Talk:Wolverine (character)/Archive 5

Wolverine is not a superhero but an anti-hero
care to agree ? based on his persona.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.52.136.118 (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He's abit of both. He's part of a super-hero team, and he participates in their actions, which are good, but his personality makes him an anti-hero. 62.194.170.62 20:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much how I look at it. At times, he certainly displays the qualities associated with an anti-hero and the qualities associated with a straight forward superhero in others. Many of the qualities that apply to each contradict one another, but the character is generally a mesh of contradictions. He's often been written as being gruff but poetic, savage but intelligent, foolhardy but wise, beastial but desperately clinging to his humanity, etc.Odin&#39;s Beard 22:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fix references at bottom.
It looks really bad.
 * I took out the following:
 * Wolverine vol.3

X-23 is a female clone of wolverine instead of having all 3 claws on her nuckles she has 2 on each hand. She has 1 on top of her pointer finger and 1 on top of her pinky finger. Also has one coming out of her toes
 * If this was a legit ref, it can be reinserted with the proper coding. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Eastwood influence?
I'm not an X-pert though I used to read the comics often. I challenge anyone to watch the Man with No Name trilogy and not find influences Eastwood's character(s) have had on Wolverine's personality and mannerisms. Is there no available information on this? 151.205.35.249 07:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There is for Hugh Jackman's version. Look here, here, and here. --Newt ΨΦ 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the fact that Singer asked him to watch Eastwood films shows that this isn't a shot in the dark, and I don't really see that people are accusing Jackman as being a gross deviant from the comics in any real sense. The problem is I don't personally know who is responsible for the fundamental development of Wolverine as we know him and then at that point how to divine their inspiration.  It almost seems self-evident though.  141.153.123.195 16:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Self-evident is POV and asserting this is speculation w/out citations, which I'm sure you realize. I guess it's more "Were Len Wein and Chris Claremont inspired by Clint Eastwood?" then.  I tried googling and could only find a vague reference. --Newt ΨΦ 17:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The character's personality is very similar to the personalities of some of Eastwood's most famous roles, including the Man With No Name from the Spaghetti Westerns and Dirty Harry Calahan. I've heard lots of people say the character's personality is an amalgam of many of the characters portrayed by John Wayne, James Dean, and Clint Eastwood. But, I don't believe it can be stated officially. While the influence is there, to include it in the article is more along the lines of POV rather than a generally known and accepted fact. As Newt said, only an exceptionally vague reference was found. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember, some time ago, Wolvie giving a Dirty Harry-style speech about how deadly his claws were to some thug, and overcoming him with pure intimidation. I have also read somewhere that the writers in the 70s and 80s did adapt lots of his personality from westerns, especially Clint Eastwood. Can't find a reference quite yet though. --Switch 11:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was, what, 131? He's just come out of the flooded sewer, "It's only 15m, can I kill him before he cuts me to shish kabob with those freaky claws of his?" I missed the Dirty Harry angle. (Not paying attention, I guess...) Trekphiler 03:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Navbox Guidelines
Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion. --Basique 12:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a monologue that Wolverine gave to one of the Hellfire Club henchmen that was a clear homage to the monologue Clint Eastwood gave to one of the bank robbers in the beginning of "Dirty Harry". While Dirty Harry was refferring to the intimidating nature of his .45 magnum and what a ruthless man like him can do with it, Wolverine was reffering to the intimidating nature of his claws and what a ruthless man like him can do with them.

However, while his pattern of speech is influences by Eastwood, the artwork seems to have been more influenced by DeNiro and Pacino in the 70's. As unhinged as The Man with no name and Dirty Harry Callahan were, Eastwood delivered his performances with a cool and detached demeanor. He was always in control of the situation, it seems. Wolverine, on the other hand, succumbs to his berserker rages, which puts him more in line with DeNiro's Travis Bickle and Johnny Boy characters from Taxi Driver and Mean Streets. Let's not forget that Travis Bickle mentors & strives to save Jodie Foster's teenage prostitute character from New York's underbelly.. much in the same way Wolverine mentors Kitty Pryde, Jubilee, and Rogue.

Origin
I'm of the understanding we are to limit plot synopses in articles of fictional characters to brief summaries. That said, I also believe that including the entire plot to a limited series is not necessary to the understanding of this character. I think Origin section should be worded entirely differently; something like: "The 2006 Marvel Comics limited series Origin reveals much of Wolverine's history previously left a mystery. Set in the 19th century and depicting Wolverine as sickly young boy named James Howlett, the series establishes that Wolverine is over 100 years old and reveals that "Logan" is not Wolverine's real name..." and so on. This would put the section in an out-of-universe perspective, more in line with WP:WAF and easier to argue fair use. However, I realize my previous edit was a bit nonsensical. Overall, this article needs to be condensed, that was just my first (albeit poorly executed) step. --Newt ΨΦ 21:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you're trimming so much that an average reader won't understand what those paragraphs are talking about. T-1000 21:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I said as much in the opener for this discussion (see above: "a bit nonsensical", "poorly executed"). I'll see if I can't make a more sensible edit later :) --Newt ΨΦ 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I'm somewhat surprised that there isn't an article for Origin. It's a significant (understatement!) storyline for one of Marvel's most popular characters. If we could spin off the reverted copy into an article about the story, I think both camps would be adequately happy. I'd be bold and do it, but I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough about the story to be comfortable doing it. EVula 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with this, though I would hope that such an article would be more than a mere repository for the plot of the series, and have a bit of secondary analysis and critical and fan response as well as some development and behind-the-scenes-ness. --Newt ΨΦ 21:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I consider that a given. I wasn't suggesting the disputed content become the entire article, just serve as the jumping-off point for one. EVula 02:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It could be a very good article if media coverage is factored in. It was a big deal for Marvel to reveal that origin; there was a fear it was going to ruin one of Marvel's most popular characters. --Chris Griswold 03:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The common practice with the limited series articles is to just list the summaries and leave them so far as I've seen. At least the more recent ones.  That was why I offered the caveat, not because I didn't figure you knew. --Newt ΨΦ 04:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Powers and OHOTMU
I noticed an additional in-line comment added after mine discussing some of Wolverine's uncited powers. OHOTMU statistics are generally frowned upon by WP:COMIC editors (see: here and here). As I understand it, if certain fictional facts are found only in the OHOTMU, then it is difficult to argue WP:FU. Basically, fictional facts are not facts per se (independently verifiable separate from the reporting source) but fiction, and rewriting or paraphrasing fiction is not transformative. As the OHOTMU is an encyclopedic source (albeit of fictional facts) we are a competing product (a free encyclopedia) and since we are in no way transforming this fictional material then we are infringing on the OHOTMU's copyright. I'm not against these powers being listed, however, if we could get an issue of a comic book where a character states that Wolverine can endure strenuous activity for days, or where he is depicted lifting greater weight than a human of his stature would reasonably be able to, I'd be a lot more comfortable and the article would be more in line with WP:CMC editorial guidelines. --Newt ΨΦ 14:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit that I'm confused. I've red posts by editors stating that by including things taken from the OHOTMU results in copyright infringement. However, if that's the case, then isn't copyright being violated by even having articles about Marvel characters anyhow? The articles contain most of the same information including a fictional character biography and detailed description of whatever superhuman powers a character has, just as the OHOTMU. As you stated earlier, the OHOTMU is an encyclopedic tool so isn't copyright being violated? Anyone could come to Wikipedia and read the same information for free rather than pay three bucks for an issue of the OHOTMU. Odin&#39;s Beard 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is why we shouldn't include information from the OHOTMU, or at least information only found in the OHOTMU, and definitely not report information only found in the OHOTMU in the same manner the OHOTMU reports it. We're not supposed to be a replacement for the OHOTMU, which offers an in-universe history of the character.  We're supposed to relate the character as a phenomenon (not a person) and note its effects on the real world.  Read Manual of Style (writing about fiction). It should give you an idea of what Wikipedia's goal is, and the problems with much of the comic book articles. --Newt ΨΦ 02:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It still doesn't really answer my question, I don't know maybe I'm just not getting it. I fail to see how using information taken from one Marvel publication, namely the OHOTMU, violates copyright when using information taken from other Marvel publications doesn't. Say, for the sake of argument, that an issue of the OHOTMU states that Namor can lift approximately 100 tons. Now, if it's mentioned in the article, it's a violation of copyright. But if an issue of regular monthly comic book or a mini-series that's canon is mentioned in the article stating that he can lift approximately 100 tons, then it's not a violation of copyright? Sorry, I just don't see the difference. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Look up fair use. Better yet, here's an excerpt:
 * "In general four factors must be considered:
 * the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
 * the nature of the copyrighted work;
 * the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
 * the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
 * The difference is this is an encyclopedia, and so is the OHOTMU. Our product is thus possibly competition for the OHOTMU, and it's free. If we keep the plot summaries to a minimum, we're not a competing product with the comics or we at least offer less competition. --Newt ΨΦ 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

First Appearance
I've just removed the parts of the article saying that he 'appears in the shadows' or does not 'fully appear' in Hulk #180. In that issue he quite clearly gets a full body shot and gets some lines. This website features the evidence.Jayunderscorezero 11:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If Marvel's official position is that Wolverine's first "true" appearance occurred in Hulk #181, then it doesn't matter what this website says. To say otherwise in the article is substituting opinion for accepted fact. If Marvel's position is that his appearance was a cameo or whatever, then that's what has to be written in the article. Odin&#39;s Beard 23:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

But it's entirely verifable that the first appearance of the character called Wolverine was in issue 180 - as long as we don't say it's his first OFFICIAL appearance, then I don't see a problem with either verifibility or what marvel is saying. --Charlesknight 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There's always the "While Wolverine can be seen in issue #180, Marvel Comics official position is that he did not appear until #181" --Newt ΨΦ 01:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I see your point Odin's Beard. However, I think it's sensible to at least remove references to him 'appearing in the shadows' or being otherwise obscured in #180 when that is clearly not the case in the actual issue. Agreed?Jayunderscorezero 09:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC) And yes, I very much agree with Newt on this oneJayunderscorezero 09:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me, and I don't have any problem removing the reference to him "appearing in the shadows" since he was clearly shown. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Rarely kills
I've removed this sentence:

"Logan -- he can incapacitate, immobilize... maim and cripple a hundred ways. But he rarely kills. If you don't believe it - check their heartbeats."

That might have been the case, 15 years ago but does not seem to hold true those days. Wolverine kills a lot of people (mainly nameless henchmen but still...)

--Charlesknight 10:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought about removing it myself, even though it does hold some ring of truth. He does have respect for life, at least until someone does something that offends his sense of personal honor or takes innocent life or tries to kill him. Even if it's next to impossible to kill him, and he knows this full well, he does have a tendency to respond in kind. Odin&#39;s Beard 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a constraint of the narrative form - you want to say that Wolverine does not enjoy it but then he has to slash up a certain number of people every issue to get the reader to come back. It's similar to him being the "best at what he does" but failing to kill anyone of note :) --Charlesknight 15:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The word rarely applies to killing differently than it applies to something like eating chocolate ice cream. I've probably eaten fewer bowlfuls of chocolate ice cream than the number of times Wolverine has killed people. In real life, would you ever say someone who has killed dozens, maybe hundreds of people rarely kills? No bloody way. Doczilla 19:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's more a constraint of the Comics Code & the Editor in Chief, I'd say. Recall Shooter's conniption over Jean eating the planet of the asparagus heads (even tho, strictly speaking, she wasn't legally responsible, as Claremont pointed out in X-men Companion: "possessed" by Dark Phoenix, brainwashed by Mastermind, take your pick). Trekphiler 03:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

UNCANNY X-MEN #116 (December, 1978) is, I believe, Wolverine's "first" kill. In the Savage Land, Storm and Nightcrawler witness Wolverine sneak up and kill a sentry guard. "He's like the great cats on the veldt. When he strikes, there is no mercy in him." is Storm's thought on seeing Wolverine in action. 74.244.63.126 03:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Counting weapon numbers
Confused slightly. Is Bradley was weapon 0, doesn't that make Weapon X the 11th weapon? JoshuaZ 13:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why? Also, can we get a citation on Bradley being 0? --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  )  14:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Meta
What does the speech balloon on top of the index mean, and why is he on the archives?--SidiLemine 15:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. Now I see where it's from. That must be from my browser, but this balloon keeps jumping everywhere... Is something wrong with the tmplate?--SidiLemine 15:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Atheist?
i noticed Wolverine is listed under "fictional atheists" at the end of the X-men animated series episode "Nightcrawler" hes shown reading from a Bible and praying, allowing God into his heart. how could Logan still be considered an atheist?

