with Galan, creating a joint heir for them both. This is plainly detailed in the SoTU's statements to Galan.

Let's not forget that you wrote, "Of course, as he's an existential "god of oblivion", imho it is probably unhealthy of any of us to act as cheerleaders for the character." With that statement you revealed both a bias against the character and a fundamental misunderstanding of the character's concept. I don't feel that you are able to show objectivity regarding Galactus. Immodicus (talk) 06:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You are using a very dirty diversion tactic that attacks the person as a rather than the statement. According to your reasoning only people with a stronger pro-bias for the character, such as yourself or Mobb, are allowed to be taken into consideration, while also stating that just because I have another viewpoint than yourself this is automatically a "fundamental misunderstanding" on my part.

In addition you are also inferring that just because I am completely honest and open about, rather than trying to lie about, that I have a dislike for certain parts of the character concept, which there is absolutely nothing strange about I might add, considering the very extreme nature, then I must be lying through my teeth and not believe what I am saying. There is an inherent contradiction in that approach.

In any case, "god of oblivion" is quoted from Galactus' latest Thor appearance. Rest assured that I genuinely believe what I am saying and simply have a fully valid different perception and itnerpretation than yourself, and, as I keep repeating and you keep ignoring, the only thing stated in the interaction panel is that they were going to have a communion, or a "cosmic thryst" to produce a heir, as it states, and in the following panel the SOTU is sending its child, Galactus, away into the new universe in the "Go now!" statement, with the two here shown as two separate beings.

Considering that, again, I am tired of repeating myself regarding this tiresome boring topic, I don't understand why it would so extremely impossible for you to understand that all of the above is perfectly valid. The two are clearly displayed as separate beings in this origin story, and as such, the completely ambivalent nature of the previous panel simply read as a communion or "metaphysical intercourse" if you will.

However, although I did read the original Thor story, it has been years, and I concede you may very well be right in that the specific communion panel was added later. In good faith I do ask that you recheck to be certain however. David A (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting in Waid's run on F4 (specifically, with Johnny as herald, don't remember the issue numbers), Galactus is reverted to Galan. That indicates to me Galan was changed by temporarily joining with the sentience, not merging permanantly. I think the "transformed by" language captures that. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, but do not forget that while Galan was on earth with the FF the Galactus-Force/Power Cosmic (whichever you prefer) was actively searching the universe for Galan for the express purpose of reforming Galactus. This indicates a will or sentience independent of Galan, which supports the idea that Galactus is the result of a merging of two parts. Immodicus (talk) 17:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hn, I'd forgotten that part. Merge it is. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Not really. The Galactus essence was mindless or at least didn't display any personality. It can more easily be seen as an infusion. And more importantly, we are still talking about the origin story, not revisions. And in that all that is clearly stated is that the dying universe wanted a child to continue its legacy, and that it said farewell to Galactus while sending him away, trillions of years after the communion took place. I don't understand why others keep ignoring this? David A (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

What I can't understand is how can you continue to discount the Sentience's statements to Galan?

"But though we BOTH must DIE, we need not die without an HEIR. Come, surrender yourself to my fiery embrace and let us BECOME AS ONE. Let our DEATH THROES serve as birth pangs for a NEW FORM OF LIFE."

So you're going to discount the Sentience's rather concrete narration because he spoke to Galan in the initial moment of the Big Bang? How does this make any sense to you? Immodicus (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

(Long, and deep, frustrated, and weary sigh while pulling my hair, due to this topic mindlessly carrying on and on for years) No, as I have explicitly stated several times, I understand perfectly where you are coming from. However, as I keep repeating, to me the meaning of that exchange reads as: "Come into my embrace to snuggle and produce a heir inside my womb. I am old, dying, and afraid, but I want a child to survive after my death" with the explicit symbolism for having sex and producing offspring extremely heavily laced.

There is nothing "concrete" whatsoever to support your view over mine in that particular story, whereas, as I also keep repeating, in the following panel, trillions of years after the cosmic intercourse incident began, the Sentience Of The Universe is explicitly displayed as still being a separate being from the child that it produced and now sends out from its womb into the emerging "new" universe.

What you can make a case for is that the Sentience permanently died within that story, but that its' child survived, and that Jim Starlin got it wrong in the Thanos series, as it didn't metamorphosize into the new Eternity. You could make a case for that Mark Waid got it wrong in his Galactus story (that Galan died and was replaced by a new creature with his memories), or more likely that both of them tried to tweak in their own separate retcons that were technically not supported by the source material, and I have no idea whatever the "official" case might be, and it probably depends on the writer.

However, what you cannot argue is that in the original origin story, the SOTU and Galactus are clearly explicitly displayed as separate beings after Galactus' creation, and as such it follows that the sum total depiction within it simply states with lots of very explicit allegories, that Galactus was the child emerging from the womb of his dying mother, the previous unvierse itself. I would like to ask you to try much harder to perceive and acknowledge the validity of this picture, rather than divert attention from it and change the focus to something else. I apologise for being testy, and perhaps not being able to put the context into words that you are able to understand, but please make an effort to grasp, acknowledge, and address these exact points, and we will be able to get anywhere. Thank you. David A (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

FCB

I am in the process of rewriting the FCB to remove the in-universe perspective. I will post it into the article once complete.

This is what I have written so far

The initial origin of Galactus was published in an issue of Thor in 1969, 3 years after the character first appeared in Fantastic Four. It depicted a story in which Galactus told his beginnings to Thor through a series of flashbacks. Galactus explains that he was originally the explorer Galan from the planet Taa, and that his civilization was suffering from a plague that had already laid waste to other worlds. Unable to halt the plague, Galan and other survivors boarded a ship with the intent to fly into the heart of the largest star. However, a burst of radiation saturated the ship and killed all the inhabitants except for Galan. Galan eventually absorbed the energies and found himself transformed into the being Galactus. A, Watcher, having observed the birth of Galactus, deduced that the creature would ultimately require consumption of entire worlds to survive. Adhering to the code of non-interference adopted by his race, the Watcher bore witness as Galactus departed to consume his first world.

