Talk:Reavers (comics)

Alteration
I altered some incorrect or confusing information in the history. The original Reavers in Australia were not formed by Donald Pierce. The Reavers were Australian-based cyborgs prior to the super-group that incorporated the surivors plus Pierce, Deathstrike, and the mercenaries. Also, Pierce was the White Bishop, not the White King (although he was once called the King in error). The crucial sources for this info are Uncanny X-Men #248-252. --JamesAM 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

White King or Bishop?
According to Uncanny X-Men #132, donald Pierce was the White King and Harry Leland was the White Bishop. This needs to be changed back.


 * I see no such reference in #132. I have never seen Harry Leland referred to as the White Bishop. Furthermore, The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe: Deluxe Edition #5, on pages 45 and 46, it clearly notes that Pierce is the White Bishop and Leland is the Black Bishop. In addition, Pierce has never been treated as being of equal rank to Shaw. As I noted previous, Pierce was once referred to as the former White King after being referred to as the White Bishop. This White King referrence was apparently an error and an aberration. I believe it was called an error in one of the letter pages. If someone wants to put "(sometimes referred to as White King)", I don't think that would be a problem. But it would be inaccurate to replace the reference to him being the White Bishop. --JamesAM 01:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vs. Punisher
Like I said in the history, I know it's a bit silly-buggers I know about the fight with Punisher, but not the exact names of the Reavers who attacked him. Am working on it. Lots42 20:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually found the information. Go me! Lots42 01:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:0. The Reavers.jpg
Image:0. The Reavers.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)