The X-Men Animated Series isn't canon, has nothing to do with what goes on in the mainstream Marvel Universe as it refers to comics, neither do the movies. Wolverine, in the comics, kind of "flirted" with Christianity during World War I after he began seeing a woman named Janet. Cyber, one of Wolverine's earliest enemies and his commanding officer during WWI, murdered Janet, for some unrevealed reason, and Wolverine confronted him only to be severely beaten and left for dead. I suppose that someone as devout and good as Janet, to Wolverine, shattered his faith in Christianity. As far as the other religions of the world goes, Wolverine has never shown or announced any sort of affiliation with them. I think that it was in Uncanny X-Men #159 that the X-Men first tangled with Marvel's version of Dracula. Wolverine attempted to use a crucifix against him but it had no effect, I think that either Wolverine himself or it was just written in that Wolverine using religious icons on Dracula wouldn't work due to him being an athiest. Odin&#39;s Beard 01:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

hey man...thanks for the info Dick Grayson
 * Don't forget the story (I forget the ish) where we see Kurt in prayer, & he asks Logan, "Don't you believe in anything?", to which Logan says, "Nope, nothing I can't touch." (Was it 137, before the battle with Jean? My recollection is, it was later, one of the Brood stories.) Trekphiler 03:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I know Wolverine has seen and at one point other cultures in the world, but why is he listed under so many religions? Many of them he isn't anymore, or even never has been. (Uglyguy2006 16:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

Pub histor vs. character
The significance of Origin and "Weapon X" are lost within the context of the character history. Their significance is the breakthrough of new backstory after years of confusion, but that is lost when used chronologically by continuity. I'd say that the publicaton significance to the character at least rivals its effect on the character storywise. Any suggestions on how to move/split this material so it makes more sense?--Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 09:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The publication of Origin and Barry Windsor-Smith's "Weapon X" should be mentioned in the historical context of Publishing History, but the actual details (that Logan is really James Howlett, his subjectment to the Weapon X project, etc.) should be in the character bio. WesleyDodds


 * Ok, i've just thought of something: rename "Wolverine's intended origin" to something that can encompass what's already there while also adding mentions of the publications of Origin and "Weapon X" as an extra pargraph. Because the character's murky background has long since part of the intrigue that interested readers. WesleyDodds

Wolverine's daddy complex
Should there be a specific section dedicated (or, more importantly, is there anything written in a secondary source) about how Wolverine seems to have a penchant for taking young mutant (and non-mutant) coeds under his wing and protecting them? This I guess is the "Unkie Wogan" I've heard in passing, but editing this rather sprawling history down I've noticed at least three instances: Jubilee, Shadowcat, and Amiko, not to mention the movie version's relationship with Rogue. Just a thought. --Newt Ψ Φ  00:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't really see a need for a special section just for the purpose of acknowledging that he has a tendency to look after strays, so to speak. He's not exactly a role model, but does offer advice or look after younger and naive people who get themselves into trouble. If there was a specific reason that he looked after "kids", like on a subconscious psychological level, then maybe. But, as far as I know, nothing has ever been written to explain why he does it other than the obvious: he'll occassionally run across a lonely, scared, and confused kid that thinks or feels he or she is all along in the world and has no idea where to turn. He's a mentor...that smokes, drinks, gambles, and kills....a lot. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be mentioned if you can find a source that talks about it, like an op-ed column or an article in Wizard. WesleyDodds 02:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My main concern is taking stuff unimportant to his biography (but possibly important to his character) out of his biography. His meeting Amiko Kobayashi seems very out of place, for example. --Newt Ψ  Φ  02:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Writers and issues
While I understand I'm working on editing the "biography" section which people prefer to write entirely in-universe, I do not think that "Chris Claremont and other writers have added layers of complexity..." is entirely enlightening nor fair to Claremont or the other writers of Wolverine. I've also added some issue tags because all this jumping around from Canada to Japan to Australia without any context as to the time period, who was writing it, why he's there, and loosely connecting these places by adding "later" in strategic places is rather shoddy and only minimally informative. --Newt Ψ Φ  00:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Bone claws
I was just wondering if Wolverine actually sharpens his bone claws? Most depictions I've seen of them portray them no where as sharp as his original adamantium claws, and they look like the only thing they'd be good for is stabbing.141.157.217.34 19:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He had his bone claws first,then he was taken to Weapon X and had the admantium attached to his entire skeleton.

Well, since his bone claws are once more laced with adamantium, it's a question that'll never probably be answered. Nothing was ever shown in the comics, or even mentioned for that matter. As far as I know, it's something that's never really come up. I suppose most people just suspected that the claws just kept a natural edge, maybe because of their shape or something. Maybe he used something for a scratching posts like cats do to keep their claws sharp. *shrug* Odin&#39;s Beard 23:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can remember, the only time that the claws have been depicted as truly cutting are when the artist depicts the claws as blades, which isn't accurate at all. It's always been my assumption that the claws were naturally shaped to have a bit of an edge, as well as extremely sharp tips, but that they would tear and rend like a cat's claws rather than cutting through objects.  I've been thinking that the article could use a paragraph or two talking about the claws themselves; that might be a good place to address this issue. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 05:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Naturally yes, that's how the bone claws should have functioned but this is a fictional comic book character after all. The typical laws of nature don't exactly mean very much in comic books. One could argue that Wolverine's bones are naturally denser than those of an ordinary human, which could help add to the bone claws' edge. There's no real answer to the question, just speculation because it's never been addressed by Marvel. Without the naturally sharp edge to them, they'd be spikes rather than claws. In fact, they were drawn in some instances to look more like spikes while some artists drew them retaining their traditional shape. Odin&#39;s Beard 23:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It really does depend on the artist. I've seen the claws shown as conical, like real claws, or as blades. The very famous cover to his first limited series, for example, has the claws clearly shown as blades, but the current comics seem to show them as real (pointed, not blade) claws instead. In 'Origin, they looked like real (pointed) claws. Maybe the sharp edge was given to them in the adamantium bonding process. But, really, we'll probably never know the "official" shape of the claws. --Switch 11:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In his first limited series, the idea was that the claws were forged of pure adamantium and he has bionic housings in his forearms; he clearly states so. No wonder the claws look like a bunch of knives. They were supposed to be artificial. Inner Circle 2.0 12:17, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

When the bone claws appeared I just assumed that the Weapon N program just removed his claws and replaces them with adamantium blades. When they were removed, the bone ones grew back. Now that false claws are in, the bone ones don't grow because the space is taken up.

Logic check
For adamantium to be "toxic", it would have to be, in some way, chemically reactive. If it were chemically reactive, it could not possibly be indestructable. Therefore, "adamantium poisoning" should be impossible. Chaotic nipple 00:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong, but I think the original story handling this - an X-Men issue where Wolverine's powers were cancelled for days/weeks - treated the problem differently. It wasn't that adamantium was toxic, it was that Wolverine had a metal skeleton with no functioning bone marrow. This would have been the first Genosha storyline, which that article identifies as starting in Uncanny X-Men #235. If anyone's got the issues, we can probably settle this... --Mrph 00:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In Uncanny X-Men #380, in a storyline involving the High Evolutionary using his technology to supress the mutant abilities of every mutant on Earth, Wolverine explicitly states that he is dying of adamantium poisoning. I'll have to look it up, but I believe he also stated the same thing during an issue of his own monthly series that was taking place alongside the X-Men storyline. The thing is nipple, logic doesn't always apply when it comes to comic books. The Marvel Universe is ficticious, they can do whatever they want to it. All you have to do is open any comic book on the market, by any comic book company, and you'll see every natural law tossed out the window. For instance, adamantium can withstand nuclear explosions without so much as a scratch, which makes it vastly harder than even diamonds, and diamonds are the hardest substance in nature. There are beings in the Marvel Universe that will never grow old, can fly through space and survive unaided and even go faster than light, and it goes on and on. Logic, simply doesn't apply. Odin&#39;s Beard 23:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "The thing is nipple"? You might want to take a wikibreak and go do whatever it is you need to. Come back when you've gotten it out of your system. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 07:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds as if you're the one that's got some sort of problem. Chaotic nipple is the editor's nick, I just used nipple instead of just saying the typing the whole nick. Nothing disrespectful going on. Get the fact before jumping to conclusions before you decide to lecture somebody. Odin&#39;s Beard 23:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Get over yourself. It was a joke. And learn to use punctuation better.--Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 02:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Logan's skeleton is not made entirely of Adamantium. Rather, the Adamantium/Skeletal Bonding Process (created by the Japanese mad scientist Kenji "Lord DarkWind" Oyama) that Logan was subjected to during "Experiment X" only chrome-plates the metal to the outermost layers of calcium specific to the human skeleton. Red blood cell production of the bone marrow is not affected by the metal. Without an accelerated Healing-Factor, the subject would die from the traumatic shock induced by the brutal Bonding-Process. The metal on Logan's skeleton is viewed as a foriegn substance by his Healing-Factor, which constantly devotes tremendous effort trying to remove it from his body. 74.244.63.126 03:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Super Strength
This is getting to be a big problem. I have removed Wolverine from the category Category:Marvel Comics mutants with superhuman strength twice now. Wolverine does NOT have super strength within the stipulations of the category Category:fictional characters with superhuman strength. After it was nomiated for deletion several guidelines were set up to make the category easier to manage. One of those is that "the benchmark between those with superhuman strength and those who are simple very strong is roughly one ton." Those like Captain America and Wolverine comes no where near havinge super strength within this guideline. Wolverine being stronger than the average human is irrelevent. I hope this clears everything up and I would apretiate it fi people would STOP adding him back to the category. (Animedude 07:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC))


 * It takes a deficit in imagination not to realize that an acrobat who runs around with a 100 pound metal skeleton would have to have superhuman strength. Annoyed with fanboys 19:19, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was following the category description until "roughly one ton" which then makes "superhuman strength" a neologism until we can find a source for that definition. What is greater than human is a bit more ephemeral than that, I'd say.  --Newt Ψ  Φ  15:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is actually the rule of the marvel Universe and is in their handbooks. But this rule was mostly set to keep theis category from becoming too crowded. Without guidelines, almost EVERY fictional character (especially in comic books) could be considered super strong, as they have shown strength far greater than an "normal" person. Also I think it is good having a set limit to what is considered "Superhuman", meaning far greater than humans can possibly attain and "almost superhuman" being the peak of human potential. Captain America, Batman and Wolverine all fall into the "almost super human" category. Being "better than human" doesn't cut it. In real-life strong man contests, contenstants have been seen lifting 700 pounds or more. Should they be considered for this category? Byt your (loose) definition it is "more than human" as most humans cannot lift this much. Should all Olympic runners be considered to have "superhuman speed" as you and I cannot run as fast as they can? The rules are in place for a reason. (Animedude 17:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC))
 * If it's Marvel's definition it needs a cite. If it's not DC's then DC characters (as the parent category is applied to more than just Marvel's characters) are going to be a bit different.  "The rules" were made up by Wikipedia editors and thus it constitutes a neologism.  Look up "superhuman" it can mean supernatural or it can mean greater than ordinary human.  It's not that easy. --Newt Ψ  Φ  18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it so hard for you to accept that Wolverine doesnt have superstrenght within the confines of his own world. EVERY comic book character has show feats of strength greater than those of normal human beings in the real world. Does this mean Wolverine is an par with the Hulk? Nope. Batman is not considered to have super strength, but has on times show strength far beyond human potential. Guidelines exist for a reason. Since you wanna be picky, I will try to find a source for the one ton range.