The origin story was revisited in 1983, with additional significant plot elements introduced by writer Mark Gruenwald. The first major change explained that Taa was not a planet located in the primary Marvel Universe, but instead was a planet which existed in the universe before the Big Bang of the primary universe. The plague introduced in the Thor origin is altered, and instead of de-populating worlds, the plague is shown to be killing off all life in Galan's native universe. Galan and the lone survivors of the plague fly into the cosmic egg, and while his crewmates all perish, Galan survives. Rather than radiation transforming Galan as in the original version, the character is instead transformed through a bonding with the Sentience of the Universe, depicted on-panel as a disembodied voice. Galan gestates for billions of years in the next universe that formed, emerging as Galactus. As in the initial origin story, the Watcher ("Ecce") observes the birth of Galactus, but chooses not to take the opportunity to kill him. The story also depicts the first world to be consumed by Galactus, the fictional planet Archeopia. Having consumed the planet, and moved by the epiphany of his new circumstances, Galactus constructs his new "home-world", Taa II, both in memory of the dead world of Taa and for the first planet to fall prey to his hunger.

Mobb One (talk) 17:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The consensus I've seen for most comic character articles has been to have the FCB in-universe, and the real-world creators, dates, etc in the Publication history. The FCB is essentially plot, and that is written in-universe for movies, books, comic events, and so on. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I would reword it as "transformed by the the Sentience of the Universe". Again, the page clearly displays the Sentienceand Galactus as separate beings after the coupling. David A (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Mobb One's wording is clearly correct as evidenced by the SoTU's statements to Galan in the Cosmic Egg, which details the "conception" of Galactus. Immodicus (talk) 06:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't understand why it is so hard to understand the simple fact that the SOTU and Galactus are clearly displayed as separate entities in the following panel, at a time when the new universe had started, that is billions or trillions of years after the gestation/communion/intercourse/tranformation/womb period occurred. Nor, that it was most likely a reference of a romantic embrace and thryst in the panel before that, or at the very least that panel can just as easily be read both ways, but I find my interpretation considerably more likely.

So again, to keep good article standard we should keep the mention of this event neutral. I'm a right is right kind of fellow, which is mostly a problem for me, but nevertheless I'm not likely to change this perception.

However, I am very tired of pointless repetitive hostile unreasonability for the sheer sake of unreasonability, especially something that somehow drags on forever and never lets go like this nonsense, which again isn't at all hard to grasp both sides of if we all at least try to be reasonable and objective rather than trudge around in trenches with apparent grudges against each other for something in this case silly. Let's just keep things neutral, try to control our narrow-mindedness and everybody can go home and stop blathering on and on forever about this ultimately boring specific topic. David A (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines in the wikiprojects comics explicitly states that the FCB should not be written in universe. Entries which have a status of "A" or higher, such as Superman, don't have in universe...so that is what should be accomplished here.--Mobb One (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a link to that? I think I've been doing it wrong for the last year.Argento Surfer (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No, it should not be "transformed by the Sentience of the Universe" as the very page of the metamorphosis explicitly states UNION. "Transformed by" belies Galan acting as a passive agent while the Sentience is some principal benefactor that imposes his powers on Galan and then proceeds to die in the cataclysm. Obviously this is categorically refuted in the page prior by saying both will die but both will be reborn as Galactus. This has also been corroborated by subsequent re-tellings of Galactus' origin in FF and Thanos, as well as the OHOTMU. Right is right by not overtly stressing that the Sentience acted as a separate agent, which is what you would attain by "transformed by." That is not right, that is wrong. I encourage you to read every origin story of Galactus (aside from the initial Thor one) and see the overwhelming and overt evidence that confirms UNION.--Mobb One (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

You know, first and foremost I want to feel like I'm actually having a genuine reasonable discussion with somebody, not just participating in mindless partisan bickering, and I'm not anywhere near as obsessed with the character as you are, so I lost my interest years ago. Hence, I have repeatedly made efforts to understand where you are coming from, but I ask you to do the same, read my last reply in the topic above repeatedly until you understand and acknowledge what I have been saying, rather than blindly believe yoruself to be the sole holder of absolute truthiness, and to not attempt to divert attention from and/or ignore my various points, and to not do any of your "David A is blablablla! Look what I claim that David A did!" playing for a perceived gallery. Then and only then can we get anywhere, as othervise I will just feel like I am talking with a troll about something that I am ultimately uninterested in, and only engage in due to being frustrated about not managing to get through to you what I intend. David A (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

David, up above you discouraged users from being a "cheerleader" for the Galactus character because you see him as an "existential god of oblivion"; IMHO, you betrayed your agenda with that statement. The bulk of your edits to this page have been done to serve what I personally see as a blatant Galactus-diminishing agenda. I see very little impartiality from you on this entry, despite your claims to it. I see far more even-keeled assessments and edit quality from you on other Wiki entries, but not so with Galactus.

This Galactus-diminishing easily be seen with your position on this particular manner. You discount a full page of clear dialogue for a passing statement in one panel, and use some creative interpretation to bolster your argument.

Do you deny that the SOTU stated that both Galan and itself would DIE in the final moments of their universe?

Do you deny that the SOTU stated the BOTH Galan and itself would BECOME AS ONE in order to create a NEW FORM OF LIFE, one that would be an HEIR to both?

IF you do not deny these facts, how do you reconcile them with your stated position? TheBalance (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This again? Gah. I absolutely hate this topic at this point, since I cannot shake the feeling that people are attempting to troll me... Or at the very least what I am saying is not understood properly.

Ok, to start with, read my endnote to the previous section.

In order:

"Existential god of oblivion" is Matt Fraction's latest story line with the character. Galactus was also described as a cosmic parasite in the story. (I like the writer's overall quality as an author/consider him Marvel's greatest resource at the moment, with Grant Morrisson as DC's) but am very unhappy with his treatment of myself elsewhere).

Stating that Galactus is the child of the previous universe rather than the universe itself, should not count as "Galactus diminishing" in any book.

Although I have long since completely lost interest in the character, the old point stands that before I came to this page it was overrun with inaccuracies, severe bias, and peacocking. Currently it is somewhat more neutral, but still considerably more pro than con biased, as is the common nature of these things, but you don't see me get worked up about it to your level. What sections specifically do you think are "Galactus diminishing" on the page?

No I do not discount anything in that page, whereas you on the other hand very much do. What is said is that two partners are about to embrace and the male to approach the bosom to produce a heir/an offspring, and that both of the partners are to die and be survived by this child. In the only panel featuring Galactus and "his" "mother" at the same time, both are displayed to be separate beings, again trillions of years after the previous panel occurred. In that context, with all of these many assembling factors together, intercourse is very clearly what I understand that "let us become as one" means. This is not me trying to manipulate or being biased, just rational. As you keep mentioning, sometimes seemingly for rhetorical trickery points, unlike yourself I as good as always admit outright when I'm influenced by bias. However, in this case, I am not. I am giving the character Galactus his due as the child of the Marvel Universe.

Of course, later, after that, other writers have added their own versions, although the Thanos maxiseries seemed to agree, but this definitely seems to be what originally happened... Well, what originally happened was Galactus as the child of a star, but you know what I mean.