While we can't use handbook stats, canonical comic issues have been mentioned that mention him displaying superhuman levels of strength. The newer versions of the OHOTMU do state that anything from 800 pounds up to the 25 ton range, which is where the character falls, is considered superhuman. Superhuman is meant to be anything beyond the the natural limits of an ordinary human. Maybe he can lift 900 lbs, maybe he can lift 1 ton, I don't know if an exact figure has been given. Superhuman strength doesn't always entail for a character to have the capability to lift and hurl tanks like 60 ton basketballs. If Marvel's position is that he does have some level of superhuman strength, whatver the actual amount of weight might be, then that's what has to be reported. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with Marvel Comics' position on it is pretty much irrelevant. Odin&#39;s Beard 23:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By this definition this would give both Captain America and DC's Batman super strength. Even though it is a character point that each of them do not have super powers. There msut be some kind of distiction, as almost every comic book character has preformed some fantastric feat which may or may not be a super power... (Animedude 04:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, Marvel's rules of what constitutes "superhuman strength" do not apply to DC characters like Batman. If writers and editors at DC want Batman to lift a city bus and say that a human at peak potential can lift a car, then that may not be "superhuman" and especially would not be for Marvel characters. As for "superhuman strength," you may be able to use the OHOTMU definition though there are copyright issues there since we're possible competitors for that product.  We run the risk of regurgitating their copyrighted material for free, thus acting as a detriment to their sales and our use would not be fair.  --Psyphics Ψ  Φ  16:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point. Also, there doesn't have to be some sort of distinction. Marvel's position, and there are other canon comic books to back up the position besides those listed, is that the character possesses some level of superhuman strength. DC can do whatever they wish with Batman, just as Marvel can do what they wish with their character. Captain America has demonstrated superhuman feats of strength before sure. As you mentioned, most comic bookc haracters have at some point. However, Marvel's officially states that Captain America, at least the Earth-616 version, is at the very pinnacle of human conditioning. There might be contradictory feats of strength shown in the comics from time to time, but according to the OHOTMU he isn't recognized as being superhumanly strong, while Wolverine is. Many might not agree with Marvel's position on the matter but, quite frankly, it doesn't matter. The character is their property, they can interpret everything about him in anyway they wish. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In Uncanny X-Men #158, Wolverine punches Rogue so hard that she goes crashing through a concrete wall. This wall is several feet thick and is undoubtedly reinforced with steel. This took place inside the Pentagon, and I doubt that they use a lot of drywall construction in there. This was a punch. He didn't hit her with a wrecking ball or an I-beam, just his fist. Rogue was flying towards Wolverine at the time, so he was not using her momentum against her. I don't care how indestructible his bones are, there is no way that this could have been accomplished without a decent amount of super-strength.Sadaharuo 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

thank you Animedude360 i agree he is muh like bat man and captain america they all have a form of superhuman strength but not super strength seeing as how wolverine it's hard for him to do alot of things i'll use collossus as an example collossus has super strength wolverine can't stop a train with his bare hands clossus can stop a tractor or a train wolverine could do what any of those strong guys on t.v do even though he looks like he cant because he has super human strength

Using Colossus as an example was a bit over the top there. Colossus is physically one of the strongest humans on Earth-616; between his level and the maximum a none-superhuman person can lift there are hundreds of super strength qualifiers. Wolverine's simply near the bottom of these, whilst Colossus is at the top. Spider-Man can't stop a fast-moving train with his bare hands (even if you qualify Spider-Man 2 as evidence, he uses hundreds of webs and dozens of buildings to help him....), does this make him none-superhuman? Hell no! If he non-high durability people without pulling that punch, you'll be made into splat. Peter is no where near Colossus's level, yet he can do that - just to illustrate the broadscope of super-human strength. Wolverine isn't even on Spider-Man's level though, he's below it, capable of carrying the Hulk (1000 lbs) over his back, breaking steel chains, or almost a dozen men with one arm(What's 10 times 160 lbs? 1,600 lbs!) Again, if we compare this to Spider-Man, who broke steel cable with his chest muscles alone before he got powered up, it's nothing, but it's still above what any strongman on this planet goes about doing. Above the maximum of normal human potential, i.e. almost every single person on this planet now? Yes. Super-human? Yes. Awe inspiring by Marvel Standards? No. - Mr T. Stark (01/05/07 - 20:23)

This is kind of a dead point really, but the whole discussion on this began out of a type of edit war. Some editors didn't want to accept that Marvel has written him as having some level of superhuman strength. Everyone accepts that he isn't one of the physical powerhouses of the Marvel Universe, that's never been an issue. In the MU, the most a human can lift without being considered superhuman over his or her head is 800 lbs and he has demonstrated signifigantly greater levels of strength than that. Exactly how much he can lift has never truly been quantified, even in the OHOTMU. His earliest entries in the handbook state that he is capable of lifting 800 lbs, but it never stated that was the most he could lift. If I had to put a number on how much he can lift, I'd say between 2 and 3,000 lbs. Odin&#39;s Beard 23:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Religion
Okay, so Wolvie has repeatedly been removed from the category "fictional atheists". No big deal, as Wolvie's atheism has never been a particularly prominent part of his character, though he is an atheist I'm sure. But he is still in the categories "fictional Shintoists" and "fictional Buddhists". Not only is it more or less impossible to be both, as far as I can remember Wolvie was never a Shintoist, despite his time in Japan. Regardless, Shinto is essentially a dead religion, the Emperor having been depowered, so I dare say he isn't now even if he ever was. We also need a definite citation for his Buddhism, which I seem to remember being shown on and off over the years - he isn't a great Buddhist (after all, he isn't the most pacifistic character in the MU). --Switch 12:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to contest, Shinto is one of Japan's largest religions. That is all. --Newt Ψ  Φ  12:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Self-correction: Shinto is essentially dead as an organised religion. It now makes up much of Japan's native mythology and superstition, little of which is followed, for lack of a better word, religiously. It has many followers who claim not to believe in religion. As far as I can tell, having lived in Japan for a very short while a few years ago, it is not regarded in the same way, say, Buddhism is.


 * For the sake of the article, Wolvie does engage in some Japanese cultural behaviours at some point or another that are derived from Shinto, so I guess it could be said he is a Shintoist. Then again, so do my parents, an atheistic Liberal Christian and a nonpracticing Catholic respectively, so what do you do? --Switch 13:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be left in ambiguity. There's no reason to assume that he follows and realigion. He could be a universalist for all we know, however, leaving him out of any reliious category for the time being is probably the best thing to do, as there's not enoguh information to state what he follows, if anything. Wolverine is probably, most likely, NOT an atheist, has never claimed it. He may be digruntled at God at times (bad luck maybe?), however, atheist, most likely NOT probable. It should be left as ambiguous, there's not reason to assume he fits in any religious/non religious category. For all we know, he could state he's Muslim off in the future, but who knows, and really, it's part of his character anyways. 72.251.0.211 19:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Atheist
Is it possible to be an atheist in the MU? There is people that can confirm the One Above All exists. T-1000 23:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a character in the MU could be considered an atheist in regard to the various religions of the real world that are portrayed in the comics. I don't know if anyone in the MU, or at least on Marvel's Earth, worships the One Above All. Odin&#39;s Beard 23:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think the One Above All is actually worshipped, he's something that concretely exists as part of the universe. It's like believing in chairs or oxygen: you don't need to, you know they're there.
 * I think Iron Man is still in the fictional atheists category though. Yep, he is, I just checked. --Switch 05:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What is the point in being an atheist or beliving in God if you already know that an omnipotent being exists? T-1000 16:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Omnipotence is a word that gets tossed around a lot in comic books. Beings like Galactus, the Celestials, the Watchers, various members of the "god" pantheons of Earth, and Eternals have boasted about being "all powerful" and all that. Many of these mentioned are close to it, at least by most standards at which anybody can think of. Perhaps out of a combination of ego and having lots of experience with superhuman and supernatural beings that Wolverine doesn't accept any of them as "gods". For every "god" he, or any other Marvel character for that matter, has encountered that claims omnipotence, they don't behave very godlike. Also, there's always a more powerful being that seems to pop up occassionally.Odin&#39;s Beard 23:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just thought of a similar situation in Discworld. Several people there, including Commander Vimes and the Greek Philosopher-analogues, are called "atheists" (both in-universe and out) even though they know that gods exist; they just don't worship them or engage in religion. Wolverine is the same essentially. --Switch 10:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, he's not. Infact, Marvel doesnt really like to put religion into their characters as, for the most part, it's up to the reader to interpret. There are few exeptions, such as Archangel (protestant if I remember correctly), Iceman (Jewish/Catholic), etc, however, Wolverine is most likely not an atheist. It's best to leave it ambiguous. 72.251.0.211 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing Sources
Wolverine was described as a "warrior-poet" in a previous incarnation of www.marvel.com before it became a wiki. Perhaps the Marvel Encyclopedia Volume 1 and Marvel Encyclopedia Volume 2: X-Men might do so as well. --68.224.247.53 19:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's probably best avoiding statements like "warrior-poet" because it sounds pretty close to POV, that is unless he's referred as such in a canon issue of a comic book that's not an encyclopedia like the Marvel Encyclopedia or the OHOTMU. Odin&#39;s Beard 23:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The Strength of Wolverine's claws
Okay, let's get this straight, yes, adamantium has the durability to cut through nearly any substance, which, in effect, means that Wolverine's CLAWS can cut through nearly any substance. However, this does not mean that WOLVERINE can ALWAYS cut through ANY substance. Wolverine is not exactly one of the most physically powerful among most of Marvel's powerhouses. Wolverine probably has the strength to cut through substances such as concrete, but I doubt that base Wolverine has the brute strength to cut through most of the very strong suubstances, such as reinforced steel, gold, platinum, and diuamonds. And Wolverine definitely stands no chance at cutting Marvel's other famous fictional metal, vibranium. Say that you have knife made of titanium or solid gold or solid diamond. Just because it's durable enough to cut through most metals does not mean that YOU are able to do it. Wolverine's claws aren't lightsabers.

Second point to get straight, yes, Wolverine's skeleton and claws are currently made out of true adamantium. However, true adamantium is not the strongest substance in the Marvel Universe. As it has been said before, Captain America's shield is clearly stronger than true adamantium. Uru is also stronger than True Adamantium, as things such as Thor's hammer is made out of Uru, and even the gods of the Marvel Universe themselves have trouble welding Uru weapons. Also, Thor himself has been able to dent True Adamantium before. I believe True Adamantium second only to Uru in the Marvel Universe though. XtrEEmMaShEEn3k2 23:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the article is worded in saying that Wolverine's claws are capable of cutting any known substance, other than Cap's shield and true adamantium itself. I can use a pocket knife and cut stone but I can't slice completely through the stone. It's the same with Wolverine's claws. With the exception of Cap's shield and true adamantium itself, his claws have cut any solid substance that they've gone up against. Not completely through, but they have cut it nonetheless. If there's a material that his claws can't cut, other than those mentioned, then provide a legitimate source.

However, your point about Uru sounds like POV. Granted, Thor's hammer did slightly dent a small cylinder of true adamantium, provided he hit it with all of his strength. Adamantium's durability, like that of any real alloy, somewhat depends upon how thick it is. For example, a piece of titanium 6 inches thick is going to be able to withstand substantially more force than a piece of titanium 1 inch thick. There are instances of uru being damaged, and even completely destroyed. I'd have to look up the issues but, during Thor's last monthly series, his hammer was severely damaged. I can't remember all the specifics exactly. However, there was a character named Uroc, a pretty obscure character, who was a rock troll that used magic to transform his body into uru. In Thor #450, Uroc's left hand was exposed to liquid nitrogen and was completely shattered after being shot with a bullet. It wasn't an enchanted bullet or made of adamantium or some other ultra durable metal. It was just a plain old fashioned lead bullet. Is uru stronger than adamantium? I doubt it as there are numerous examples of it being severely damaged or even destroyed within mainstream Marvel continuity. However, if a legitimate Marvel publication can be found backing up the claim of uru's superior durability, in the mainstream Marvel Universe, then that's all there is to it. Otherwise, it's POV. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In the early 90's, when they started renumbering the X-Men comics, the new issue #1 had Cyclops claiming that a wave of Wolverine's arm could slice through cold steel. I think that, given Wolvie's mildly enhanced strength and the sheer toughness of adamantium, its not inconceivable that that he could do so.  But you are correct in that he doesn't possess the physical strength required to slice through *anything*, but if he had help (fastball special?) he could cut through quite a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.218.89.103 (talk) 16:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Adamantium is apparently so indestructable that the hyper-scalpel sharp edges of his claws are impervious to ever dulling, even on a molecular level. I've seen him drive his claws easily into solid concrete and climbing with them. He's slashed through steel girders. Cut through steel doors. Cut through walls. Cut through alot of cars. Cut through tanks. He cut his way out of the Weapon X Compound. He can cut the Hulk, man. Everyone's scared of them... especially Spider-Man. They'll cut through anything. 74.244.63.126 03:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

How can he stab the Hulk? Very few individuals or weapons are strong enough to pierce his skin. Wolverine couldn't hurt the Hulk without Adamantium. The blades can cut through everything except Adamantium and Vibranium. It's the metal, not the strength behind it.74.244.63.126 22:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Wolverine's sliced off a third of The Thing's face and crippled the same power-house with a stab the shoulder. Neither of these events were particually gruelling for Logan; seems that he can effortlessly cut through most stuff. Gold? Yes (gold's not even strong...) Concrete, Yes. Steel, Yes. The Thing's hide, Yup. The Hulk's skin, Yup. Adamantium and Vibranium, Nope. What about Carbonadium in all this? I'm sure he can't cut it; or he'd whoop Omega Red's ass twice as quickly. Mr T. Stark 11:03, 01 June 2007(UTC)

There's a lot of speculation surrounding carbonadium really. It has been written as a cheaper and more malleable version of adamantium. Its cheaper to produce, but not nearly as durable as pure adamantium. Other than that, nothing else is really known about it. A lot of people have made the assumption that Omega Red has carbonadium armor, which is mentioned in the Red Dawn episode of the X-Men animated series. But, I haven't found anything anywhere in any comic book that states he has carbonadium armor. I might've missed it, but I don't think I have. Over the course of the past 15 years or so, the character has only made like 15 or 20 appearances. Aside from pure adamantium and the alloy of Captain America's shield, which isn't an adamantium-vibranium alloy by the way, Wolverine's claws have at least cut every solid substance or material they've been up against.Odin&#39;s Beard 23:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't Erase the Ultimate Wolverine Article you BITCHES!?
I am getting tired of whoever thie bum is that keeps on erasing my fucking article so stop Bitch!? User:Redbird 41 22:42, 08/12/06 (UTC)


 * If you'd bothered to read the talk page for your "fucking article," you'd see that there was consensus to merge it into the main Wolvie article. So no, it will not stop and any attempt to recreate without discussion will be reverted. CovenantD 06:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha, stupid. Since we're talking about Ultimate Wolverine, I have an issue to bring up: why the hell is everyone assuming that Hulk tearing him in half would damage his Adamantium skeleton? I thought this was Wikipedia. Come on guys, get with it. All references to this should be removed immediately. I'm too lazy and busy to be bothered, but I'd appreciate it if someone would, you know... get on that. -- Nick Begovich 22:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think Wolverine mentions that it should be impossible to tear him in half, which probably gave people the impression it is, whether it is or not.

WOLVERINE ORIGIN
It states in the origin that is posted that Wolverine is the illegitamate child of Thomas Logan. That does not seem to be the case. In the Origin Series, the Howlett grandfather was seen with bone claws, and it is eluded to that the mother of James Howlett has suffered some sort of dimensia and has scars on her back that could be explained by the claws raking her back from her husband, the natural father of James Howlett —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.195.66.48 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I don't remember the first - when exactly is the grandfather shown with claws? As for the second, it is implied - Logan speaks of Howlett as "not deserving a woman like that" or "not knowing how to treat a woman like that", or something similar - it is implied, but never stated, that they had a relationship in the past a few times. I gathered that the claws were from Thomas Logan or another child; the mother was obviously disgusted by mutants, and she would not have stayed married to one.
 * I guess the question is, are we allowed to mention events that are implied, but not explicitly confirmed, to have happened? Obviously we can't out-and-out say that they occured, but I do think it's permissible to mention things that are implied. -  Swi tch t 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Things that are implied are fine to include as long as it's clearly stated that it's an implication. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The origin series did mention that his mother had another child who was not normal and that caused her to behave the way she did. That other child is unknown and that other child could be responsible for the scar she displayed. That other child was the first born. Now... we must admit that Thomas Logan looks a lot like our Logan! Thegrayone 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)thegrayone—]]12-14-06


 * Think about it. Thomas Logan's appearance was crafted to be virtually identical to Wolverine's but it is never stated that Thomas is Wolverine's biological father. Part of the Wolverine character's appeal is the mystery that surrounds him and his past. This was another of those little mysteries. It might be a general consensus that Thomas Logan was Wolverine's biological father, but Marvel decided to leave it as a mystery. We can assume he is, the resemblance is extremely difficult to get over, but, let's face it, unless Marvel confirms or denies it, we'll never really be able to know for complete certainty. As for the claw marks on Wolverine's mother, she did have a child that died prior to the events of the Origin mini-series named John Howlett. When Wolverine's mutant powers first emerge, after seeing Thomas Logan blow his father's head off with a shot gun, he uses his claws to kill Thomas. Wolverine's mother loses it and screams "No!! Not again!! Not James!!!" or something like that anyhow. So, that is an indication that Wolverine's older brother also possessed bone claws. You'll also notice that when Wolverine's grandfather first notices the claws, he's holding Wolverine's hand and examining them, doesn't seem at all surprised. Now, Wolverine's older brother features prominently in the Wolverine: The End mini-series. The mini-series reveals that he did develop powers like Wolverine's and that he was sent away to an asylum for several years. But, the only problem is that Wolverine: The End isn't part of the mainstream Marvel Universe. In the end, it's merely another alternate reality/timeline story. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Logan's mutant genes were inherited from his mother, Elizabeth Howlett, who had become severely unhinged at the fact that she constantly gave birth to monsters. His physical appearance and psychological temperament were passed down from his biological father, Thomas Logan. These statements are pretty obvious when reading "ORIGIN". It's not up to Marvel to confirm or deny these facts, it's purely up to the whims of the next writer they hire with a notion to retcon whatever he pleases. 74.244.63.126 03:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I changed "... James becomes tall and strong, ..." to "... James becomes strong, ..." Wolverine has never been tall. Gethe 23:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok just for confirmation, in the mainstream Marvel Universe its confirmed that Sabretooth and Wolverine arent father and son, but if Origins is Mainstream, would that make Dog Logan (Sabretooth) Wolverines half brother? This is if the logic sticks that Thomas Logan is indeed James father correct?

It was never said that Sabretooth was Dog this is just speculation like many of the things people say happened in Origin.JoeyFNK 15:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This page definitely needs clean-up
The Fictional Biography, like the Magneto one, is basically a fanboy's bio and totally in-universe. What time scale does it offer to someone who isn't an X-Fan? The Wolverine: Origins and Civil War sections also suffer from recentism, the former being well to do with it's own article. Wiki-newbie 09:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've tried to clean it up, but the fanboys will have little of it. --Psyphics ΨΦ 17:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but, since Wolvie's made few apps outside X-Men or his own minis, AFAIK, it'd be a bit hard to go outside. Unless you mean cover date? Which the ish #would do, N? Trekphiler 03:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sharper than a Wolverine's claw
I deleted "published in June though" and "and inker Jack Abel". The cover date is the important one. And while I have no intention to slight Jack Abel, it's traditional for writer & penciller alone to get credit (or you'd always have to mention Terry Austin's inks on Byrne, & I've never heard anybody do it, even me, when, IMHO, they're better than John's own)

Moreover, I rewrote:
 * "Wolverine is initially overshadowed by the other characters, although he does create tension in the team as he has a crush on Cyclops' girlfriend, Jean Grey. As the series progressed, Claremont and Cockrum considered dropping Wolverine from the series"

to this:
 * "At first, Claremont and Cockrum considered dropping Wolverine from the series, in part due to his similarity to Thunderbird; Claremont, and later other writers, added layers of complexity."

based on remarks in X-Men Companion. I've never heard Wolvie might have gotten dropped, & it was Thunderbird that got croaked. I'm inclined to add a Fact tag to "dropping".

On other business, do we need a cite for, "Wolverine can read and speak Japanese"? And was it 113? (It followed the escape from Antarctica, and since the circus was 110...) Can somebody confirm the Mariko engagement ish was 118? I recall it being later. (Unless I'm thinking of the wedding, which was, what, 173?)


 * I'm fairly sure that Wolverine and Mariko's engagement was annouced on the last page of the original Wolverine limited series.Gethe 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

About his psi resistance, I'd add "as well as his innately very strong grounding in the real world, thanks to his enhanced senses." This is suggested by a New Mutants (I think) ish, the "homecoming" in the Brood saga, where Dani tries to slip him a fake image, & he says, "Get outta my head, kid." Ditto "resistant to psionic atack than usual", if somebody can cite the ish. Trekphiler 04:07, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The first known example, that I'm aware of, of Wolverine displaying an understanding of the Japanese language was in Uncanny X-Men #118. He's reading a Japanese newspaper to which Cyclops asks "You read Japanese?" It's also the same issue in which he and Mariko Yashida meet for the first time, where he also speaks Japanese for the first time that I'm aware of. As far as when they were engaged, I think that happened at the end of the 1982 Wolverine mini-series. She calls off their impending marriage right at the alter in issue 173, under some type of mind control or something. As for the psi resistance, the statement you suggest in adding is extremely POV.Odin&#39;s Beard

SNIKT!
I added a small phrase about the sound his adamantium claws always make when he pops them out. If you think it should be in another section, move it. Vicco Lizcano 23:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)

it's suposed to be metalic + tearing sound--87.65.165.85 11:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that when his claws were made of bone, they made a different sound, that's why I specified the bit about the "adamantium claws"; besides, I believe the "Snikt" originated prior to his film incarnation with the claws coming out of his fingers (instead of the classic representation above the hand (contrary to his palms).


 * My point:
 * Adamantium Claws: Snikt!
 * Lame Bone Claws: a different sound.