Offtopic: What I openly have an inherent bias in, but does not affect my rationality on the issue, and it is nothing beyond an annoyed itch if the topic is raised, is that I find the entire dichotomy context of a godlike character, who is supposed to act as a bulwark/safety measure for the universe (including against demonic entities), in combination with the continuous slaughter of the beings he supposedly protects, a nonsensical combination with the way it was executed in trial of Galactus. There should be any number of far more nourishing nonsentient power sources for a being of that stature, including stars, cosmic cubes, or similar, and yet it commits one genocide of a unique ridiculously rare sentient civilisation that took billions of years to develop, every year or so. The universe should have been so depopulated at this point, that there would be nobody left to protect. And yet, this was handwaved by Odin/Byrne during the trial by quoting Mussolini's viewpoint that "any attacked maggot who is too weak to stop the god in question deserves to die, no matter how many trillions who are slaughtered", and a frothing devious underhanded scheming honourless Skrull representing any naysayers. I know that Odin technically turned into the god of Nazis, so it was in character for that, but I liked his recent characterisation considerably better. Of course, he really seemed to be a lot more like the Neil Gaiman's version.

Anyway, you know, for one this is an entirely understandable viewpoint, and for the second that part was handled through including the objection by the history professor, so that's fine for encyclopaedic neutrality. As for the cheerleading comment, that was a sincere sentiment on my part that maybe it would be more healthy for yourself and Mobb to reconsider your obviously favourable attachments to the character based on this context. David A (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Merging with Heralds of Galactus

I didn't propose this, but I can support it. All the heralds have their own page, so most of the information on Heralds of Galactus is redundant. Relocating this section to Galactus' page should be sufficient. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving the section seems fine. Praeter doesn't have his own page, so his description could stay. David A (talk) 20:01, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done and I made an entry for Praetor. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Hunger

Before I remove it, has there been any official confirmation the Galactus who invaded the Ultimate universe is the 616 Galactus? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes there's plenty of confirmation floating around the internet. Particularly on CBR where they interview the writers and one of the senior publishers and they confirm that the Galactus in Hunger is the "616"/mainstream Galactus. So literally, at this point in time, the mainstream Galactus is merged with his Ultimate counterpart, Gah Lak Tus. Mobb One (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Marvel Zombies and the Power Cosmic

In the article it says that the Marvel Zombies gain a portion of the Power Cosmic by eating Galactus. Having read the book, this isn't actually the case. They get their Power Cosmic from the Surfer, and actually use it to kill Galactus. After having eaten him, however, they do gain the ability to consume planets, and they get some snazzy Galactus style jump suits (for some unknown reason) If anyone feels this should be amended then it would be good. If not,then carry on as the page already was.82.37.129.142 (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)capbrit 82.37.129.142 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Mobb One and David A

User:Mobb One and User:David A, could you two please have your conversation here instead of in your edit summaries? It's very difficult to follow what you're saying/doing now, and other editors might benefit from the discussion in the future. Thanks. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

All right, but I think that we reached a compromise. David A (talk) 12:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am going to edit the Scrier/Other vs. Galactus portion one last time. It is NOT a 3-way battle. It is very clearly Galactus vs. BOTH the Scrier and Other simultaneously, with Oblivion standing to benefit from the result of their battle:

Galactus:

"The Odinson is not yours to give Scrier--nor yours to take, Other! You have been playing your inscrutable game since time's dawn, with all the universes as your pawns. In your war with the Other, you scheme and manipulate, prepared for any eventuality. And your enemy does the same. But have either [emphasis text] of you ever prepared...for a war against Galactus? [emphasis text]"

The next several pages are filled with BOTH Scrier and Other attacking Galactus TOGETHER. The text is completely unambiguous and leaves zero room for misinterpretation. The art in the following pages shows Galactus blasting the Scrier and Other, and subsequently the Other attacking Galactus, and then the Scrier hurling planets at Galactus.

Scrier (after the Silver Surfer and Thor convince the three of them to stop fighting, because reality was being threatened.) :

"They are right, of course. If we destroy all things...what then of our plans? of all we've worked for? What then, Other, of our long and glorious war?"

Other

"Agreed. Entanglement with Galactus serves neither of our causes. Thunder God be damned--let the half-billion year truce begin."

Scrier

"Then the barricade remains. The game-is on hold. And that was your goal all along...wasn't it, Galactus? You had no intention of obliterating the very universe that sustains you."

I am going to include these facts into the article. I am also altering the Galactus, Odin, and Celestials section. Since Galactus has defeated Odin, killed a Celestial, and was holding his own against the remaining 3 until they merged into a super form. It is incorrect to state "either." Mobb One (talk) 14:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the way I remember the story, Scrier and the Other were mortal enemies, far more so than with Galactus, and although they did indeed fight him they also continued their conflict woth each other. So I find it illogical to claim that they somehow ganged up specifically against Galactus at the drop of a hat. However, it has been months while since I read the issue, so I'll let it remain until if I find the energy to check it out again. The story was absolutely awful and not the slightest bit entertaining, so we'll see. David A (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I find it strange that you come to Wikipedia year in and year out for the sole purpose of only editing the Galactus page. Are you not interested in editing any other pages whatsoever? Is Galactus your sole focus on Wikipedia? David A (talk) 11:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm with David - Scrier and the Other are long time foes, and they wouldn't team up against Galactus. They may have attacked Galactus at the same time, but they weren't attacking him together, which is a crucial difference. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A few minor points with the last edit

Where does it state that Galactus is omnipresent, or near omnipresent (and how would that work exactly)? In Mark Gruenwald's Quasar run, it was stated that he is a physical being, not an abstract, so it seems inaccurate to me.

Also, his enhanced cosmic senses are already listed under "cosmic awareness", which is Marvel's own word for the term, so isn't listing "nigh/near omniscience" repetition?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Galactus&curid=13095&diff=638761747&oldid=635512664

Thank you for any feedback. David A (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I undid this edit. "nigh omniscience" is functionally the same as "knows a lot, but not quite everything." This isn't a special ability. The other changes were either unnecessary (such as specifying Battleworld's creation when the summary talks about its destruction) or improper (changing part of the FCB to past tense). Argento Surfer (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Kirby Collector biased?

Recently, some sourced, nonfictional information was removed by User:Palsunstar, who says the source is biased. I don't have a copy handy to verify, but it's been my experience that anything from TwoMorrows is pretty reliable. Also, the information removed wasn't controversial - it just covers the difference of opinion Lee and Kirby had over Galactus making more appearances. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I also think that the source should be kept, unless we are given further information regarding why it is unreliable. David A (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Key words: "...difference of opinion..." Don't you think entries should be fact-based & not opinion-based?

The entry that is attempting to be given as "fact" states that "Kirby put the character on hiatus." While the debate goes ever on regarding who created what at Marvel, it never states that Jack Kirby had control over characters being placed "on hiatus." This statement gives Jack Kirby control over a Marvel-owned character. Making such a statement is not a proven fact, regardless of the reputation of TwoMorrows.

In addition, the other statement that is attempting to be given as "fact" is ..."at Lee's request." I removed that because seeing as Stan Lee was the then-writer/editor, why would he make a request to himself? Palsunstar (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're confused on the use of "difference of opinion." The article wasn't expressing an opinionated view point, it was stating the factual existance of a disagreement between two people.

I also think you're giving the wording too much weight. Did Kirby own the character? Clearly not. Did his influence affect the output at the time? Without a doubt. If Kirby didn't want to draw the character, the character wasn't going to be drawn. When the character came back, it's because Lee asked the new artist to draw it. Hence, Lee's request, not the artists. If you find this to be unclear, we can reword it. Removing it seems excessive, and calling the source biased is just wrong. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It is completely appropriate to describe differences in opinion, and they can be written factually (as differences in opinion are factual). While the revised version is both factual and real-world, the previous version provides much more of a real-world, out of universe creative perspective. I don't think it's impossible to rewrite the content with those sources to make it even less ambiguous about the nature of control and collaboration between artists, writers, and editors, if that's truly a concern. It seems much more collaborative while betraying nothing in terms of factuality to incorporate the sources in a way that conveys the creative differences between Lee and Kirby with regard to the character rather than deleting them (and other sources, for some reason). It explains why the character was or wasn't used in titles from a production point of view, especially as it relates to the early use of a character who eventually becomes as prominent as it does in the Marvel Universe and its subsequent properties. Without it, only knowing that the character was put on hiatus despite being a popular character later on is a bit confusing to me as a reader. Knowing there was a creative difference in opinion clarifies that. Here's one suggested revision as an example:

"This led to the introduction of Galactus in Fantastic Four #48–50 (March–May 1966), which fans began calling "The Galactus Trilogy".(CITATION1)(CITATION2)(CITATION3) Kirby did not wish for Galactus to reappear in order to preserve the character's presence.(CITATION4) Fan popularity, however, prompted Lee to request that Kirby work on Galactus's reappearance,(CITATION4) and the character became a mainstay of the Marvel Universe."

The above is just an example of how it's entirely possible to convey a difference in opinion without necessarily giving speculative weight to who was ultimately able to cause the character's use or disuse, since that is debatable and unknown. I'd prefer to also be able to verify the quality of the sources, but let's also acknowledge that a third party publication that theoretically involves research, fact checking, and editing has at least some benefit of the doubt behind it compared to us as volunteer editors making judgement calls based on our limited knowledge. Ultimately, what we should be including here should be based on sources.Luminum (talk) 09:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Removing Speculation

I recently started making changes to entries that are not fact-based, but opinion-based. I'm attempting to keep things neutral in regards to the Jack Kirby/Stan Lee debate that permeates the Internet. Let's keep it away from the Wikipedia entries, shall we? Anything that shows that one person had more creative control than the other is debatable and cannot be proven.

Anyway, the latest revision postulates that Jack Kirby had some sort of control over the Galactus character. This is not a fact. Jack Kirby may have contributed to the plots, but he certainly did not have creative control.

Siting an article that mentions a statement made by someone does not make the statement a fact.

In addition, I removed a redundant mention of Galactus' introduction. This is already mentioned earlier in the entry. Palsunstar (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

A few things.

• The article was neutral to begin with.
• The source provided is proof enough of Lee and Kirby's positions.
• Kirby had more control than you seem to think. He added the Silver Surfer without consulting Lee.
• If you think a citation from a qualified, third party source discussing the article's subject is not actually a fact, you need to provide supporting evidence. So far, you've only given your opinion of the source, which isn't enough to refute it. Where are your sources that say otherwise? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

---

• The article was NOT neutral as it implied a position of power (creative control) that no one in the industry possessed at the time.
• The source provided has a well known bias in favor of Jack Kirby.
• I know all about Jack Kirby's addition of the Silver Surfer & Stan Lee's positive reaction to it.
• In regards to providing counter "evidence," it is not necessary. Logic dictates that if, at the time, NO ONE in the industry had creative control over COMPANY-OWNED properties, then making such presumptive statements as indicated in the section of the entry under debate is not a fact, it is a VERY biased opinion.

I'm attempting to make the entry neutral. Others seem to want to re-write history based on a VERY biased source.

And once again, I removed a redundant mention of Galactus' introduction.

I will wait (not very long) to see if anyone can provide a LOGICAL & NON-SPECULATIVE reason for the changes not to be reverted. Palsunstar (talk) 09:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have not investigated the two sources used in the sections. Considering that you're making the claim that the source has a "well known bias in favor of Jack Kirby", can you provide me with something that backs that up? If it's a known and extreme issue with the materials, I'd be inclined to agree with their exclusion.Luminum (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There is an inherent bias in The Jack Kirby Collector published by TwoMorrows. I'm not saying that it's an extreme issue, but the inherent bias is enough to cause question. As I already stated elsewhen, best to keep it neutral. Palsunstar (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No one had control? What are you talking about? Were stories decided by random chance? A dart board? Lee and Kirby shared control of the stories. All writer/artist teams did. If you're aware that Kirby added the Surfer to the story without Lee's approval, then how can you say he had no input and influence into the story and characters? The source explains how the two contributors felt, and whose opinion won out at what time.

Please, PLEASE explain the source's "well known" bias. Because no one else seems to have been aware of it. Have you read the source? Or are you basing your opinion of its views on its title? You keep saying these are company owned characters, and you seem to think that means the writer and artist have no input whatsoever into the stories. Their plans may have to be approved by corporate (although no such system was in place at the time in question), but the writers and artists of comics do, in fact, have control over the stories they tell. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop trying to read between the lines. Nowhere do I state that Jack Kirby had no influence into the story and characters. That's indisputable. What IS disputable is a statement implying that one had more influence than the other and THAT is the point of contention and will NEVER be a PROVEN fact.

The entry as written (and the source) implies that it was Jack Kirby's decision to "put the character on hiatus." As you state, they "shared" control, so when I attempted to change the wording to "the character was placed on hiatus," this shows no bias either way. The same goes for the statement that says "at Lee's request." If they "shared" control, then it was a MUTUAL decision.