 * Hope someone can find a source and clarify this. Thanks Vicco Lizcano 23:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)


 * The bone claws made a "SCHLIKT!" sound (or something similar to that spelling) when extruded...I think it was supposed to be a wet tearing/sliding sound. The only other sound was when he first extruded the bone claws in #50, in the Danger Room; that sound wasn't used again to the best of my recollection. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

teeth?
He don't have a silver smile.Are he's teeth the only part of his skeleton without adamantium?--87.65.165.85 11:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not really been addressed in the comics because it's always been stated that his entire skeleton is bonded with adamantium, which would include his teeth I'd imagine. He's taken all out slugs from characters like the Thing, the Sentry, Gladiator, Namor, the Hulk, and numerous other characters particularly known for their strength, without suffering any knocked out or broken teeth.Odin&#39;s Beard 00:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose his teeth could be adamantium except covered with some sort of enamel that recovers once it's broken or cracked like the rest of his body recovers. But this probably wouldn't make any science scientifically, or be internally consistent but then again what part of the character is/does? Wikidudeman  (talk) 02:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Also would Wolverine look cool at all with a smile like a rapper. It can just be assumed that maybe his body does naturally create enamel over the teeth giving them a dulled appearance.Until its addressed any answer would be speculation. Thefro552 03:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

His teeth are adamantium with white enamal which grows over them. In every comic where he has been depicted getting incinerated (partially or totally) down to his skeleton the teeth become silver once the tissues are incinerated. See the recent issue where Nitro incinerated him. It has been addressed indirectly in this manner and this is not speculation.Doberman Pincer 22:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * wouldnt it make sense to assume that since teeth can fall out and arent actually attached to your skeleton inexorably that adamantium teeth, though impossible to destroy, can be knocked out and therefore probably have been? i accept that in the comics they were shown to be adamantium but to look at the logistics they could be removed, since teeth arent connected to your skeleton.

it doesnt take bone breaking strength to remove normal teeth.
 * All I know is that Wolverine has always been stated by Marvel as having every bone in his body laced with adamantium. He's never been shown having any of his teeth removed in any way, at least as far as I know. So, until or unless, its ever shown otherwise, its just baseless speculation. Logic doesn't have to apply, and usually doesn't, in comics. Every natural law known to science is completely shattered frequently. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO he got some teeth knocked out by Gambit - by no means a superstrong individual - in Contest of Champions #2, but that was the "boney" Logan, without adamantium skeleton. However in that very fight, right after losing the teeth, he stated that his bones, even without metal reinforcements, are 'so strong, they virtually can't be broken'. I doubt he would have said that if he considered those knocked out teeth a bone-breaking incident. Inner Circle 2.0 12:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

teeth aren't bone gentlemen. I think I learned that in 3rd grade. You guys must have been sick that day. But regardless, teeth are not bone, and while they may have been covered in adamantium anyway, aren't required to have been via marvel's declaration that all of his bones are covered. TEETH AREN'T BONE


 * Given Wolverine's regenerative ability, I'm sure he grows back any teeth he loses (he's regrown eyes and such, teeth aren't much of a stretch). Noclevername 05:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why diagram of claws is not appropriate
thumb|left|600px|A Detail of Wolverine's Claws and Their Housing

This diagram of Wolverine's claws that has been recycled in various Wolverine books from the 80's is not appropriate because it relates information that has been ret-conned away. More precisely, it states that Wolverine's forearms have mechanical devices which lock the claws in or out internally and that there is an artificial silicon sheath within his arms around the claws when they are retracted. It also implies that his muscles were surgically rearranged to control the claws (an assumption often stated in the 80's books). This diagram originally came from the original Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe from 1982-1984 (which was written by a writer who did not consult the writers of the X-Men books) and was later ported to several other books without the authors of those books actually looking at the text in the picture, otherwise they would have noticed that it contradicts the canon of the character.

The mechanics of the claws are now known to be entirely natural with no surgically rearranged muscles, mechanical locking devices, or internal artificial silicon sheaths around the claws within his forearms. Doberman Pincer 21:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the diagram is outdated now, but it was canon back in the 80's, before Magneto took his adamantium from his bones. Maybe we should remove that picture or better yet, replace it with an up to date diagram. (Damn intranet, can't show me pictures in wikipedia) Vicco Lizcano 23:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)


 * It was never canon. It was a mistake in a comic that almost no one read, by an author who didn't bother to consult the creators of the character. The same mistake was copied into a at least on other book by people who didn't bother to read the text that went with it. If you look at the Weapon X series in Marvel Comics Presents (FROM THE 80's) that describes how his skeleton was originally bonded with adamantium it demonstrates clearly that even before Magneto removed the adamantium the claws were not artificially built mechanical devices. Majestic Lizard 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm I'll have to find those copies of WeaponX to check that out... then I've been living a lie my whole life!!! Vicco Lizcano 17:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)


 * As far as I know, this is the only attempt that Marvel's made to show the mechanism of the claws. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the weapon X series from Marvel Comics Presents and the stories after he had his adamantium removed and the bone claws were revealed. Its in there. Majestic Lizard 04:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Then perhaps we can add a note, saying this diagram refers to the original way Wolvie's claws worked, before they were ret-conned. Just a tought. Vicco Lizcano 17:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)


 * An error in a book that was factually included into the continuity does not equate a ret-con. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majestic Lizard (talk • contribs) 04:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Only It's not an error. This is the way Wolverine's claws were supposed to work originally (or at least at the date of the printing of the book). Wolverine's power was only his healing factor, the claws were added by the Weapon X program. The "Wolverine was born with claws" story was created later, thus, generated a ret-con. So people is partly right, the diagram at the least is outdated, but it sure is not an error. Vicco Lizcano 16:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (Tell me where I'm wrong)


 * Aside from being outdated, if the diagram is only found in the OHOTMU, just like the OHOTMU stats, wouldn't adding it to the article be a violation of copyright?Odin&#39;s Beard 00:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It would qualify as a fair use image, so copyvio wouldn't be an issue. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * This article shouldn't treat Logan like a real person, it should treat him as a fictional character. Include the image in whichever part of the article discusses his claws being changed from mechanical to natural in the canon. If there isn't a part that describes that yet, make one. Caption the image with something like "Diagram of Wolverine's original claw mechanism, now retconned." Easy. ~  Swi tch  t c   g 02:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The reasoning for not using OHOTMU images is that they are from a reference book, a potentially competing purpose. Inclusion doesn't add anything that can't be described in the text. CovenantD 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The classic "Days of Future Past" two-parter's second part, "Mind out of time" features a close-up of Wolverine's lower arm with the flesh burned away, clearly showing a mechanical device. One may argue that even the claw extending-retracting 'propulsion' is visible. Little of the rest of the skeleton is show, but that is mechanical too. (BTW the "Wolverine: The End" summary's last paragraph is completly bogus. Can't say I can correct it at a moment's notice. Shall I post that as a new topic?) Inner Circle 2.0 15:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The cover art by Jim Lee for X-MEN #5 (February 1992) reveals Wolverine's right forearm with the flesh stripped off by Omega Red. Clearly illustrated is the mechanical claw apparatus and circuitry that lies within his arms. 01:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that issue is over 15 years old. A lot of retcons have taken place involving Wolverine in that time.Odin&#39;s Beard 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it isn't canon is no reason not to include it. This isn't meant to be a biography of a fictional character. ~  Swi tch  t c   g 01:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's the perfect reason to not include it. The information in the article has to reflect Marvel's interpretation and presentation of the Wolverine character as he is right now. They have rewritten Wolverine to the degree that not only does he not have a mechanical claw apparatus any longer, its been written that he's never had it. No reason or explanation has to be given, it just coincides with what Marvel wants to do. Marvel has tinkered with this tidbit of information on Wolverine to make it coincide with a current interpretation of him. If they up and decided to retcon that his claws were actually just pieces of super hard rock candy, then that's what'd go in the article. Odin&#39;s Beard 02:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course the article should report what Marvel's official position is, but there's no reason not to discuss changes and retcons. Look at the Batman article: it doesn't treat him only as he currently appears, it treats him as a fictioal character who has been modified, adapted, redefined and even recreated over the course of his publication. It's an out-of-universe perspective; that's how articles on fiction are written. It just simply should be mentioned that for much of his publication history, Wolverine's claws were regarded as being artificial - early, they were even considered to be part of his gloves - and that that changed, and now his claws are part of his mutation. I'm not an especially huge fan of the image, it's rather wide and short, but that it isn't canon is no reason not to include it. Read the article as it is now: much of the information is already non-canon. ~  Swi tch  t c   g 06:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(reposted)
 * The reasoning for not using OHOTMU images is that they are from a reference book, a potentially competing purpose. Inclusion doesn't add anything that can't be described in the text. CovenantD 01:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

What If?
In the Alternate Versions section, it seems reasonable to include his appearances in the What If? comics. Along with the mention under the Weapon X article, I remember seeing a What If? issue while I was in college that posited that the progress of Wolverine's mutation caused his bestial nature to take over his mind and personality. I distinctly remember this issue because it was the first time I'd seen his claws come out between his knuckles instead of behind them, and the issue ends with a failed attempt to capture him resulting in him losing a hand and becoming completely animalistic, more like a modern depiction of a werewolf than anything. What say you? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 07:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable addition, though it'd be nice if the exact issue number could be tracked down. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 07:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I remember another one: "What if Wolverine Battled Weapon X?" The Weapon X program passes on Wolvie and operates on a nameless (and pretty damn brutal) Canadian, who then decimates Alpha Flight. The government calls Wolverine in and, with the help of some guns and a katana, he saves the day. Judging by the "List of What If issues" page, that would be #62 in the second series. In fact, it looks like he's had several major appearances in What If. 72.81.112.154 06:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Titling
I'm a little concerned about the titles used for the article. As they are at the moment, if you wanted to change parts in both Pre-X and X-Men histories for this article, it wuold take two edits, instead of one.

Secondly, although less importantly, the titles do seem to give the impression that the two history sections are disconnected. Is there any way to change this (even if it means ignoring the rules)? --JB Adder | Talk 03:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

bub
is bub a canadian or american slanG word12:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * it's a logan howlett slang! well it's just something he says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackjohnson15 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Killing Wolverine
The line talking about the failure of the Xavier Protocols to account for Wolverine's adamantium skeleton seems to be faulty. It is still possible to kill Wolverine using the method described in the Protocols, as only Wolverine's bones are adamantium bonded. If his neck was severed between vertebrae, and then his head removed from his body before the healing factor took care of the cut, he'd be dead. Ultimate Hulk vs. Wolverine proved that this type of injury to his spine is feasible; I see no reason why this wouldn't extend to Earth-616 as well. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 21:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

An adjustment to the statement could be made. Given the details revealed about Wolverine's mutant healing factor over the last six months or so, it can't be stated that beheading him would kill him for an absolute certainty. It might not make any sense, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time. Natural laws and limitations are frequently ignored in comic books. The whole thing about the Ultimate Wolverine vs. Hulk is still just speculation at this point. Logically, it was connective tissue that was destroyed, but Marvel might say otherwise when its all said and done. Who knows, Marvel writers might say that Wolverine's joints were coated in some sort of chemical that allowed his joints to retain their flexibility and it was just the UMU's version of adamantium that was damaged along with connective tissue. What holds true for one alternate reality doesn't have to hold true with another. Odin&#39;s Beard 00:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I have access to two scans from two different comics where this issue is brought up, within the 616 Universe. In one, the Hulk tries to rip Logan apart akin to how he did in the Ultimate Universe. He grabs Logan's claws in each of his hands and tries to pull his arms out. Logan stays together, eventually managing to make a cheeky-remark and escape by retracting his claws. There is another, with some goon (I honestly have no idea who it is)picking up Logan and trying to pull him apart, expecting to be able to do it. He has no idea that Logan has this adamantium skeleton and shouts in rage that he can't rip him up. If you wish, I will post these, but only if you so desire, because frankly it's a pain in my ass to find them, and upload them to photobucket. EDIT: When I say "some goon" - he's not a normal human punk...He looks like dracula or something, but I think he's been drawn terribly :P Mr T. Stark 16:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Just shoot him in the eye with a .22 and his brain would look like it went through a blender =P

That method of shooting him in the eye with a .22 would take quite a bit of accuracy--Vipa Human 11:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

i doubt that will kill kim since he survied the blast of nitroBanished one 22:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Main image
I'm not satisfied with the image showing Wolvie in front of Captain America's sheild. I think it fails WikiProject_Comics/editorial_guidelines guidelines because the sheild is so prominent. I also don't like it because the caption contains a spoiler about another character, a totally unnecessary move. I'd like to remind people that Wikipedia is not the place to show off the latest solicitation covers just because they're the latest - they should contribute something that is not already present in the article. CovenantD 20:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, but it shows Wolverine's healing powers and hair, alongside his distinctive claws. I wouldn't oppose or support an image change. As it is, this article is out of control. WikiNew 20:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To be blunt, it's "image de jour".
 * The guideline is that the "most universally recognisable appearance" and "clearly-defined primary costume" are preferred. While Wolverine has had so many "looks" there is one that the publisher keeps coming back to: the full cowl, two-toned yellow and blue with black trim one. That's what should be in the 'box, without competing elements. That being said, the guidelines give no weight to "visible use of powers" so the healing is a non-issue.
 * As far as the article goes... if it is as condensed as it can get, then it may be time to look at which section or sections might be best to split off. "Alternate versions" and "Appearances in other media" would be good candidates. But a concerted effort to weed out cruft and trim should be done first. — J Greb 21:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wolverine Origins Survey