And the redundant entry that mentions the "introduction of Galactus" is already made earlier in the entry. The same paragraph also implies Jack Kirby's intentions with the character and that Stan Lee was apparently required to "ask Kirby for Galactus' reappearance." Once again, if they "shared" control, then it was a mutual decision. Palsunstar (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to read between the lines. I suggest you go back and read your own statements. You said "NO ONE in the industry had creative control". That's...that's kind of a synonym for influence. Kirby didn't want to use the character. The character wasn't used. It's possible to assign individual credits to work that's done collaboratively.

You keep saying it can't be proven who contributed what. Why not? Lee and Kirby talked about the subject publicly. They gave interviews on the subject. Their accounts agree. The Kirby Collector, whose bias you claim is just inherent but don't bother to prove, reported these accounts. It's properly cited. So what's the problem? Argento Surfer (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

The problem stems from your unwillingness to make the entry neutral. Trying to imply that the character was being controlled by one person in presumptuous...at best. At the time both Jack Kirby & Stan Lee were working for Marvel (as everyone SHOULD know these days), it was a work-for-hire situation. It was unheard of at Marvel back then for anyone to have creative control over the characters owned by Marvel. Making such absolute statements that imply such is wishful thinking.

Bottom line... There is nothing on record that quantifies who contributed what. What most people agree upon (or should agree upon) is that Jack Kirby & Stan Lee COLLABORATED on the creation & development of the character. Anything that implies more than that is not a PROVEN fact.

If you can find anywhere where Stan Lee (himself, not a third party) ACTUALLY agrees that Jack Kirby had creative control over the character and that he (Stan Lee) states that he had to ACTUALLY "ask" for Jack Kirby to use the character, then I will back off. Palsunstar (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly willing to alter the article the way you suggest...if you provided a decent argument. You haven't done anything to show the cited source has a bias, despite being asked repeatedly. If nothing else, explain why you think it has an inherent bias. Is it because of its name? Because that's not enough.

I also think you're confusing the meaning behind the word 'ask'. Saying Lee asked Kirby to do Galactus doesn't mean Lee had absolute authority. It means Lee said something like "Hey Kirby, let's do another Galactus story! You aren't interested? You sure? Ok, I'll think of something else." In other words, it's explaining that facet of their collaboration.

Finally, there is a record of who contributed what. It's the source you keep deleting. Perhaps you should try examining the source (here's a digital copy) before asking me to provide a second one. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, I've never heard of TwoMorrows having a "bias in favor of Jack Kirby" either. For that matter, I fail to see how the statement referenced by their Jack Kirby enforces any bias.

However, I also find the current version of the article rather confusing to the lay Wikipedia reader, especially the line "Galactus returned for a cameo in Thor #134 (November 1966), although the plot was unresolved when Kirby put the character on hiatus." How did Kirby "put the character of hiatus"? Why did he do so right in the middle of a Galactus plot thread? Exactly when and how did this hiatus end? These questions are to some extent answered by the posts on this talk page, but not at all by the article itself. Indeed, if I were an average Wikipedia reader, completely unfamiliar with how the comics industry of the 1960s worked, I would conclude from that statement that Kirby had an administrative role at Marvel Comics.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. Does this sound better?

Galactus returned for a cameo in Thor #134 (November 1966), although it was a non-speaking role because Kirby wanted the character to maintain its mystique, and Lee agreed.[14] Galactus reappeared in a flashback cameo in Daredevil #37 (February 1968) before being featured heavily in Fantastic Four #72–77 (March–August 1968) when Lee and fan requests changed Kirby's mind.[14](additional ref) After a flashback appearance in Silver Surfer #1 (August 1968), the character returned to Earth in Thor #160–162 (January–March 1969). Galactus's origin was revealed in Thor #168–169 (September–October 1969).

Argento Surfer (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Responding to Argento Surfer (and this will also be useful to NukeofEarl): Thanks to you, and the (link you provided), you inadvertently assisted me in proving the inherent bias of the source. On page 6 (of the magazine, not the linked file page) there is an article called "Conversations With Jack Kirby." In said article it states that Jack Kirby created the Black Panther. No mention of Stan Lee. Shameful.

Your suggestion to NukeofEarl, while your intentions appear to be positive, still makes it out to seem as though Jack Kirby's permission was required. Once again, as was my original intention, the entry should be made to sound neutral. Palsunstar (talk) 19:24, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Ugh! Now I read the (link provided) in Argento Surfer last entry.

That article (which comes from the already proven-to-be-biased TwoMorrows publication) is going so far out of it's way to denigrate Stan Lee's contributions to the character. "Pencil story art by Jack Kirby?" Is that how it was actually printed in the original published issue? Nope. It states, "So starts a Staggering New Saga by: Stan (The Man) Lee and Jack (King) Kirby." There's more, but it hurts my eyes!

If we really want Wikipedia to be fact based, we really need to stop using biased articles as source material. Palsunstar (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The above sentiment is either severely POV, or, based on the tone, with "'Nuff Said" and the like, you are simply repeating yourself without supplying proof as a joke. I don't know which? David A (talk) 04:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The proof that is needed cannot be discerned by either side. Which is why the entry needs to be made neutral. Palsunstar (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

So, because an article in the KC magazine sidesteps giving Lee credit for something, you still think all mention of who had which point of view should be stripped entirely? If you still think my re-write gives Kirby too much authority, then please suggest a revision that doesn't remove the creators' different viewpoints. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The creators' different viewpoints are unnecessary. All that should be mentioned are the facts. Palsunstar (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That rewrite is much clearer, Argento, nicely done.

Palsunstar, I'm not clear what your objection to the "A Failure to Communicate" article is. Surely you aren't saying that it's biased solely because it doesn't copy its credits for the comic verbatim from the comic itself? As to the Black Panther thing, I wouldn't be so sure that the article's intent was to erase Lee's co-creator credit. Stating that one of a character's creators "created" that character, rather than "co-created", seems to be an established convention, particularly when that individual creator is the subject of the work. I don't like it, but that's the way it is.--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

With all the debating going on regarding credit where credit is due, it is very irresponsible to write an article that does not make mention of the co-creator of a given property... unless the writer of the article is intentionally choosing sides, in which case the article is biased. In either case, irresponsible or intentional, the source is suspect.