 * split-such a large and dense page, doesn't need the detailed plotline of a comic book series. Origins could get its own comic book series wiki article and the entry in the main article could be reduced to a brief summary about the series.66.109.248.114 00:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * leave There should be other priorities than pulling a section that is entirely plot summary for a second article. The article would be better served by:
 * Having editors that are up to speed on and care about the character, but not wedded to keeping trivial detail, go over the article to remove obvious cruft and condense the plot summarizing as much as possible.
 * Cleaning up the references for consistency.
 * If the result of that is still running over 45k, then looking to split off sections. But not sections that are integrated into wither the "Publication history" or "Fictional character history/biography" sections. A better plan would be:
 * "Alternate versions": Even though some of these should be mentioned in the Pub history to reflect the publisher's value of the character. At that point an argument could be made to split the "Ultimate" version off into a 3rd article as was done with the Supreme Power Hyperion and Nighthawk.
 * If that still leaves the article at 45k+, then it may be time to look at the need for an article dealing with the 5 self titled Wolverine comic books. That's a harder sell though since the articles would have to deal more with the production history of those books, creative people involved, and plot summaries as condensed as they should be here. And even then there would be a sizable overlap between the "(comics)" and "(comic book)" articles.
 * — J Greb 06:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Leave I agree with J Greb. The real issue I see is deciding exactly what information is trivial and what isn't. Otherwise, what we'll have on our hands is an edit war. I personally feel that the alternate versions sections needs a lot of trimming. There are, I think, 13 different alternate versions mentioned in that section and there's another section right after it talking about even more alternate versions. Aside from the Weapon X/Age of Apocalypse version and a couple of others, most of the rest don't seem to offer very much to the article other than just little tidbits that take up a lot of room. I also agree that Ultimate Wolverine needs to be seperated into its own article. I was against merging the Ultimate Wolverine article into this one to begin with. Just like Ultimate Spider-Man, Ultimate Wolverine is involved in an ongoing monthly title and has his own seperate and distinct ongoing adventures different from his mainstream counterpart.Odin&#39;s Beard 00:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mentor
Hey, I was just thinking, it might be a good idea to, maybe as the start of a "themes" section, talk about Wolverine's habit of mentoring young girls (Kitty Pryde, Jubilee, Hisako/Armor, ect.)
 * Actually, that would indeed be a good addition to the article; he's certainly had enough "students". EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just don't know how to write it, so if anyone else could pick this up... (since I didn't sign my first post I'll mention that the idea was originally mine) Madhackrviper 20:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Landau, Luckman, and Lake
I'd like to see information about the firm that handles all of wolverine's affairs. I thought they were pretty much run-of-the-mill until I read Wolverine #97 showing their access to (warp gates?) and cable style weaponry. I don't know enough about them yet to write anything up considering I'm still in 1996 ;) 69.138.81.129 23:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, nothing else has been done with them since their involvement in the Wolverine series back in the mid-1990s. I believe that Zoe Culloden, at least I think that's what her name was, also made a few appearances in the Deadpool comics during that time as well. They've made no appearances in the Wolverine title, or any other X-affiliated title for that matter, since then.Odin&#39;s Beard 00:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm up to 1998 now, seems they've showed up sporadicly in Generation X and Deadpool early stuff. Deadpool #15 has their 'R&D' area. 69.138.81.129 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

New article for 'In other media' section?
The main Wolverine article has gotten quite long and Wikipedia has a policy that articles should be kept to a reasonable length. The 'Other versions' section has already been moved into its own article. I think the 'In other media' section should be moved into its own article as well. What do other people think? -Freak104 04:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That is a stupid idea. The article is fine. Don't complain about it.

Wait, Who?
There seems ot be no explanation for "James" other than that one panel. Could someone please write what it really means? 'Cause I have no idea what it is...SaliereTheFish 07:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * His real name is James Howlett. Read the "Original life (Pre-X-Men)" section of his biography. -Freak104 14:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've read that. I just want to know about his seemingly mysterious return as shown in the "Civil War" section. There's no explanation as to why Wolverine suddenly switched from 'Logan' back to 'James'.

Maybe because after M-Day and the Scarlet Witch's shenanigans he remembered his entire history.

Devil's Brigade
Following the link to the Devil's Brigade, it says that the group was not formed until World War Two, and that it was a Canadian-American group, not just Canadian. America&#39;s Wang 02:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot left to be revealed about the character's adventures and experiences during the early to mid 20th Century. Originally, it was written that Cyber was his commanding officer during WWI while part of the Devil's Brigade. It's possible that this particular fighting unit is completely fictious and used just for the sake of storyline. Maybe the writers were unaware of the historical Devil's Brigade's existence. However, with what has been revealed thus far in the current storyline of the Wolverine: Origins comic book, I think it's too soon to tell if the whole Devil's Brigade situation is true or if it was just an example of Wolverine's memory being tinkered with.Odin&#39;s Beard 14:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone have suggestions on how best to add a note to that section on the real world vs the comic world that won't be an ugly hack job?--Talroth 00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really because we don't actually know what the writer's intentions were at the time. It's possible that the intention was to have this Devil's Brigade be completely ficticious and that it's history and functions would be revealed at a later time. Of course, this didn't happen. It might also be possible that the writer mistakenly thought that the Devil's Brigade was active during WWI rather than WWII or that it was active during both. After realizing the error later on, the whole thing might've been dropped quietly altogether and never brought up again. Since we don't really know what the situation is overall, it'll all be speculation anyhow.Odin&#39;s Beard 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Early Years
The description under "Early Years" is incorrect. The cabin is real and Wolverine did live with Silver Fox there, but Sabretooth did not kill her on Wolverine's birthday. The murder of Silver Fox and the sunsequent Sabretooth/Wolverine fight was a memory implant created by the Weapon X program. Silver Fox was very much alive decades later.

Smoking Hero
Ok, hero's normally don't smoke because it's bad. Why does Wolverine Smoke? Are his lungs able to recover quickly ever time he smokes? Does that mean Wolverine can smoke forever and never get lung cancer?

In answer to both questions, yep pretty much. There've been references to this in several comic books over the years. One of the first, at least that I can recall, was during an issue back in the mid-80s. I was reading a paperback collection of a number of old X-Men issues and he and Kitty Pryde are sitting on some steps and smoke is accidentally blowing into her face. She takes the cigar and takes a few puffs and immediately starts hacking and coughing. He tells her that his healing factor heals any damage the smoking might do to his lungs. Since his healing factor has also been written to filter out drugs and toxins, he's not addicted to the nicotine. He smokes because he just likes the flavor or something I suppose. I'll have to look back through and find the issue number. After his healing factor was burned out, due to having the adamantium magnetically ripped from his skeleton, he stopped smoking for a long while. Given the extent with which his healing powers have been written with lately, such as regenerating all of his body's soft tissue after being flayed down to his adamantium skeleton, cancer probably isn't something that he'd have to worry about.Odin&#39;s Beard 13:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

7.1 Films
"Using several resources that include the Marvel Comics lore, along with the more recent Weapon X graphic novels by Frank Miller, "

I believe this came from the studio- but there are actually no Weapon X graphic novels by Frank Miller. The studio was clearly trying to invoke Miller's name, but the statement is factually wrong (as it is impossible). Might need to be fixed.

76.87.203.37Craig 07/24/07


 * Probably a statement from a publicist or something that couldn't be bothered to check their facts. It wouldn't be the first time a representative of a movie studio provided inaccurate statements involving a comic book inspired film to the media.Odin&#39;s Beard 13:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Some clean-up/summarising needed?
While I recognise that Wolverine as a character has an incredibly long and interesting history (due to his prolonged aging), the article could use some serious cleaning-up and/or summarising.

Recent stores like the Civil War stuff with Damage Control, and the recently concluded lupines plot (which was godawful to be honest) have been written like complete issue summaries, describing the entire story in detail. This is totally unnecessary, and these stories should be summed up simply with a line or two like how the previous stories have been handled in his write-up.

I guess this can only be attributed to the "recency" effect, since these stories are hardly important milestones in the character's history. As an example, Wolverine fans may remember the arc from Wolverine (first ongoing series) #125-128 where Claremont teased the return of adamantium, but it turned out it came back on Sabretooth instead? I reckon that story arc probably holds as much significance as the aforementioned ones, but it rightfully wasn't mentioned at all in the entire article.

I could probably undertake this cleanup task once I have the time soon, but I thought I'd mention this first and see if anyone who's got more experience at this than me would like to take a shot at it instead.

Agent Sleeper 20:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article needs cleaned up. There have been attempts at cleaning up this article, the last was earlier this year I believe, and some progress was made. That progress didn't last all that long because the article now is longer than it was even before the clean up. I don't like to use the term "fanboy" in a negative way, but fanboys have a lot to do with the shape the article is in right now. I know that all the contributing editors are fans to some degree, but the difference is that editors that don't want to see this article read like something off of a fan website seem to be seriously outnumbered by fanboys that do. Another problem is some of the current policies of the articles, particularly size. Wolverine is a character that is currently featured in 4 regular monthly series. Even if the article is cleaned up and reduced to something more along the lines of acceptable size and even if summaries of his monthly adventures is kept short and sweet, it's not enough. In less than 6 months, the article would be right back in the same situation that it's in right now.Odin&#39;s Beard 22:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't really read the entire article in detail, but I didn't think fanboy-ism was that rampant in the article. Most of the stuff still sounds pretty objective. Not that I disagree with you and don't think it's a problem, I'm just probably more concerned over the length of the article (unless that is deemed fanboy-ism too, cause I was just assuming it meant stuff like overly hyping up Wolverine's powers and abilities).


 * Its back-heaviness (with the recent plots being documented in unnecessary detail) lends a sense of unevenness to the article, and I'm sure in time to come these recent plots will prove to be largely insignificant to his history as a whole.


 * I guess my point is that he might be appearing in 4 ongoing titles a month, but not all of them are adventures worth mentioning at all, much less writing in so much detail about.
 * Stuff like Onslaught and Operation: Zero Tolerance were pretty big deals back in the day, and he arguably had more participation in them than he had in Civil War (and probably will in World War Hulk too), yet they too weren't even mentioned in the article.


 * I suppose that is subjective to how it all eventually pans out though, but even at this point I think it's pretty obvious it's unnecessarily detailed and needs to be thinned out on a regularly basis to counter that "recency" effect.
 * I'm somewhat new here (I used to contribute to a popular X-Men fansite for some years before I left), so I'm not sure how much liberty with which I am allowed to edit such articles and prevent revert wars from happening.
 * Agent Sleeper 20:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that they're not all worth mentioning. However, much of the Wolverine title in and of itself for the past year or so has featured an ongoing storyline, what with his whole involvement in tracking down Nitro and the latest storyline involving the whole Lupines thing. If I'm not mistaken, the only kind of "filler" issue was #49 back around the Christmas holiday. It might be a good idea to mention this on the comic project's discussion page, maybe get a consensus on exactly what needs to be trimmed and how, maybe on what's "trivial" or "important" etc. Having a consensus puts you in the right no matter if other editors might disagree with you on a few points, or even the whole thing. Occassionally, you'll run into editors that feel just about every single bit of detail is of vital importance to the detail and won't budge from that belief. Without a consensus, you could wind up in a content dispute that'll just eat up time and energy. Also, good thing about a consensus is that if an editor refuses to budge and undoes edits made during the clean up effort, he or she can be dealt with accordingly.Odin&#39;s Beard 23:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok. Thanks for the suggestion. I'm not too familiar with Wiki policies, but I had a quick look around and found the WikiProject for comics article. I noticed their featured articles, which included that of Batman's, a character whom I suppose may be likened to Wolverine (from the commercial and character aspects).


 * His article was the sort I thought Wolverine should have, with neatly summarized plots and mentions of only really important character milestones, and not just the "story arc of the month" inclusions that fill the Wolverine article. In fact, I actually found it somewhat brief (something like the return of Jason Todd would've warranted a mention I thought), but I guess it's better than the flipside of being so overbloated like this one.