Once again, the Wikipedia entry should be made to sound neutral. Since the source(s) provided are now PROVEN to be suspect... or at the very least cast doubt, they should not be used. Palsunstar (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

How exactly have the sources been "proven" to be suspect? You saying this repeatedly does not make it a fact. David A (talk) 06:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Reading is fundamental Palsunstar (talk) 09:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Palsunstar said "The creators' different viewpoints are unnecessary. All that should be mentioned are the facts" (I'm moving it down here so it's easier to follow). Their different viewpoints are facts. More importantly, they're facts about the real world as opposed to a fictional biography, and they explain and inform the publication history of the character. (ie - why did it take the character so long to return to the page?) You say the KC is biased because it didn't give Lee the credit you think he deserves. That does not mean it's useless as a source, unless you think its coverage of their viewpoints is fabricated or distorted. Bottom line - Kirby didn't want to reuse the character. Lee disagreed, but Kirby's opinion was respected for a while. Then Lee and fans changed Kirby's mind, and the character returned. These facts should be in the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Jack Kirby's accomplishments & contributions to the industry are well respected... in retrospect. At the time, creative control at Marvel Comics was practically null & void. To imply otherwise, with the knowledge of retrospection, is not stating facts.

Common sense dictates that the character was not brought back so soon because of the character's nature. However, his former herald made frequent appearances in between, so the characters' presence was indeed felt, so to speak.

This is just another attempt by biased individuals to place one creator's contributions on a higher level than the other. No unbiased sources have been able to quantify who contributed more, therefore, trying to imply such is not stating facts, but attempting to make facts out of opinions and speculation.

Once again, neutrality is best, especially when these "facts" being given are from a suspect source. Palsunstar (talk) 05:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the wording in no way implies that Kirby was more significant than Lee. You seem to be making a hen out of a feather, in an oversensitive "defense" of Lee, even using his catchphrase, which makes you the biased party. You have not provided any proof that the source is suspect. Saying that it hurts your eyes rather makes you suspect. David A (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've already rebutted why I believe the source has it's bias, so I will not belabor that point.

No bias on my part. I'm attempting to make things neutral. Other's seem to have a problem with neutrality, which is rather strange. I'm a fan of both Stan Lee & Jack Kirby & I repeat... No unbiased sources have been able to quantify who contributed more, so anything that implies that one person had more creative control than the other is not a provable fact. If it's not a provable fact, then it has no business being a part of an entry at Wikipedia. Palsunstar (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not how Wikipedia works. If you cannot supply referenced proof to why something is unreliable, then the original reference stays. David A (talk) 09:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"anything that implies that one person had more creative control than the other is not a provable fact" - Nothing in the article even remotely makes that implication.--NukeofEarl (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Sigh... Sorry (not really), but you really are starting to sound quite dense. If, after reading everything I've written (and proven... if you ACTUALLY READ the words), you still believe this, then you are hopeless.

The latest change says, "Kirby did not intended Galactus to reappear, to preserve the characters presence." Since Stan Lee and Jack Kirby were collaborators, I suggest the following... "Lee & Kirby did not intend for Galactus to return any time soon, wishing to preserve the characters presence."

Another change says, "Fan popularity, however, prompted Lee to ask Kirby for Galactus's reappearance..." Once again, knowing that Lee & Kirby were collaborators, I suggest the following... "Fan popularity, however, prompted Lee & Kirby to decide to bring Galactus back..."

This makes it neutral. No implications of one person having more say than the other. Decisions were made together. Collaboration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Palsunstar (talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't particularly mind rewording these two sentences in such a minor manner. However, I still don't think that the current wording is anywhere near as big a deal a you are trying to make it. David A (talk) 11:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So... trying to make things neutral is a 'big deal?" Really? Palsunstar (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The alteration you suggested is so neutral that it's false. Again, the provided sources make it clear that while it may have been a mutual decision not to bring the character back so soon, they two creators were of different minds about it. Stating the existence of a difference of opinion is not the same thing as stating an opinion. Did they agree not to bring him back? Sure. But it was Kirby's idea, and Lee had a different one. Acknowledging this does not make the article biased. It makes it complete. As I mentioned earlier, an article in the KC failing to give Lee the amount of credit you think he deserves does not render it completely useless, unless you believe the whole thing was a fabrication. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The provided (biased) source does NOT make it clear that it was a mutual decision. The provided (biased) source attempted to imply that it was ONLY Jack Kirby's intentions not to bring the character back. There is no mention of Stan Lee's intentions. The provided (biased) source attempted to imply that Stan Lee had to "ask Kirby for Galactus's reappearance..."

The provided (biased) source is NOT stating a difference of opinion. It is stating a lop-sided decision-making process occurred. This is NOT a PROVEN fact.

If it was indeed a mutual (collaborative) decision, then my suggested change indicates exactly this.

The article in question does NOT give the MUTUAL credit that I believe BOTH Stan Lee & Jack Kirby deserve. It plays to the biased nature of the target audience of the publication (as has already been proven above).

I don't believe that the article is completely useless. It actually helped me to prove a point, so it was VERY useful. Palsunstar (talk) 05:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's an Internet article that will open many eyes... at least if one is willing to maintain an unbiased point of view...

http://kupps.malibulist.com/2014/01/26/stan-and-jack-and-steve-and-mort-and-jerry-and-joe/

I've been trying to find another source to collaborate the Lee/Kirby opinions because I know I read it somewhere. While I'm going through my collection of print sources, I've edited the article to address Palsunstar's concern. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Your edits makes it appear neutral, which was my intention from the very beginning. Palsunstar (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out, though, that I think his final point in his last edit ("I don't believe that the article is completely useless. It actually helped me to prove a point, so it was VERY useful.") was unnecessarily snarky and combative. It ignored the point I was trying to make in order to, I believe, gloat. I also think it serves as evidence that he did not, in fact, have any evidence of the KC's bias when he began this dispute, which I find problematic. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

"Problematic?" Interesting term. You are correct, though, that I did not have any "evidence" of the bias. However, I have been reading TwoMorrow's publications for many years & am fully aware of the bias. So when I mentioned that "It actually helped me to prove a point..." I meant that somebody else did the "hard work" for me.

Regarding your attempts to peek behind the curtain... I suggest that you do not continue to attempt this. Perhaps then things will be less "problematic" for you. Palsunstar (talk) 02:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You're a very unpleasant editor to deal with. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you feel this way. From the get-go I've tried to maintain a neutrality, but I encountered what appeared to me to be very stubborn behavior. Unwilling to maintain a neutral attitude when it comes to certain facts, or a lack of facts, as in this article.

My intentions were not to be "snarky" or "combative." I was not trying to "gloat." When I visit Wikipedia, I'm interested in facts, not speculation and/or biased opinions. Palsunstar (talk) 05:07, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

What did you mean with "peek behind the curtain" and "problematic"? Is this referring to the internal Marvel politics? David A (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the "peek behind the curtain" comment, I was simply trying to point out to Argento Surfer (talk) that his attempts to discern my motives through the comfort of the Internet are foolhardy, at best. As I later pointed out, he was completely wrong in his assumptions.

Regarding the "problematic" term... That originated with Argento Surfer (talk) as he explains below. Apparently Argento Surfer (talk) perceives my intentions of making the article more neutral in it's contents as some sort of slight. I'll respond to his points below. Palsunstar (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no doubt that's how you view your actions, but try re-reading your posts from this point of view - You removed sourced material calling it biased but providing no proof. When asked repeatedly for proof, you provided none and later admitted you had none, and that you had in fact not looked at the source prior to making your claim. This is not how Wikipedia works - users should not remove widely accepted sources because they 'know' of some bias unless they have proof of it, and ideally provide said proof prior to or coinciding with the removal. It doesn't matter how long you've been reading TwoMorrows publications, or how aware you may be of any bias. Deleting sourced material because you, personally, know "better" is just as much Original Research as adding non-sourced material. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Point of fact, it actually DOES matter that I've been reading TwoMorrows' publications because they are the sources provided & regardless of your wishing against it, the bias has already been proven. Palsunstar (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Point of fact, you admit you had not read the source in question prior to calling it biased. Therefore, your claim that it was biased was speculation on your part. Verifying your claim after the fact does not change the inappropriateness of your initial edit. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not need to read the provided source to know about the bias because I am fully aware of the inherent bias of the source. I was highly confident in my assertions & has been proven I was right. Therefore, nothing was inappropriate about my initial edit. Palsunstar (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When you finally did review the source, you first tried to equate a perceived bias in an unrelated article as proof of bias for all KC articles. I asked if you understood that even a slight and visible bias does not render an entire article useless as a point of reference unless the facts presented are false, not just slanted. Your response, that it was useful for making your point, ignored the point and was very condescending. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

No where did I imply that ALL Kirby Collector articles are biased. Just the one's being used in this particular case.

A quote from you, from above: "There is an inherent bias in The Jack Kirby Collector published by TwoMorrows." How does my statement not derive directly from yours? Also above, when you first reviewed the source, your first proof of bias was from an article about Black Panther, not the one being used for this page. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Having an inherent bias does not necessarily mean that ALL is biased. There are many wonderful articles published in The Jack Kirby Collector that I don't see as biased. When I used the Black Panther article as proof of bias, it was only for the fact of a bias when it comes to Stan Lee, which is the point of contention here. Palsunstar (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

My intentions were not to be condescending (once again, I suggest that you stop trying to peek behind the curtain). My intentions, as I have stated from the very beginning, are to keep things neutral. The sourced articles are NOT neutral, as has already been proven. Why would anyone (in their right mind) want to source an article that is, as you appear to admit, slanted? Palsunstar (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Your "peek behind the curtain" was supposed to be about me guessing at your motives? Well then, that's my mistake. I thought that was referring to me saying I was going to continue looking for a replacement source for the Lee/Kirby opinions. I still think, however, that I have every right to inform of you of how you're coming across with your comments. I'd want someone to do the same, if I was seeming rude or stubborn. Also, you're using hindsight to justify yourself. You say your initial effort was to make the article neutral, "as has already been proven." Keep in mind, it took you quite a while to prove it wasn't in the first place. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for assuming you understood my "behind the curtain" statement. It's derived from countless attempts from others jumping to conclusions about one's posting proclivities. No one can truly know what thoughts (if any) are involved through type-written words. I was accused of being "snarky" & "combative," but as I mentioned, this was never my intention. So I made use of the "behind the curtain" analogy, which pretty much involves trying to see something that you cannot actually see.

And you certainly DO have every right to express an opinion about how you perceive another's thoughts and/or intentions, even if they turn out to be wrong, as in this particular case.

Regarding the fact that I didn't attempt to prove the non-neutrality of the article, but in the end you seem to believe that it took me "quite a while to prove it..." I was actually quite confident that in the end I would prove it... and I did. So, no I did not use "hindsight to justify" myself. I felt justified from the very beginning. I was met by stubborn resistance, which is fine, but I'm very patient. Palsunstar (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

When I said your action (removing an accepted source without review) was problematic, you chose to passive-aggressively attack me instead of addressing the actual issue of your behavior. When you finally provided evidence for your case, I edited the article accordingly. Somehow, you see this as stubborn. So yes, you're an unpleasant editor. I hope you reconsider your methods in the event we encounter each other on another article. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

So in the end, I was in the right? You choosing to use the term "attack" (even with the addendum "passive-aggressively") makes it appear that you are highly defensive of what, in the end, turned out to be incorrect assumptions on your part. I can see why you would consider me to be an "unpleasant editor." There are not too many people that can handle being proven wrong. And no, that was not meant to be condescending. It's all up above for any discerning person to see for themselves. Palsunstar (talk) 10:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in the end, you did finally provide evidence to support your argument. And I can handle being wrong very well, as I've demonstrated by altering the article soon after you made your point. The passive aggressive comment was made under the belief the "peek behind the curtain" comment was directed at my effort to find a replacement source. I thought you were, effectively, telling me to quit working to improve the article. You may consider that to be me trying to guess at your motives again, but you can see above that David also understood it the way I did - that the curtain was hiding Marvel, not you. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. Let's just chalk it up to misunderstanding & move on.

This has become very wordy, so let me boil this down to its essence: You had no proof of bias when you made your claim, and that was wrong of you. The rightness or wrongness of your claim is irrelevant because the ends do not justify the means. Since you had not bothered to check the source, you must admit there was the possiblity you were wrong. If you had not been called out for your actions, I doubt you ever would have made the effort to see if you were right. That's not ok. Your refusal to see this is a serious issue because you may use the same reasoning to incorrectly modify other articles. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I may not have provided proof at the time I made my claim, but as I said, I was highly confident. If I was proven to be incorrect, I would most certainly have apologized to any & all that I may have offended.

And if I ever do "incorrectly modify" articles in the future, I welcome debate. I have no hard feelings whatsoever towards anyone who decided to challenge my stance. I've been proven to be wrong in the past & I'm sure I will be proven to be wrong in the future.