 * In any case, I'll read up a bit on what I should do about the consensus stuff, and hopefully get some work on the article underway soon.
 * Agent Sleeper 17:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

how to shorten
create a new article for character history, and remove it from here. Include Wolverine: Origins --Leocomix 21:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Spider-Man and Wolverine are the two biggest characters from Marvel, and Spidey has a seperate page for the character history, Wolverine should too. Considering the character's history in the Marvel Universe, and his very active appearances, it'd make this article much better. 68.253.55.39 14:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Frank Miller did not write the Wolverine miniseries
This sentence--"Frank Miller also helped to revise the character in the early eighties with the eponymous limited series in which Wolverine's catch phrase, "I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice" was first written."--pretty strongly implies that Miller wrote the four issue mini-series from 1982. This is not correct, he was only the artist. Claremont wrote it, and any "revisions" (although I'd just call it character development) in Wolverine's characterization in that work can be attributed to Claremont. 75.73.21.101 17:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Sergei Alderman


 * Though credited as the artist, Frank Miller is widely acknowledged as having contributed to the series' conception. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 22:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Less images!!?
Wasn't their heeps of images of wolverine here!!? --Angus Nitro —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wolverine's Height
In his early appearances at least, Wolverine was depicted as being very short. The first and second volumes of the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe listed his height as 5'2" or 5'3". These days he seems to be fairly normal height. I don't know if that's a retcon or if it was explained away. —SteveG (talk) 05:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * It's just the artist, In the first few issues of the current Wolverine series, you can tell how short he is while he is sitting on a table. I think thats why if you ever see his entire body, he is hunched over, that way he does not appear as short as he actually is. Rau's Speak Page 22:15, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The size of comic book characters can vary from issue to issue. Or, at least various drawing techniques can make a character look smaller or larger. While the OHOTMU isn't really reliable when it comes to categorizing a character's powers, since the writers change them to fit whatever situation they think of, is pretty consistent with a character's history and vital stats. So, until he's listed as something different in a later OHOTMU profile, his height will officially be 5'3".Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 23:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing, I always thought he was short. Rau's Speak Page 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * He's always been short; IIRC, he's called himself 'sawed-off'. Lots42 (talk) 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hudson Bay Company
MARVEL COMICS PRESENTS #93-98, tells the story of Logan as a fur trapper for the Hudson Bay Company. With the help of the Blackfoot Indians, he defeats the demonic snake-worm, Uncegila, a feat which earns him the Blackfoot warrior name "Skunk-Bear". I think this is a worthy period of his life to note in the "Early Years" chapter of his article, but I'm not exactly sure where it should fit into continuity. It's been suggested that these events took place just prior to meeting Silver Fox (which seems correct to me), while others claim it was after her, just prior to WWI. The story itself is cloudy on when it occured. The recent events of WOLVERINE: ORIGINS #15 once again recalls his involvement with the Hudson Bay Company.FA Shotgun (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WOLVXR.JPG
Image:WOLVXR.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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Inchulk181.jpg
Image:Inchulk181.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) 22:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold
Please leave a note on my talk page when you're done with this stuff - cheers. David Pro (talk) 19:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This article lacks a lot of Real World context. I like the heavy use of creator information in the two sections about the origins that never came to pass, but the bloated character history section lacks for creator information. Also, a solid publication history section could be of use. Further, given the rampant popularity of the character, a section detailing his popularity, NOT a 'in pop culture' section could be an attribute. I'm sure there are sources out there on this sort of thing. ThuranX (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick suggestion. You guys might want to give the fictional character biography it's own page (like Spider-Man). RC-0722 (talk) 04:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems no action has been taken....GAN failed. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 23:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Devil's Brigade
I'm not sure how Wolverine could have fought in WWI with a brigade that did not exist until WWII. 70.54.126.60 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the link to the real WWII Devil's Brigade should be removed. It's confusing.  Someone who hadn't heard of it might wonder why it is listed as First World War here but Second World War in its article.  (The historical one was also a joint Canada-USA brigade, not just Canadian.)  70.54.126.60 (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion was held a while back and the confusion is understandable. While I don't think that anybody has been able to confirm any of this, I know I certainly haven't found anything on it, I think a few mistakes might've been made when the idea first came into the writer's head. It's possible that the Devil's Brigade that Wolverine was written as being a member of is a completely ficticious group created by the writer with no connection to the historical DB. It's also possible that the intention was for Wolverine to have actually been part of the historical DB, but a mistake was made in which the writer could've thought the DB began and was operating during WWI as well. After the story came out, nothing more was really ever done with it up until pretty recently with the whole Wolverine Origins story arc in which Cyber makes his return. Either way though, yeah the link should be removed because he wasn't written as being part of the historical DB.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fictional history split
-nomination- I wanted to suggest this split, as with such a popular character appearing in so many different titles (either as himself or a Skrull). A separate page would be helpful to maintain a continued size problem on the page. I would like other to consider to inclusion of Wolvie:Origin, although it is not formally included in the proposal. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC).
 * I think it's a good idea and is one that's been suggested in the past. It's not just the fact that the character appears roughly half a dozen issues every month, it's also the fact that some editors want to include every appearance he makes, even if it's not anything major, to the article and go into almost nauseating detail with each appearance. As for Wolverine: Origins, I also wouldn't be opposed to the idea of possibly giving the comic its own article.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I took note that an editor had created the page months ago. I created a summary to the history and linked the two, in short - bold. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC).

GAR result
I've closed the GAR as a Procedural close, as the article was never reviewed. This is a case of confusion; the following is a suspected summary of events:

After the nomination, nominator added a section (ca. 5 minutes later) with a title clearly subject to misinterpretation. Passing editor saw “on hold” comment and updated WP:GAN page accordingly (phrasing of “apparently” seems to confirm confusion caused by aforementioned section title). Another editor later failed the nomination, presumably due to "expired" hold. Nominating editor for GAN and GAR has acknowledged “the article wasn't reviewed” and “voted” to “nominate at GAN”.

If still desired, feel free to renominate at WP:GAN at your leisure. Given that the article was never reviewed, I have removed GA templates to reflect that this article has not yet been through the proper process. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