There are abusers of Wikipedia who make changes just to be derogatory. I can assure you (and anyone else who has stuck around to read this) that my intentions are completely positive. Palsunstar (talk) 06:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I never doubted you were trying to improve the article. You're clearly knowledgeable about the subject, and I'm sure you'll have much more to contribute in the future. My trouble with you being 'highly confident' is that it sets bad precedent. I'm glad you welcome debate, but my concerns are two-fold. One, you may be highly confident but wrong about something in the future, and there may not be anyone watching to catch it. That would hurt the encyclopedia, however minor. I think it's in everyone's best interest to provide proof prior to removing or adding something significant. Two, your actions here may be used as an example by others who are also highly confident about something, but not as well informed.

That said, I can tell we're understanding each other a little better now. I hope you'll keep my concerns in mind in the future, but if not, then I hope you continue to be right. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem. This was my first real attempt here at such a thing & believe it or else it was a very positive learning experience. I certainly will try to tread more lightly in the future. My apologies to anyone who felt offended by what may have appeared to be some sort of negative agenda. That was not my intention. Palsunstar (talk) 06:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Galactus's parents?

It seems that at least Galactus's mom has made an appearance before [1]. What's she like? Who's his father? Would seem to be good info for this page. 156.143.240.137 (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Super Hero Squad Show was a joke TV series, not to be taken seriously. David A (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Galactus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160101023123/http://www.maelmill-insi.de/UHBMCC/SELGD.HTM to http://www.maelmill-insi.de/UHBMCC/SELGD.HTM#G3

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:00, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?

Does anyone think that it is worth mention that Collectimus from Ben 10: Omniverse is a parody of Galactus? 58.166.92.170 (talk) 06:15, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

As the character itself does not make an appearance, I think it doesn't need to be mentioned. The character itself appearing is a good baseline. An exception could be made in this sort of situation if the inspiration, parody, or whatever it may be is well documented by many reliable sources but that doesn't seem to be the case here. —DangerousJXD (talk) 06:24, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Ultimates

The new series "Ultimates" has fundamentally altered the character of Galactus. If the change remains in place from an editorial standpoint, it may warrant further explanation beyond the 1 sentence currently in place.

We may also want to include the cover for Ultimates #6 at some position in the article, which is only the 2nd or 3rd comic since 2009 (i.e. the same profile used in the main image) to feature Galactus on the cover.Mobb One (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Is that the one where he's in a gold costume, and he looks like he's breaking out of a glass window? Argento Surfer (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

That same issue, yes. There's also a variant cover which, IMO, is more representative of the character.Mobb One (talk) 15:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

IGN

I just checked out the IGN page concerning Galactus in its listing of Top 100 villains: http://www.ign.com/top/comic-book-villains/5.html Really, it's not much to look at. It doesn't do anything to justify Galactus' place other than "I think it's cool". It doesn't count how many stories he appears in, how many later characters were inspired by him, how much worth he is in merchandising, etc. I really don't see why we should mention in the lede that Galactus was ranked 5th on IGN's list. It isn't insightful. The IGN page itself isn't insightful. BaronBifford (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to disagree that it doesn't provide anything useful. Particularly on how the last two paragraphs analyze the character:

"It's this larger than life presence which makes Galactus one of the more important villains ever created, but it's his ties to Earth and its heroes that make him one of the greats. Through the creation of his heralds, destruction of the Skrull Empire and attempts to devour the Earth, this being is one of the greatest threats ever known to our beloved heroes. Most other villains pale in comparison."

"Lastly, though it seems like something small, we can't overlook it. Galactus is one of the few villains on our list to really defy the definition of an evil-doer. He's compelled to destroy worlds because of one simple fact - he's hungry. Can't blame a guy for wanting a little snack… can you?"

If you feel that we don't need a quick a quick note in the lead mentioning his place on a list, then I can't disagree with you there. But rather than get rid of it, why not use some of this other material in a Reception section or something else? 73.168.15.161 (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

But the IGN article, even those last two paragraphs, do not describe the reception of Galactus among writers and readers. "He's big and scary and he hurts people out of need rather than sadism." So what? BaronBifford (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the lead, but it seems counter-productive to remove a source discussing the real world opinion of the character from an article that's lacking non-primary sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Quality is more important than quantity. BaronBifford (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure. If this was a quality article with an abundance of quality sources showing notability, there might be a case for removing this source. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:44, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

And removing this worthless sentence improved the quality slightly. What are you asking of me? To rewrite the whole article from scratch in my Sandbox? BaronBifford (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

It improved the lead. I wouldn't say removing the only source relating to the character's critical reception improved the article. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh boy. But thank you for at least acknowledging that this article in its current state is shit. BaronBifford (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Argento Surfer, how about the start of a reception section I added? There is a lot more needed, I agree, but you've got to start somewhere. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Why should we respect the opinion of one fanboy, just because he is an employee at IGN? The article doesn't even give the writer's name. I could start a blog and make a better list. BaronBifford (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this would fit just fine in a reception section. Bifford, the difference between the IGN article and your theoretical blog is that IGN is a business with editors. It's written for fanboys just like Wizard was back in the day, but that doesn't invalidate it as a source. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Try to look past the author and instead look at the content of the article. It's rubbish. It just reads "I think Galactus is cool because he's really powerful and also kinda tragic in some ways." He's not exactly assessing the commercial value or influence of the character, is he? BaronBifford (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree it's not an ideal source, but it's one of three sources that touch on Galactus' popularity with fans (the others are #13 and #14). It's the only source touching on his popularity after 1968. As I said above, I'd be far more willing to remove this ranking if there were additional sources supporting Galactus' popularity in the article. That doesn't require re-writing the article, just some properly phrased Google searches and one or two new paragraphs. I'd do this myself, but my workstation prevents me from viewing "entertainment" websites. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a poor argument. I believe any information included in the article should be of quality, or not included at all. It's not like this article desperately needs an assessment of the popularity of Galactus anyway. BaronBifford (talk) 14:25, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Then it seems we're at an impasse ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Argento Surfer (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Jobsworth, jobsworth, it's more than me job's worth... BaronBifford (talk) 23:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, look, I apologise for my snarkiness. Let's instead both accept that this article is a work-in-progress, and thus nothing in it should be treated as sacred. In fact, leaving voids may prompt other editors to insert information that is actually good. BaronBifford (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the expand tag 73.168.15.161 added is a better prompt than the absence of a section. Argento Surfer (talk) 15:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, and who is going to go about expanding it? You? Why are you looking at me? BaronBifford (talk) 14:01, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who chooses to? I may get around to this at some point, but it's not high on my priority list. If you don't feel like doing it, then don't. The tag exists to alert editors (and readers who don't yet edit) that specific work needs to be done... Argento Surfer (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

It's never going to get done because 90% of Wikipedians are too lazy to do serious work! BaronBifford (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's possible. I've come across tags that were 8 years old before. Still, I'm an optimist. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)