other media / video game
Wolverine is a playable, unlockable character in "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3" for Sony Playstation. Would this be a worthwhile addition to the article? Marchseventh (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. It's mostly just an interesting little bit of trivia than anything else. It's basically just something the developers put into the game because they're probably fans of the character and figured it'd be cool.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, I see. I hadn't noticed the 'Wolverine in other media link' earlier. Thanks. Marchseventh (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Weakened Healing
At one point, the atricle said that Wolverine's healing was weakened by the adamantium because his immune system treats it like a foreign substance. Why is that reference now gone? Is it false? If it's true, how much does it weaken his healing? Emperor001 (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it's on the history article. Emperor001 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was true at one time, though I'm not exactly sure what Marvel's position is on it now. The info about his healing factor being slowed by the presence of the adamantium started between story arc in which Wolverine was going feral, #91-100 I believe. Wasn't ever mentioned again after that. Not even after the Twelve story arc where his skeleton was bonded with adamantium once again. It's confusing now, particularly over the past two years, given Marvel's depictions of the character's healing factor and the quasi-supernatural connection with the Lazaer character. He regenerated all of his soft body tissue after it was incinerated from his skeleton. Hard to imagine superhuman healing be faster and more extensive. Even after the Lazaer thing was put to rest, with Lazaer not being able to guarantee that Wolverine's healing factor would remain as strong, there's been no evidence that his healing factor isn't as strong. I dunno if Marvel still considers the adamantium a hindurance to the character's healing factor or not.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 23:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why does Skrullverine redirect here?
There's nothing in the article at all about Skrullverine.76.226.128.109 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What article was it? Thefro552 (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a brief mention about the Skrull imposter in the Fictional history of Wolverine article. The reason it redirects is that, a long time back, someone probably created an article on the fan named "Skrullverine" character. If that's the case, then the article was probably deleted and the name "Skrullverine" itself was linked to the main Wolverine article.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The history for Skrullverine is intact. It was a very short stub of an article, which was then redirected. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 13:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Miller?
This is in the up top thing part: " Frank Miller also helped to revise the character in the early 1980s with the eponymous limited series in which Wolverine's catch phrase, "I'm the best there is at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice", was first written. " But Miller was penciller, not writer so it doesn't make any sense to pair Miller and that phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.159.3.91 (talk) 01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Current Picture
I think the current picture, by David Finch, needs to be replaced. It is poorly inked, the anatomy is poor. It fails to show Wolverine as short and broad, two noteable qualities. The claws are impossibly placed. The greenery is 'mush' and is too prominent. I recommend someting by John Romita JR, who has drawn much of Wolverine. Lots42 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have the same criticisms, but IMO a more current image should be used. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Adamantium
Wasn't there a Busiek-Perez story where it was revealed that Adamantium can smash and dent Adamantium? I feel this, relating to Cap's shield being just that much stronger, would be relevant to this article and Wolvy's durabillity. Lots42 (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That, I think, would be more relevant for the adamantium article than here. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Captain America's shield isn't made of Adamantium. It's composed of a Vibranium/Iron alloy that is slightly stronger than True Adamantium. To my knowledge, nearly all instances of True Adamantium being damaged has been retconned to read as Secondary Adamantium, which is a less durable and inferior grade. As far as I know, there's never been an instance of weapons composed of True Adamantium damaging other weapons composed of the same substance.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Powers and abillities
Wolverine being resistant to telepathic assault...yes, this is true. But what in the name of crackers is 'level 9'? Wolverine has faced enemies who could turn his brains into actual tapioca...levels seem meaningless. Lots42 (talk) 08:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently it's one of those extremely obscure classifications that are sometimes mentioned in some comics. Another good example of that, although it's much more well known, is the Omega level mutant rating. In the issue where it's mentioned, he and Emma Frost are having an argument and he mentions that the psi shields can withstand a level 9 telepath. Given the fact that the term isn't well known, hasn't been mentioned again in any other title that I'm aware of, and the fact that we don't know the details that qualifies someone as a level 2 or 5 or whatever, then it really isn't necessary. Needless to say, he's highly resistant to telepathic assault and that's really all that's needed.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 13:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relatedly; Lifting a dozen men with one arm and throwing them through a wall? What the heck? Is that even -logical-? Not to mention a realistic assesement of his strength. I know Logan is strong but to, in a logical way, move the weight of twelve men seems beyond him in a normal capacity. Lots42 (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The various Marvel handbooks have always listed him as possessing some level of superhuman strength, albeit on the lower end, but still superhuman. He has demonstrated legitimate superhuman feats of strength within various appearances, some of which have been sourced in the article. There's never been a huge degree of focus on his physical strength: his schtick has always been the healing factor, adamantium enhancements, senses and fighting ability. You can't really apply real world logic when it comes to comic books. The Marvel Universe is filled with beings that gain superhuman powers after being bitten by radioactive spiders, transformed into a pile of walking granite after being hit by cosmic rays, transforming into an 8ft tall uber-human with green skin that can move mountains while angry, and so on and so forth. Regardless, if Marvel says and displays that Wolverine possesses superhuman strength, then the article is going to reflect it.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 13:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are saying, but I have points in return. Yes, the Marvel Universe is fantastic, but there has always been some degree of logic layered onto the powers. Logan's claws can cut much, but not Captain America's shield. Sunspot can heft boulders, but if he doesn't lift right, his back goes out, like any regular person. Storm can control the weather but isn't immune to it...frostbite can still nail her. Secondly, I've read tons of Wolverine stories and haven't seen much to demonstrate superhuman strength, but plent to demonstrate the strength of a very fit man. Thirdly, lifting up six people with one arm is just awkwardly silly for a short man like Logan, super-strength or no. Bad writing by a comic writer is just sometimes bad writing. Lots42 (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The "lifting a dozen men with one arm" is straight out of Wolverine #1 (second volume). He's dogpiled by several (not sure if it's really a dozen) pirates, but picks up the entire pile by standing up and sends everyone crashing through a wall.  Such an example is probably too specific for inclusion in the article, but it wasn't pulled out of thin air. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, even if that wasn't included, there are the examples cited in the article of him breaking steel chains. Not the chains of handcuffs, though those would be hard enough to do, but chains consistent with a logger's chains. You might believe it's silly for a man of Wolverine's height to support that much weight with one arm, but I could argue it's just as silly for the Hulk to a 20 ton dragon to the moon. I'm not going to however because there are nearly no limits as to what can happen within the pages of a comic book. Trying to apply real world logic and limitations to the happenings in the MU, or any other fictional comic book universe, doesn't work. The laws of nature as we know them are thrown out the window in comics all the time. Compared with a cosmic giant wearing a helmet that causes his head to vaguely resemble a big "W" and "eats" planets, a 5'3" man lifting a dozen dogpiled men above his head isn't that far out there.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * -Because- the Marvel Universe has things like a cosmic giant that eats planets makes it all the more important to consider things like the realism of somehow chucking six men at once, superstrength or no. If Logan had telekinetic abillities, then I wouldn't raise an eyebrow at using this example. But he's strong, with claws and a healing power and unbreakable bones. My point is that this should be kept clearly in mind for this article; anything else would be a dis-service to the fictional side of Wikipedia. If the Galactus article came up with a bit how Galactus can eat any planet he wants to, I'd protest a bit, because for a loong time, it has been clearly established that he can only eat certain planets. Sure, eating planets is a fantastic flight of fancy but the fact he can only go for certain ones is logical for -Galactus-. In conclusion, logic wraps around every fictional character and bad writing is bad writing. Lots42 (talk) 04:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I resent that remark.  Manga, Lord Khan   you're shouting again  23:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is your opinion, opinions don't go in articles, facts as they're shown by Marvel goes in the article. There are legitimate examples in the article that he possesses superhuman strength. If you disagree, find something that backs up your position. If Marvel decides one day to do a storyline canon to the 616 reality where Wolverine wakes up with a wife, kids, and a house with a little white picket fence and realizes that all of his adventures have been a dream, then it will go in the article. It wouldn't matter if it made no sense to you or you didn't agree with it or thought it was bad writing. If you feel this strongly about it, take it to the project as a whole. Otherwise, it's going to stay in the article.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. It is my opinion that 'lifting six men with one arm is silly'. I agree with your comment. But, what 'project' do you mean? Lots42 (talk) 05:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You can think it's silly all you like. Everyone's entitled to a personal opinion. However, the facts as they are go into the articles. In the case of a character owned by Marvel Comics, the facts as Marvel sees them are all that counts. Marvel considers Wolverine to be superhumanly strong, so it's included in the P&A section. Not liking or agreeing with a piece of info backed by a source or sources isn't justification for removing it. It sounds as though you need to bone up on Wikipedia's npov, pov and reliable source policies. The project I'm referring to is the WP:Comics project. Every Wikipedia article is a collaborative effort and the comics project oversees, or tries to oversee, articles dealing with subjects related to comic books. You can take this issue to the project's discussion page and see what other editors think.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tolerance of pain and related stuff
Something that should bear mention is the number of times that, because of his healing factor, Wolverine's willingly gone into situations or done things to himself that most other superheroes could not survive or come away from without permanent scarring or handicaps, as well as his incredible pain tolerance. The things that are coming to mind are the scenes in...I forget the issue #s, but he pins his arm to a table with a knife and then picks up the table with that arm to intimidate would-be attackers, and in another issue, he pulls his hand through a heavy iron manacle to free himself, peeling most of the flesh off his hand and wrist in the process. Also, the scene after Silver Fox's death where he lets the biker in the bar hit him in the face with brass knuckles, as well as his repeated extrusions of his bone claws after issue #75, before his healing factor returned. What do you think?Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:48, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I understand what you mean. Although some situations are unavoidable, there are a lot of instances in which he allows himself to be hurt. He's consistently written as depending heavily on his healing factor. When he gets into fights, he often behaves like a brawler and gets a little torn up, even though he's a skilled martial artist and could use more finesse to avoid being torn up quite so much. One such incident that just popped into my head takes place little bit before the Wolverine series relaunch, and I'll have to look over some of those issues again, there was a storyline where he was involved with mobsters to help a friend of his that was in trouble. I remember a scene where he allows a man to repeatedly shoot him in the face without flinching, even though he could have easily dodged or stopped the man before the first shot was popped. A few good sites to gather info, if one doesn't have access to all the various Wolverine appearances, is uncannyxmen.net and Wolverine's R.E.A.L.M. Uncannyxmen.net has an extensive issue summary section for just about every X-title ever published. Wolverine's R.E.A.L.M. needs to be updated, but it has an extensive issue summary section for the Wolverine title prior to the series relaunch.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm talking about. When I get a chance, I'll take a look at those sites and see if some refs can come from that.  I've also got the first few Essential Wolverines, so I can pull something from them also. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't there a bit where Wolverine tends to forget horrific pain as part of his healing factor? Lots42 (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's referring to extreme psychological trauma, not physical injury. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, yes. Exactly my point. Horrific pain is traumatizing psychologically. Lots42 (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's where I thought you were going. The only thing that's specifically mentioned in the comic that I remember is that the healing factor can block out major emotional/psychological traumas, not physical pain.  Also, while I would tend to agree with you for a normal person, I think that Wolverine's actions over the years have proven that, at least for him, that's not necessarily the case.  He clearly remembers Magneto removing his adamantium, which I'm pretty sure would fall under the "horrifically painful" description.  Also, his lament to Jean after the aforementioned brass knuckles incident would seem to indicate that, for him, physical pain is not a major issue.  Willbyr (talk | contribs) 11:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Real susceptibility to physical pain or discomfort would've long since been drilled out of him. He's been a warrior a very long time, & you don't get good at it being a whiner. Wolvie's never been a whiner.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  11:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Take the recent "Logan's Dead" storyline for instance. In one issue during the story arc, he's kept in a pit where he's literally shot around the clock by someone manning a huge machine gun. They even have different shifts with the gunner only stopping to reload. I wouldn't say that pain isn't a major issue for him. There are instances of him sort of dreading something if he knows it's going to hurt. During the "Get Mystique" storyline, he has himself blown up in a car full of C4. His whole inner monologue that's written on the pages show that he's basically building himself up to it. He knows it's going to hurt and it's going to hurt badly, but he also knows it's something he'll fully recover from. Now, if someone were to imagine themselves being all but incapable of dying and being in this situation, there'd be intense psychological damage I'd imagine. Of course intense pain can result in psychological trauma in the real world, but we're not talking about the real world Simply put, Wolverine feels pain both physically and psychologically of course, but writers portray him as simply not reacting to it in ways people would in real life.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as we are on the topic, someone is probably going to bring up the X-Cutioner's Song' story, which had Stryfe shooting Professor X. A lackey zaps Wolverine hard and his speech bubble says he believes his ribs (adamantium at the time) are broken. Just sayin' as it does relate to the topic. Anywho, personally, I read it as Logan's brain was rattled along with his body. Lots42 (talk) 23:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Alrighty, I think there's enough consensus that this is something that would be good to add. I'll put it in, but I don't have time ATM to get hard refs.  I'll put in cite templates and switch those out for refs later, unless someone beats me to it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Side note - In the powers section's notes about the healing factor, do you think it's worth mentioning that in Days of Future Past, he was killed by having his body incinerated down to his skeleton, the same injury that he completely recovered from last year? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, Days of Future Past isn't part of the 616 continuity. Although it's one of the classic X-Men storylines, it's one of those things that did happen, but then again not really because something happened to alter that timeline. For instance, Wolverine isn't being labeled a pacifist even though he's become one in the "Old Man Logan" storyline, which is just another alternate reality.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Something else I thought about...aside from the issue where he lets that biker sock him one with the brass knucks, are there any other major instances of Logan letting himself get hurt as a way to deal with emotional pain? It seems to be a unique variant on cutting, and would fit in with this discussion. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I got one for you guys How about Beer? Why does he drink it? (If he know or does not know it will affect him in any way) Including getting high smoking MJ or taking Pills wise. Can he Get Drunk or High? I know probly he does not smoke MJ I'm just saying/asking, Is It Possible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by C Decoy (talk • contribs) 11:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are instances of him being depicted as drunk, though it takes a pretty hefty amount to affect him. There was one issue of his regular monthly series, I think it was Wolverine #159, in which he states that he drunk 25 years and didn't have a buzz due to his healing factor. It's the same with tranquilizers, he can be taken down by them it just takes an immense dosage to knock him o ut. As far as the hard stuff, well they don't really depict that in most comics, especially not one as mainstream as an X-title. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible, it'd take a lot to do it, but I'd say it could happen. The effects probably wouldn't last very long.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

House Of M
The article seems to be saying events in 'House of M', namely Professor X wiping Wolverine's memories pre-X-Men joining, happened in regular continuity. Unless I am missing something, such as a long-term after-effect, House of M is an alternate reality. Lots42 (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Too much awesome for the world to handle.
Why is this page listed in the fictional Samurai category? Did Marvel release some new series or something? X-men Travel Through Time or something? 67.181.111.246 (talk) 10:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Death by drowning?
The theory if sufficient drowning could kill Wolverine has been mentioned a handful of times - just curious if it should fit somewhere in the discussion of the limits of his healing factor... There was a short story arc that either appeared early in his solo series or possibly in Marvel Comics Presents IIRC where he fought against Tiger Shark, who ended up swimming him down to the ocean floor and impaling him there with his own claws, effectively leaving him to either die or suffer eternally. It's a rarely explored angle... Enigmatic2k3 (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The event with Tiger Shark took place in Wolverine vol.2 #20 back in very early 1990. In the issue itself, during one of Wolverine's internal monologues while he's trying to free himself, he says that his healing factor can't counter drowning. While that issue came out over 19 years ago, there's nothing that suggests that particular limitation has been wiped out by writers since. During the Civil War crossover, Wolverine did borrow a suit of armor from Iron Man that was specifically designed for traveling under water. I agree it's something that's rarely explored angle and there are questions, like if his healing factor would keep him alive under the water for longer periods, but there is at least that one instance that comes out and says he can drown.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say put in a note saying that the healing factor doesn't protect him from oxygen deprivation and that at least one attempt was made to kill him by drowning, with a ref to the issue with Tiger Shark. Also, I seem to remember that in one of the Ultimate X-Men books, Sabretooth tried to drown him. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Careful, please, the Ultimate characters are entirely seperate from the 'classic' versions. Lots42 (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

New aliases
I found a new aliases for Logan which is John Logan. Can I please add it? (JoeLoeb (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC))
 * The only time I can recall ever hearing him use the alias of John Logan was during an episode of the X-Men Animated Series back in the early 1990s. I forget the exact plot of the episode, though I do recall it involved him infiltrating the mutant hate group, the Friends of Humanity. If that's where you got it from, I think it should be left out.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My mom gave me a small childrens book about the X-Men, back in the 90's. Which had a "John Logan" as either his real name or alias. The name just stuck with me for a couple of years, which is where I got it from. (JoeLoeb (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC))
 * It's probably best if it's left out because. Just like the various X-Men animated series, films or video games; the book probably isn't considered part of mainstream Marvel canon and continuity. The events that take place in all those other media forms don't affect the Earth-616, or "mainstream", version of Wolverine and that's the version most of the article is about.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The clone business
I'm not going to get in a revert war here, but there's no way a clone can be someone's child. Lots42 (talk) 19:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed; X-23 should not be considered as Wolverine's child in any sense. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * X-23 has never been intended to be viewed as Wolverine's child. Now, there are some that claim that she's "technically" his twin based upon a philisophical view of her "mother" Sarah Kinney in the first X-23 mini-series back in 2005. By following the same logic, all the various clones of Spider-Man from the clone saga would be his sons or possibly brothers. While I know some frown on using the Marvel Handbook for a reference, but X-23 has never been listed as Wolverine's daughter or sister or whatever in any bio of either character.Odin&#39;s Beard (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

So, anybody know why the Old Man Logan page is gone? Is there any real reason for it? The Agss —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.154.48 (talk) 07:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some clown higher up, probably secretly merged it with alternate versions. When does the trade come out?(JoeLoeb (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC))