Talk:List of Avengers members

Talk:List of Avengers members/Archive1

D-Man

D-Man is not a member of the Avengers. He was tentively offered membership by The Captain (Steve Roger, then not Captain America) when the East Coast team was disbanded and The Captain was only a reservist. A member must voted apon by the active membership which there was none (except for the West Coast team). D-Man soon there after disappeared. So no vote took place and Steve Rogers once again Captain America refounded the East Coast team with Thor, Forgotten One, Mr. Fantastic and Invisible Woman. Spshu (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• He was, however, in the great summoning in JLA/Avengers and was listed in that series's extras as a member. Thanos6 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

He was summoned at the beginning of Avengers Vol. 3 to deal with Morgan LeFey but so did Firestar and Justice who were not members. I general go by on panel happenings, other wise your trying to read the authors mind. There was the New York State Charter and by-laws that governed who was a member which required that they be active members before excepting any other status (reserve, inactive, Detached) with the Avengers published in Avengers Vol. 1 Annual 11 which governed membership at the time. The West Coast was effectively the senior team at the time, yet Captain America in Avengers 305 called a general meeting to merge the East Coast & West Coast teams and declare all members shall be members always (so no way to quit or be expelled & effectively becoming a non-team) and the author used this to expanded the roster to those that never joined as established in West Coast Avengers Annual 1 per actual stories and the by-laws. The Avengers have never been a 'non-team' like the Defenders (that anyone aiding the core team is a 'member') which some writers have been treating ever since because "its too hard to" track memberships. Spshu (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

D-MAN IS AND ALWAYS WILL BE AN AVENGER!!! DEAL WITH IT. DUNPHY RULES YOU DROOL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.251.232 (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry but that is not an exceptable response. I would like to have him be a member, but he was not officially offer membership as it was by The Captain, who was a reservist at the time as there was no active East Coast team at the time either. Spshu (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There was no Avengers East team at the time D-Man was invited to join. Cap was creating one from the ground up. You might as well say Hulk was never an official Avenger since he joined and left before all these byzantine "laws" were set forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.251.232 (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Therefore, there isn't necessarily any evidence that Captain America was empowered to formally offer membership in a team which did not exist at the time. If there were evidence to that effect, then I would agree to his being a member. The subsequent argument regarding the Hulk is basically irrelevant to the question, and I urge the above editor to confine himself to sourced information rather than indulge in idle speculation regarding matters not directly relevant to the existing discussion. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

It was shown in flash backs (during Roger Stern's run on the Avengers) that the Hulk was involved with setting up the charter and by-laws but they were never revealed until Avengers Annual 11 and there were clearly different version of the by-laws early on (rotating chair of the meetings as opposed to Annual 11's amended by-laws with an elected set term chair). Considering the offer accured in Captain America's comic, D-Man never served as an active member (a requirement of membership -- they were required to serve as an active member first before request other statuses: reserve, inactive, substitute, detached), it is clear D-Man was not a member as he never serve as an active member. Spshu (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The East coast team was gone at the point Captain America extended the offer to D-Man. He was basically restarting the team from scratch. He offered and D-Man accepted. That made him an active member. To quote Jarvis In Avengers #1(vol. 3): "That's D-Man. He was made an Avenger by Captain America himself." You're gonna tell Cap that D-Man isn't a 'real' Avenger??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.251.232 (talk) 05:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a side note, Justice and Firestar weren't called at the start of vol. 3, they just happened to be with Rage when he was attacked by the monsters summoned up by Morgan Le Fay. As for D-Man, he may not have been an "official", but he is a member none-the-less as stated in the Avengers handbook a few years back (which are now classed as canon). D-Man is particularly in the same league as Moira Brandon of the West Coast Avengers (who was made an honarary member pst-mortem) and Spider-Man before he became an actually Avenger, he was a reservist. StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

74.69.251.232, Yes, I would tell Captain America that D-Man is not a member. You don't seem to be reading what has been writen. The Captain indicated that he intended to restart the East Coast team not that he had restarted the team when making the offer thus The Captain was not an active member. The East Coast team might be consider an expansion team as it was shut down while the West Coast team still existed so promission from the West Coast team might be required. StarSpangledKiwi, Spiderman came in under the UN Charter c. issue 329 while the D-Man issue is under the New York State Charter and By-laws, and Spiderman came into the Avengers as a Subsitite Reservist, ie. to be call up when the active member that they sub for is unavailable. Spshu (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Which is fine. However, what I'm getting at is that the Avenger 2004 Handbook has D-Man in the roster and also if you have the first issue of Avengers volume 3, at the back of the issue is a bonus interview with George Perez stating his pencilling correction to the final cover spread this included how Perez had to alter Rick Jones (coz at the time he was in a wheelchair) and that he forgot to add D-Man. :) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

If he didn't specifically indicate D-Man should have been included because he was a formally recognized member, though, it would be speculation (admittedly, reasonable speculation, but still speculation) that it was because D-Man was a "formal" member of the group. John Carter (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh this is so similar to the X-Men roster but pretty much I think that the consensus reach when X-Men vol. 2 #200 came out with the entire roster on it. StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Marvel has the problem of filling space with names; look at this quote on the Talk:Avengers: The Initiative page:

2. The Potential Recruits list is entirely taken from a single comic which was specifically mentioned in the removed section - The Civil War: Battle Damage Report one-shot. Yes some of the names don't sound real (I wouldn't have believed a superhero named Ben Pancake who goes by the name "Spellcheck," but I see him in the issue just as clearly as all the others mentioned)

--Blue Falcon 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole list in Avengers 2004 handbook could have been done off the top of someone's head not by examing actual issues. Spshu (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay. This is what I managed to find. I know it's the handbook but hey it's a start ;)

Demolition Man entry - "took charge of Captain America's help hotline, devoted fortune to crime-fighting, formed & funded informal superhero team with the Captain/Steve Rogers, Falcon, Nomad & Vagabond after C.S.A. forced Steve Rogers to step down as Captain America, feuded with jealous Nomad, became friendly with Nomad's girlfriend Vagabond, concealed heart condition from teammates, vs Serpent Society & Famine, shaken after losing fight with Titania, taught Vagabond fighting moves, vs Viper, captured & interrogated by C.S.A., unwittingly hastened breakup of Nomad & Vagabond, informal team broken up (Captain America #336-340 & 342-346, 1987-1988); reunited with Captain, recruited into Avengers, teamed with Captain & Battlestar to rescue C.S.A.'s new Captain America/John Walker from Flag-Smasher and U.L.T.I.M.A.T.U.M., lost in the Arctic and feared dead" (Captain America #348, 1989)[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by StarSpangledKiwi (talk • contribs) 04:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

See comments under Demolition Man's status section below. Spshu (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The Marvel.com Avengers page, which bills itself as THE DEFINITIVE SOURCE FOR ONLINE HERO BIOS lists D-Man as a member. Not honorary, not "other". GAME OVER MAN, GAME OVER. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.251.232 (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Marvel.com has a wiki, so it is not the definitive source as it can be edit by any registered Marvel.com wiki members as pointed out below in Demolition Man's status.Spshu (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to edit the page once more to reflect the correct status for D-Man and it didn't work. Enjoy your inaccurate Avengers page, folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but your edits were reversed as the evidence so far does not support D-Man as member. I have moved the two seperated sections on the talk pages together so the two sections regarding D-Man are together, so people don't over look the other section.Spshu (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Demolition Man's status

There is a question here whether Demolition Man's apparently being offered membership in the Avengers, and apparently accepting, is sufficient to state that the character did in fact officially join the team, despite having never been voted in to the team as is standard for the group. John Carter (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course it counts. A more careful look at the team's history will show plenty of characters who joined without being voted in. (The Falcon sure wasn't. He got bused in.) Wryspy (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In the matter of the Falcon, it was the National Security Council that required a number of thing from the Avengers to keep their security clearance, one of which was Affirmitive Action. It would be assumed that they approved it off screen or they would of have lost their security clearance. In the case of D-Man, the offer was condition on The Captain (Steve Rogers was not Captain America at the time) restarting the East Coast team and was a reservist at the time at best as it had not been established official whether the Superhero Identity or the individual is official the member of the Avengers. (Per the by-law implied that it was by Superhero identity that one joined under as real name did not have to be revealed.) Avengers Annual 11 has the charter and by-laws of the Avengers organization. Membership requirements in the by-laws requires an Active Status member sponsor, a vote of the active team which then said hero would become a probationary member for six month in which you must serve as an active member. These by-laws -- although modified, after Secret Wars, to add additional teams (West Coast team) and an additional status (detached) -- remained otherwise unchanged until Avengers 305 which Captain America 349 occured before Avengers 305. Spshu (talk) 21:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

In short, by the laws at the time, The Captain did not apparently have the authority to offer membership into the group, and if he had such an offer was not in adherence to the existing by-laws at that time, and thus invalid. Is that more or less accurate? John Carter (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct, if you read the issue in question the membership offer was based on the contingent that The Captain restart the East Coast team (which presumely would require West Coast team approval as the only remaining team). Since, D-Man disappear before the refounding of the East Coast team there was no way to make it official as D-Man was presumed dead. The Thing ended up on the non-member list, even though, he met several of the critera for membership, but Hawkeye (West Coast Team chair) want to do the vote in front of the press and the Thing never showed and the vote was assumedly never taken based on the comic book. The Thing came closer then D-Man to membership but still isn't one. Spshu (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you looked at Marvel's lists of Avengers? Have you seen issues in which everyone who has ever been an Avenger showed up? The Thing has been in those bunches, like the very last time such a group ever got called together. If they say the character is an Avenger in the comics, then the character is an Avenger in the comics. It's not up to us to decide how to interpret Avengerhood and the application of their rules. Wryspy (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with the above user. Characters like Hellcat, Moondragon, Thing, D-Man etc. are all considered Avengers by those writing the books. I think the cover to Avengers 1(The Perez cover) should be a good indicator of who exactly is an Avenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.251.232 (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That is more than a bit conjectural, however, unless one can find a verifiable source which says as much. And there is a difference between being involved in one or more actions with the Avengers and being an officially recognized member. And, unless the Perez cover is itself verified by some sources, it is itself just a work of art and probably doesn't meet the criteria of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It should also be noted that all those individuals are mentioned on the page already. The only difference on the page is between those who received official recognition as members of the team and those who were involved with it in other ways. But, as already stated, all those individuals are mentioned on the page in any event. The only variation is in regards to whether they were ever officially recognized as formally admitted members. John Carter (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the wording in the entry that they are not "true" Avengers. I've seen character like Hellcat, Moondragon, D-Man being called in for events like Acts of Vengeance, the reformation of the Avengers in 1996, Disassembeled, etc. It seems wrong to say they aren't true Avengers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.251.232 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Neutral request: I'm noting the very few actual references in the comments above. Would you each please work up an accurate list of references to support your thesis? - jc37 03:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Wryspy, I have no access to in house Marvel records of who they consider an Avenger and I am going by what is in the comics. The Thing was never in the comics voted in per West Coast Avengers 9 & 10. Just because some later writer or editor is lazy in tracking Avengers membership does not recon previous comic issues and are the ones who are "wronging" you, 74.69.251.232 or creating confusion by having them show up, Wyspy. Check out West Coast Annual 1 where they go down a list of members (and non-members) to figure out who betray them (this was the start of my list). Some of the non members where given "provisional status" with the team, which is at best a administrative move to allow access to Avengers equipment and bases, to assist the team. This status is not mention in the Avengers Annual 11 By-laws so this is the best guess as to its meaning. The original Avengers is a corporation and the corporation has to follow its by-laws which are in Avengers Annual 11 in regards to D-Man's status; this is not a "non-team' in that any one who shows up is a member. The bylaw changes of Avengers 305 ("Once an Avengers always an Avengers" motion -- an inability to resign or expel a member) was lazy attempt by Byrne to do what you suggest but the in comic proposal does nothing to expand the membership as if they were an official Avenger then they still would be if they were not a offical Avengers like the Thing or D-Man (who's case is weaker) they still are not a member. It sure did not make members of the Great Lakes Avengers, who according to that team's article in GLA: Misassembled received a court order to stop using the Avengers name. In Disassembled, Daredevil and the Human Torch (Johnny Storm) show up to assist and have never been implied that they were members. Jc37, I have been indicating supporting documents. Spshu (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have repeatedly visited the official Marvel website for information on who they "officially" regard as members myself in recent days, and the best I can find is this page, which doesn't differentiate between former members and reservists, although it doesn list "honorary" members separately. The article on Demolition Man here is particularly uninformative for these purposes. Beyond saying that perhaps any interested editors might be able to expand that article as well, I'm not seeing a lot of really reliable sources here. John Carter (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The MarvelDataBase.com is a Wikia.com wiki and is not Marvel's official website. Marvel.com does have information on the Avengers but again its is a wiki edited by fans not official information from Marvel. Spshu (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right, sorry I got the wrong link there. It should also be noted that the Marvel.com page here does disagree with this page, by listing Silverclaw as a regular member for example. At least a few other unofficial sources indicate he is an inactive member, whatever that means, like this one, but I'm fairly sure that they won't necessarily qualify as reliable. John Carter (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Inactive status is the third level of membership in the Avenger, Inc. charter by-laws in Avenger Annual 11. If an active member wishes to step down from active duty then they are place on reserve or inactive status based on how long they serve in active duty. The active team may change the status of an inactive status up to reserve if the inactive member agrees to be on-call. On-call, short term leave and reservist are all the same membership status of reservist. Long term leave, indefinite leave are alternative name for inactive membership status.Spshu (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't the Avengers charter been altered a bunch of times since Avengers Annual 11? I remember them being reorganized under the United Nations in the Larry Hama run and several other times as well. It seems pointless to use such an outdated source for saying who is and isn't a proper Avenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.251.232 (talk) 05:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

These by-laws -- although modified, after Secret Wars, to add additional teams (West Coast team) and an additional status (detached) -- remained otherwise unchanged until Avengers 305 which Captain America 349 occured before Avengers 305.

No, the Avengers New York charter has not been alter; the by-laws (as pointed out above quote although I missed the members statuses of member-in-training and subsitute) have but not enough to effect the discussion re:D-Man as per above quote from my statement of 2/26/08 above. The New York Charter was never properly revoked as that is a matter for the State of New York nor by the appropiate by-law method was the Avengers closed down (not that the Avengers could not operate under the UN Charter). Spshu (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

(basks in the glow of fandom at it's brightest : )

...

...

...

(sigh)

Ok, back to Wikipedia.

I'm getting lost in the "before this" and "after that" statements. The punctuation and the modifiers get vague at times (to me at least).

It looks like, AFAICT that it's a question of whether the asking by Steve Rogers (normally AKA Captain America, but who was "The Captain" at the time) was by an "Avenger in good standing", and whether that is important as to whether someone they ask may be considered a member. In addition, the question of what it means to be a "true member" (which concerns both Cap and D-Man). And whether D-Man was subsequently a member regardless of the rest.

In addition to that, there's the question of which sites cited may be Reliable Sources.

I'll repeat my request, but I'll attempt to be a bit more specific - I'd like some reference material. It means some more work for those involved, but I think it's worth it.

For example, let's reference the comics in question. The one(s) which the "bylaws" were printed, and any quotes of relevance subsequent to that which may merit note in the discussion.

(In other words, don't say "Avengers 305, which has the bylaws, supports my statement." Instead say something like: "In Avengers 305 it says '[quoted material]', which I feel supports my statements.")

I wouldn't normally request this to be so detailed, but this discussion (in my opinion) sets a precedent throughout the various avengers related articles, and we might as well figure it all out now, rather than later.

Thanks in advance : ) - jc37 02:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Captain America Vol. 1 No. 349 "Icecap"

Page 2 Panel 1: The Captain's thought balloon: "The Avengers apparently disbanded while I was on leave. I wonder what happened*. Thor, She-Hulk, Dr. Druid, Namor, the Back Knight.. I Couldn't reach a single one to even ask!" * See Avengers 291-297

Page 2 Panel 2: The Captain's thought balloon: "I've hereby resolved to challenge the Commission on Superhuman activites and settle our difference, furthermore, I'm determined to resurrect the Avengers!" "As the High Evolutionary affair dramatically demonstrated, the world still needs Avengers!"

This indicates that the East Coast team has not been official reformed under the by-laws.

Page 3 Panel 4:

Captain America: "My First priority is to reassemble a team. I've got a proposition for you, fella. How would you, Dennis Dunphy, alias Demolition Man, like to be an Avengers?"

Demolition Man: "Wh-what?! ME?! An A-A-Avengers?! Sure, but --"

Avengers Vol. 1 Annual 11 By-laws

§2.B.2. "Candidates for membership must be nominated by one active member in good standing at a regular or special meeting. Election for membershp must be held within one week or nomination and be attended by a simple majority of active members. A two-thirds vote is necessary for election to membership."

§2.B.7. "Active Avengers may take a leave of absence for any reason simply by notifying the Chairman/woman of said intent.

§2.B.7.a. "Active Avengers may choose to accept status as either a reservist or an inactive Avengers."

The Captain's statement (quoted above) of taking a leave of absence meaning having choosen either reservist or inactive status This (bylaw §2.B.7) and C.A. 349 pg.2 panel 1, Page 2 Panel 2 and thought balloon supports my position of Captain being a reservist. §2.B.2 (requiring an active member to nominate), the reservist status of The Captain and the less direct question of whether or not D-Man would like to an Avenger; it is clear that not even an official nomination has accured. Spshu (talk) 05:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I took D-Man off of the roster listing since his status is very much up in the air right now. I assume one of youse guys will put him back, but I just wanted to mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.251.232 (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Move evidence -- "Group Afiliation: former member of the Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation, Former partner of Captain America, unofficial member of the Avengers"

"Demolition-Man searched for the Captain and finally located him on Avengers Island, formerly known as Hydrobase (see Avengers Hydrobase). Seeking reorganized the Avengers, which had disbanded shortly before, the Captain unofficially inducted Demolition-Man as the team's first new member." Source: Peter Sanderson (w), Josef Rubinstein (i). "Demolition-Man" The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 24-25 (August 1989). Marvel Comics. Spshu (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted this questions to the users on newsarama(a popular comic book website) and this was the response:

Is D-Man a.k.a. Demolition Man an "official" Avenger?

I am having a heated argument with some people on the Avengers wiki page about his status. So vote away!

View Poll Results: Is D-Man legit?

Yes 24 82.76% No 1 3.45% Unsure 4 13.79%

I know it isn't "offical" but I thought the results were interesting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I found poll and you are right it does not mean a thing as it is subjective not objective. You don't even refer to the sourced information here. Even Kurt Busiek's post does not mean a thing. You must have verifiable information. As pointed out above just because some one assists the Avengers, wants to be a member, show up in an Avengers comicbook or mistakenly believe that they are a member (like Morgan LeFay or Kurt Busiek) doesn't make them an Avengers. Spshu (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're actually claiming the statements of Kurt Busiek, the guy who wrote THE AVENGERS, aren't valid? Are you joking? The guy who wrote Avengers 1-56, Avengers Forever, and JLA/Avengers.....he is "mistaken"??? I can't think of a higher authority on the subject!!! It's a comic book! It isn't "real"!! The word of a guy who wrote a huge amount of Avengers comics is as "real" as it is going to get. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this is exactly what Kurt had to say on the subject:

"D-Man's an inactive Avenger.

He was offered membership by Cap, he accepted, he's a member. He was on the books, he returned to help out in the Morgan Conquest, he's an Avenger."

Kurt Busiek repeated THREE TIMES that Demolition Man is legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Sanderson, official Marvel Handbook researcher/writer & Marvel employee and the Avengers By-Laws (that governed that period) say other wise as above sources. The Captain only asked if D-Man would like to be a member clearly understanding that he had no authority to make D-Man a member given the West Coast team was still active and he was at best at reserve status. You might want to reread this whole section on D-Man to get up to speed on the discussion. By the way Kurt Busiek did not write issues 1-56 of The Avengers (Vol.1 -- since you did not specify a vol. that means you are refering to Vol.1) Stan Lee and Roy Thomas wrote those issues. Just because some one was tapped to write the Avengers doesn't mean they understand the Avengers concept. Daredevil and Human Torch(John Storm) both appeared to help during Avengers Disassembled that does not mean that they are members! This is the Avengers not a nonteam. Spshu (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now you're just being obtuse. I meant Avengers Vol. 3 1-56. And no, just because someone wrote the Avengers doesn't make them an authority on the subject. But Kurt Busiek is. If you're at all familiar with The Avengers, you know he is. If you try to state otherwise, you're just being willfully ignorant. I'm fully up to speed on the discussion, thanks. But all you keep doing is repeating this stuff about "by laws" like it isn't all just made up!! Sometimes you have to use the best available resources. Which I would definitely consider Busiek to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 15:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You sure act as if you are not up on the discussion. If Busiek understood the Avengers, he would know about the By-Laws and the Marvel Handbook entry, incorporated team (Avengers) vs. non-team (Defenders pre-124) vs. family style teams (Fantastic Four), etc. The By-Laws, the Marvel Handbook and the on comic page accurances are the best available resources which support me. Consulting Busiek is not the best available resource and nor are you the authority to make him an auhtority on the subject. You are the one being willfully ignorant (probably the source of my believe that you are not up on the discussion). If this is "all just made up!!" then this should not matter to you what so ever and stop misediting the article. Spshu (talk) 15:37, 12 March

2008 (UTC)

Alright partner. You're the one misediting the article, not me. But you just keep doing it and I'll keep correcting you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlamBurger (talk | contribs) 15:42, 12 March 2008

No you have no verifiable sources, mine are. A Wikipedia administrator has also been reversing your and other nonregistered edit back to my position. Spshu (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Your "sources" are decades old! The Avengers were totally disbanded in the wake of Onslaught. Kurt Busiek wrote the comic book under which the team was reorganized. He says D-Man is a legitimate member. Your sources are all woefully out of date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 16:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I'm confused. The page is now locked? But the article about semi-protection states:

Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes.

Isn't that exactly what is happening here? A content dispute? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlamBurger (talk • contribs) 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Busiek stated: "He was offered membership by Cap, he accepted, " which the only case that is show is Captain America Volume 1 #349 which was discussed above; no one has offered another instance where this has happened on page thus the use of the by-laws of that time. Busiek stated: "He was on the books," which sounds like he was working from someone else's list (in which he was mistaken added) instead of becoming knowledge about the Avengers membership. Busiek stated: "he returned to help out in the Morgan Conquest, he's an Avenger." but so did Rage who is not a member as he was underage when he attempted to joined. Justice and Firestar help too but were not consider members until Avengers Vol.3 #4 (according to current wiki data). With each reorganization usually they start out with the membership from the previous corporation.

As far as the semi-protection, you should note the word "solely" in your quote of the page, ie. an administrator can just add an semi-protection just cause they don't like unregistered or new users; some sort of disruption like continual editing with out a source or not waiting for a consus in a content dispute like you & the other IP editors (74.69.248.48 & 74.69.251.232) would warrant a semi-protection. Spshu (talk) 18:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting Kurt Busiek isn't familiar with Avengers history? Have you read any Avengers comics?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The protection was not preemptive, considering that there is a very real chance of disruptive editing, which repeatedly changing content to agree with a unsourced opinion, certainly is. If you could produce reliable evidence to support your position, fine. Otherwise, trust me, any registered users who continue to revert like you have, without prior consensus, are subject to being blocked, and I could always fully protect the page were such to happen. However, I certainly hope that will not happen. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm just confused as to what you consider "reliable" evidence. I mean, I've got the guy who has wrote the sole Demolition Man appearances in an Avengers comic verifying his status. It doesn't get any more concrete than that. Versus someone citing comic books that are anywhere from 15-30 years old, when there have been countless status changes to the way the Avengers operates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I just re-read Avengers #305 and the list of who and who isn't an Avenger needs even more clean-up. Captain America clearly states that The Thing, Hellcat, Firebird, Moondragon are all "real" Avengers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The exact quote would be useful, and the context in which it was made, to determine whether he was simply paying them respect or officially stating that they are official members. There is a difference. "Real" and "official" are not necessarily the same thing. John Carter (talk) 23:04, 12 March

2008 (UTC)

In the context of a meeting of what seemed to be most of the actively adventuring Avengers at the time(including the aforementioned characters)-

Captain America: "At one time or another each and every one of you has been an Avenger. Some for a long time, some for only a short while. As chairman of the East Coast branch of the team, what I want to propose to you is this: A permanent consolidation of all members. The Avengers are The Avengers. Not two teams. Not three. One. Everyone who has been an Avenger will always be an Avenger."

To which every Avenger present affirms with "So say we all!"

So he is saying that several character who this list claims as non-members clearly were members. And even if they weren't before issue 305, they certainly were after that point. The specific characters this affects in regards to member status in this wiki are:

Moondragon Hellcat Firebird The Thing

Who are all shown as being present at the meeting.

I think that adds weight to my argument that D-Man is an Avenger, since the characters listed above are clearly also members of the Avengers and the editor of the wiki didn't seem to think they were worthy of inclusion for some reason. Captain America considered D-Man to be an Avenger and the actions taken by Captain America in 305 would have rendered him an "official member".74.69.248.48 (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Spshu is aware of the events of Avengers 305 but has expressed distaste for what transpired in that issue. So he knows full well the above characters are members. Since he seems to be the guy doing most of the upkeep on this wiki page it certainly smacks of "POV editing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlamBurger (talk • contribs) 23:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Captain America: "At one time or another each and every one of you has been an Avenger. Some for a long time, some for only a short while." -- An incorrect assumsion as clear as day the Thing (WCA 9-10) never joined nor Firebird. You can assume that he has not been full up to date on the active of the Avengers while he was fight the Commission as the Captain.

Captain America: "As chairman of the East Coast branch of the team, what I want to propose to you is this:" --There is a West Coast team that should be consider the main branch as the East Coast branch cessed operation in Avengers 297 and the East Coast team may be in some sort of probationary period based on how Hawkeye when setting up the West Coast team answered to Vision, the then East Coast chair, then when the Wasp returned, Hawkeye & the Wasp were interacting at a equal level. So there is the question whether Captain America had any authority to call said meeting.

"A permanent consolidation of all members." -- No indication that this effects D-Man or the others. Seems to be a generalization.

"The Avengers are The Avengers. Not two teams. Not three. One." -- Indicates this is to merge the two teams. It could imply with "not three" to include the Great Lake Avengers (or the Fantastic Four). Given no one has concluded this, I will assume not. Still no effect on the those in question.

"Everyone who has been an Avenger will always be an Avenger." -- Still that a member is a member that has been the policy before the members just accepted other membership status: detached, reserve and inactive. Two were expelled -- Iron Man and Yellowjacket -- which the only way to full leave the Avengers. It would seem to leave the question since they returned to the Avengers under questionable situations: Pym under a different indentity and Stark as Ironman with out revelving his indentity. This would make them elgible to be members again.

No where does this address the issue of the non-members. So no I don't know "full well the above characters are members". This motion of Cap. America still keeps those that are not official members from being official members. Spshu (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

C'mon guy. Now you're questioning the validity of the actions of the characters in the comic books. As much as you may dislike Avengers issue 305, it clearly makes official members of, at the very least, those Avengers present you list as "nom members". The idea that Captain America didn't have the authority to call such a meeting is laughable, since both east, west coast and many reserve members were present.SlamBurger (talk) 22:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the least it does is to merge the two teams. There was alot of uncertain with that Avengers Vol.1 issue 305 there for you can't draw much in the way of conclusion like you wish. I took the motion apart and though about it logically and presented it to you. It does not in any way make anyone that was not a member before a member plain and simple. If you can not deal with the facts move on. I said it was "questionable" not certain about Captain America's authority to call a meeting. Many would come out of respect any ways. As I point out before using this issue as any proof is pointless as you cannot draw any conclusion about it as it is vague. That is the point about bringing up the questionability of the ability of calling a meeting.

And far as his appearence in Volume 3 issue 1-3

Kurt Busiek (w), Al Vey (i). "Once an Avengers" Avengers, vol. 3, no. 1 (February 1998).Avengers Vol. 3 No. 1

Inside cover fold out - Member list

Beast, Binary, Black Knight, Black Panther, Black Widow, Captain America, Crystal, Darkhawk, Falcon, Firebird, Giant-Man, Hawkeye, Hercules, Hulk, Iron Man, Edwin Jarvis, Living Lightning, Machine Man, Moondragon, Moon Knight, Photon, Quasar, Quicksilver, Rage, Sandman, Scarlet Witch, She-Hulk, Spider-Man, Starfox, Sub-Mariner, Sersi, Stingray, Swordsman II, Magdalene, Thor, Tigra, U.S. Agents, Vision, Wasp, Demolition Man, Rick Jones

This list includes Jarvis, Rick Jones, Rage, Stingray, Swordsman II and Magdalene are clearly not members but are listed. Page 22 panel 4-5 Jarvis: "Oh, Yes Ma'am. That's D-Man -- "He was made an Avenger by Captain America himself." -- Which all things considering refers to Captain America Vol.1 No. 349 page 25 Panel 1 Iron Man: "I agree, Jan, of the members and honoraries we haven't from -- virtually all of them are deceased, in another time period, or just plain enigmas." (bolding is mine)-- Clear that they are call in beyond official members. So his appearance here does not prove anything as there are honorary not official members. So scratch Avengers 305 & Avengers Vol. 3 No. 1 as any sort of proof. Spshu (talk) 03:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, well I'm done dealing with you. You are obviously the type who can't accept being incorrect. Hopefully we can work out the inaccuracy issues on this wiki page without too much interference from you.SlamBurger (talk) 04:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but you can not dismiss me from the discussion. I make my arguments based on primary sources as best I can. All you do is "hand wave" away my sources. Spshu (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Guy....let's be honest. You're the guy doing the "hand waving" here. I keep bringing up point after point and all you counter with is "that doesn't count". Apparently a back-up feature in an annual and an entry in a handbook are your sole sources. I prefer to go on what actually occured in the stories.SlamBurger (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

How about Avengers Annual 2000? Hellcat refers to herself as a reserve member and Moondragon states, to Captain America and Iron Man, no less: "I am an Avenger, am I not? Inactive, but with full privileges, including the right to call on the team in an emergency? Very well."

Where did she get that idea? How can no one have a correct idea about who is an Avenger, not even the characters themselves, except Spshu?SlamBurger (talk) 21:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Avengers Spotlight #29. Firebird, Captain Marvel, Moondragon, Black Widow and Hellcat are all seen and named on the cover with the other text reasing "The reserve Avengers against the AWESOME ANDROID". Reserve. Not honorary. Not unofficial. Reserve.SlamBurger (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue is after Avengers Vol.1 issue 305 which as pointed out is vague in its by-law admendment motion. I can't confirm what any one status is after that issue do to its vagueness or even the reserve status is valid any more. It does not name on the cover who they think is a reserve status member. It could just refer to Captain Marvel and Black Widow. They have been flexible with a story featuring the then villianous Yellowjacket II. The editors indicated that they could stretch the concept to include honoraries (like Rick Jones, who go a story in Solo/Spotlight) and friends of the Avengers. Heck they feature a story with Guardsmens at the Vault to kick of Acts of Vengenances (basic an Avengerless story). Spshu (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as Avengers Annual 2000, no one seem to response to Moondragon and given there are no published by-laws for that time it is dificult to determine anything from that "statement". This also supports the possibility that Captain America was not neccessarily correct in who he invited to the meeting in Avengers 305. Spshu (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, guy. Have it your way.SlamBurger (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible semi-protection?

Considering the ongoing disruption to this page, would anyone object to semi-protecting it so only established users can edit it? John Carter (talk) 18:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would object. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.251.232 (talk) 19:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't object. What does a semi-protect do? Spshu (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think its when a page is protected from "unregistered" users editing an article (ie people whose IP address is visible) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So far, 1 for and 1 against semi-protection, with me personally also being in favor at least until certain matters are resolved. Anyone else? John Carter (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I say thee aye :) StarSpangledKiwi (talk)

19:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

So I'll have to register to change the page? Because I know no one else will stand up for D-Man.

Actually I sided with y'all but the back and forth is just tedious. Though I'd prefer a complete protection until a consensus can be made StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with StarSpangledKiwi that it should be a complete protection until consensus can be had, which with the willfully ignorant that the newly registered SlamBurger towards all my sources and the lack of him, I assume this will be a long time before it is unprotected. Spshu (talk) 15:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Getting complete protection doesn't make you right, nor does citing 20-30 year old sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And providing no reliable sources at all certainly doesn't make you right. If you can provide a reliable source, trust me, it would be changed based on that source. But to date you haven't provided anything but, basically, regularly POV vandalism. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh....I've got the guy who wrote the sole Avengers appearances of D-Man confirming his status, characters in-book(Avengers vol. 3 issue 1) cofirming his status. What exactly would be required beyond that? That isn't my point of view. It's the FACTS of the Marvel Universe. Not everything can happen "on panel". But the architects confirming that these things did indeed happen is pretty compelling evidence as far as I can tell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you're saying. If you are saying that you are Kurt Busiek, fine, if you can confirm that. However, to date, all we have is a statement from that author, who did not author the story in question, stating an opinion regarding an earlier story. That's not bad, but to date it seemingly hasn't been officially followed up on by anyone, including Busiek. People make mistakes, and Busiek may have made one here. While that does indicate that his membership might be open to question, it does not indicate that he was ever official. Right now, the evidence is, internally, that D-Man was not offered membership by a qualified individual, and externally that a later writer disagrees with that. That leaves the matter at best open to question. Certainly, it can be indicated in the text that some have indicated that D-Man might be an official member, possibly in a footnote, but it probably would be a mistake to go any further than that. I personally think that he might be listed as "disputed", which wouldn't be unreasonable, but I'm not sure that the statement of a later writer in an interview, where presumably he didn't have sources in front of him, would necessarily qualify as proof. Close, yes, but possibly not still proof. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not Kurt Busiek. I merely asked him about the D-Man situation yesterday. How about a long-time editor of the Avengers title? I've got an email out to Tom Brevoort now. He's been editing the Avengers titles for around 12 years. Would him confirming the status of D-Man be enough for inclusion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics regarding this matter. Brevoort's comments, if they're not included in any sort of officially published statement, might be questionable, as at least theoretically the e-mail might not be from him, I don't know. Then again, they might be. Let's wait for their response. However, I might request that the e-mail be delayed, until we can go about determining who should receive it and how, if it can be used as an official source. If all we're going to be able to go on is a private e-mail, that might not qualify. Maybe other things might, I don't know, but I'd wait for input from people more knowledgable about such things than me. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom just responded to my email. This is what he had to say on the subject, keep in mind, this man has been the editor of The Avengers comic book for over 12 years.

This is my message to him:

Hello Tom,

I was wondering if you could help me out for a second. Since you're a knowledgeable guy on all thing Marvel-related. On the Avengers wikipedia page I have a guy insisting Demolition Man isn't an "official" Avengers since he was never shown as being voted in according to the by-laws and all that jazz. I saw induction by Captain America and his later showing up in Avengers 1-3 are more than enough for him to qualify. Any light you can shed on the subject would be majorly appreciated. Thank you.

This was his reply:

Captain America offered him membership and he accepted when Cap was the only standing Avenger. He counts.

Tom B —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC) So what's the good word here? I think I've gone above and beyond the call of duty to prove my points here.SlamBurger (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tom B (if this is Tom Brevoort) is clearly incorrect. The Captain was not the "only standing Avenger"; there was a whole team called the West Coast Avengers. "I saw induction by Captain America and his later showing up in Avengers 1-3 are more than enough for him to qualify." refering to Captain America 349 which was only asking D-Man if he would like to be an Avengers and once again the Avengers is not a nonteam showing up is not enough. Rage showed up in Avengers Vol.3 1-3 and is not a member do to the fact he is underaged. I don't think there is any good word here, there is nothing verifiable. Spshu (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was Tom Brevoort. The man who has edited the Avengers titles for 12 years. He doesn't know Avengers history as well as you do. Neither does Kurt Busiek? How many more experts will have to be contacted for you to understand you're incorrect? Stan Lee? Roy Thomas? Mark Gruenwald is deceased, sadly, or I'd contact him as well.SlamBurger (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

But it is not verifiable, I only have your word, which based on based on your posting here have been detrimental to believing you. Spshu (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

How exactly is my word not believable? Because I corrected your erroneous wiki page? That I have Kurt Busiek and Tom Brevoort agreeing with me and you're clinging to a back-up feature in an annual from 20 years ago as your sole "proof" of anything?SlamBurger (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not verifiable as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, unfortunately, We can't say with absolute confidence that the source of the messages you indicate was from Brevoort actually is from Brevoort, as we don't have any verifiable source to use. I'm not doubting your word, mind you, but it still isn't at this point vindependently verifiable. If someone could get him to put a statement to that effect on the message boards or in his blog, though, then it might be different.John Carter (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect Slamburger, I have three sources, Captain America 349, Avengers Annual 11 By-Laws and "Demolition-Man" article in The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe vol. 3, #2 (August 1989). Spshu (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait....how does Captain America 349 prove your point? Demolition Man is made a member in that issue.SlamBurger (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a final word on the status of D-Man, Moondragon and Firebird I moved them to their proper "members" sections. I waited on Hellcat and Thing since there seems to be some issue with them, still.SlamBurger (talk) 01:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Avengers Annual 17 (1988)

Page 3

Panel 1 Caption: Hydro Base -- the operational base of the Might Avengers.. Since their arrival, it has been a bee-hive of activity. But today there is no activity. Today, Hydro Base sits mute beneath the noonday sun. For Today, there are no Avengers.* *See Avengers #297 for the depressing details!

Panel 2 Caption: Then, in all the great complex, a lone computer bank begins to sing... ...Processing information recevied concerning a single telephone call.

Panel 3 Caption: Various options are retrieved...

Computer display: Avengers - Current - None

Caption: ...Examined... ... Evaluated...

Panel 4 Caption: ...and finally acted upon.

Computer display: Activate Reserve

Panel 5 caption: Time passes... ... until finally... ... there is a response...

Computer display: Four faces indetermine

Page 4

Panel 1 Caption: ...Pershaps the best of all possible responses!

The Captain: "Empty! Not a soul on the entire island! Then who ... or what ... sent out the emergency call to activate any reserve members? And what has happened to the active Avengers?

Computer voice: Please identify yourself.

Panel 2

The Captain: "The Captain, formerly Captain America. You've initated a code one emergency. Why?"

Computer voice: Voice print identification confirmed. Report follows. An unidentified caller logged in at 03:43 hours on a former Avengers line. Recording follows."

Call play back: =squiik= "The genetic bomb..." squarrk "Evolutionary ..." squarrk

The Captain: "But that sounded like --?"

Panel 3

Computer voice: "Voice print I.D. uncertain due to line interference. There is a 47.39% probability suggesting caller identification as Jocasta, former Avenger, now deceased."

The Captain: "Impossible. She's not just decease, she was vaporized."

Page 7

Panel 4

Beast: "He got better. But I've promised him, as an avenger, our silence about his current improve condition..."

Panel 5

Beast: ".. in exchange for the loan of his unique physical gifts in whatever enterprise we reservists are to embark upon.* A Code one emergency is of the Highest import."

Captain America Vol. 1 No. 349

Page 1 Panel 1

Caption: For the second time in less than a week, Steve Roger, the original Captain America, storms the beach of Hydro-Base, the artificial island that served as the Headquarters of the once mighty Avengers!

The Captain though balloon: If I'd known I'd have to swim the thre miles ot get here, I wound't have been so quick to let the Beast borrow the quinjjet to drop off the Reserve Avengers --"*

Caption: * If you figured out that this story take place right after Avengers Annual #18. Go the head of the class--! (Except that it is Annual 17)

Captain America Vol. 1 No. 349 "Icecap"

Page 2 Panel 1: The Captain's thought balloon: "The Avengers apparently disbanded while I was on leave. I wonder what happened*. Thor, She-Hulk, Dr. Druid, Namor, the Back Knight.. I Couldn't reach a single one to even ask!" * See Avengers 291-297

Page 2 Panel 2: The Captain's thought balloon: "I've hereby resolved to challenge the Commission on Superhuman activites and settle our difference, furthermore, I'm determined to resurrect the Avengers!" "As the High Evolutionary affair dramatically demonstrated, the world still needs Avengers!"

This indicates that the East Coast team has not been official reformed under the by-laws.

Page 3 Panel 4:

Captain America: "My First priority is to reassemble a team. I've got a proposition for you, fella. How would you, Dennis Dunphy, alias Demolition Man, like to be an Avengers?"

Demolition Man: "Wh-what?! ME?! An A-A-Avengers?! Sure, but --"

Avengers Vol. 1 Annual 11 By-laws

§2.B.2. "Candidates for membership must be nominated by one active member in good standing at a regular or special meeting. Election for membershp must be held within one week or nomination and be attended by a simple majority of active members. A two-thirds vote is necessary for election to membership."

§2.B.7. "Active Avengers may take a leave of absence for any reason simply by notifying the Chairman/woman of said intent.

§2.B.7.a. "Active Avengers may choose to accept status as either a reservist or an inactive Avengers."

The Captain's statement (quoted above) of taking a leave of absence meaning having choosen either reservist or inactive status This (bylaw §2.B.7) and C.A. 349 pg.2 panel 1, Page 2 Panel 2 and thought balloon supports my position of Captain being a reservist. §2.B.2 (requiring an active member to nominate), the reservist status of The Captain and the less direct question of whether or not D-Man would like to an Avenger; it is clear that not even an official nomination has accured. Spshu (talk) 05:45, 2 March

More evidence -- "Group Afiliation: former member of the Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation, Former partner of Captain America, unofficial member of the Avengers"

"Demolition-Man searched for the Captain and finally located him on Avengers Island, formerly known as Hydrobase (see Avengers Hydrobase). Seeking reorganized the Avengers, which had disbanded shortly before, the Captain unofficially inducted Demolition-Man as the team's first new member." Source: Peter Sanderson (w), Josef Rubinstein (i). "Demolition-Man" The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 24-25 (August 1989). Marvel Comics. Spshu (talk) 03:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional, Solo Avengers 15 (Feb. 1989) Mark's Remarks (see membership list section) does even mention Demolition Man while it mentions Mr. Fantastic and Invisible Woman. Spshu (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Questions about the membership wrangling

Just to try and get some clarification out of this... could we get some simple, straight forward answers to the following:

1. Are interpretations of the primary sources being used to include/exclude characters from the list? (Such as: stating emphasis in text that isn't there in print; assuming context; arbitrarily (or otherwise) clarifying ambiguous passages; and so on.)
2. Are unverifiable sources being dragged in such as personal e-mails and forum postings?
3. Are there secondary (interviews and/or critical analysis) and tertiary (other reference works) that are being cited that are in conflict?

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1. I believe that is what other usrs on this talk page are guilty of and I'm sure they'd accuse me of the same thing.

2.I have personal emails from Kurt Busiek(writer, Avengers 1-56) and Tom Brevoort(Avengers editor for over 12 years)backing up my claims. Is there any way I can have them made "official" in the wikipedia annals?SlamBurger (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

3. The entire argument of the other user is based on a reference that is over 20 years old and may very well no longer be applicable to the discussion.SlamBurger (talk) 04:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Some comments...

1. I'm not asking for finger pointing. I'm asking about a generality: Has it happened? Yes or no. If it has, then each editor bringing a primary source to the debate needs to step back and ask themselves "Am I slanting this? Am I putting in something that isn't there to sell my point?"
2. Bluntly? No. Please remember this is not a shot at you, but personal e-mails and forum posts aren't considered reliable because they can be faked. If you are on good terms with Busiek, Brevoort, or any comic creator, ask them is they remember mentioning what your asking about in a published interview. And if so, where you can find it. Such an interview would be considered more reliable than the e-mail.
3. That's not quite what I'm asking. The age of a source does not immediately invalidate it. Nor does it being in conflict with other sources. Where secondary and, if usable, tertiary sources are in conflict neutrality would have us provide both statements. The same goes for primary sources for fiction, but with a twist or two: retcons should be noted as such and acknowledged goofs become foot notes (bottom of the article) not material in the "Notes" column of the table. - J Greb (talk) 04:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm done trying to get anyone to see logic regarding these issues. I'm not going to harass busy comic book writers and editors further about the minutia of team memberships. It's a shame this page will remain totally inaccurate because of one user.SlamBurger (talk) 13:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

So if I edit the page to reflect the correct membership status of Hellcat, Moondragon, Thing and Firebird will that be considered "pov editing"? Is there some kind of final arbitration that is done to settle issues like these?SlamBurger (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Trying to keeping it simple:

• What are you basing the addition off of?
• If you were to quote the source, would you have to add emphasis, leave out sections, or or explain how you drew the conclusion to support the addition
• Is the source verifiable?

- J Greb (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to move the aforementioned characters(Hellcat,Moondragon,Thing,Firebird) from the "non-member" section and add them to the "member" section. I'm basing it off of the fact that the current listing is incorrect.
• No, I am basing it on issue #305 of the Avengers comic. Captain America calls a meeting of the membership. He clearly states in the issue, where the above characters are seen, that all members present are Avengers. Not honoraries, not provisionals, Avengers.
• Yes, it's in a comic book published by Marvel. You can pick it up on ebay or a used comic book store.SlamBurger (talk) 19:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Yes. I try not to slanted primary sources and I try to get the source to stand on its own. I got three sources to back each other up. Slamburger & co. also are dismiss of primary sources do to how long ago it was.

Avengers Vol. 1 issue 305 is where SlamBurger is "interpretations of the primary sources being used to include/exclude characters from the list? (Such as: stating emphasis in text that isn't there in print; assuming context; arbitrarily (or otherwise) clarifying ambiguous passages; and so on.)" I have show that issue's motion does not do anything definite except merge the two teams. Slamburger would have to arbitrarily decide what the motion means to have D-Man or any of the other be official members because of that issue.

2. Yes, SlamBurger brought in forum posts and email.

3. Yes, an entry at an Avengers fan site list D-Man as an inactive member, two other wikis (and another source I can find right away) all secondary or tertiary sources conflict with two primary source Captain America 349, Avengers Annual 11 By-Laws and 1 secondary: "Demolition-Man" article in The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe vol. 3, #2 (August 1989). Spshu (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not trying to twist or decide anything. The characters(Moondragon,Firebird,Thing,Hellcat) are all clearly seen in that issue, which is a MEETING of Avengers. If they aren't official Avengers, why are they allowed to vote on a motion set forth by Captain America? Why would they even be at the meeting in the first place? Even if for some absurd reason they weren't Avengers before the events of that issue, they certainly were afterwards. You're the one trying to come up with reasons why they would be there instead of accepting the fact that they ARE THERE. I'm quoting you here:

"Captain America: "At one time or another each and every one of you has been an Avenger. Some for a long time, some for only a short while." -- An incorrect assumsion as clear as day the Thing (WCA 9-10) never joined nor Firebird. You can assume that he has not been full up to date on the active of the Avengers while he was fight the Commission as the Captain."

You can lawyer-ball this thing all you want, but I have no intention of resting until this wiki entry is correct. I emailed Brevoort asking him to address the issue in his blog on Marvel.com. That would settle the D-Man issue once and for all, I hope.

I still question your use of the by-laws from Avengers Annual 11 as definitive proof considering how many times the Avengers have been reorganized and their operating procedures tweaked. I mean, the charter says that there needs to be a 2/3 vote of the membership for a character to receive membership? Can you cite what issue these votes occured for every character listed in the "member" section? If not, how can we know for certain they are even members? Take Ant-Man(Scott Lang) for example. I don't remember any vote on page. Heck, all I know of is Wasp inviting him to be a member. Same as Cap did with D-Man!!! Why does Wasp count and not Cap in this matter? Consider this quote from Avengers #329 when they are reorganizing under a U.N. charter: Sub-Mariner- "What good does it do to argue revisions to our bylaws when the U.S. government has seen fit to revoke our charter"? That passage was published in a comic book dated Febuary 1991, so I think it would be kind of silly to assume the charter in place would be the same as it was in 1982. SlamBurger (talk) 17:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to question. However, please also read the two relevant policy pages, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliability, which I already directed you to on your user talk page. You are drawing conclusions based on the apparent evidence. The conclusions are I think logical. However, we are not allowed to draw conclusions on the basis of our own WP:Original research, and drawing any conclusion is original research, which is prohibited. I do think that a statement from Brevoort on either his blog or the Marvel message boards in an official capacity, possibly regarding all of these parties, would be acceptable. Would anyone have any objections to my sending him a follow-up e-mail regarding this matter, and, if not, what kind of specific phrasing do you think would be relevant? John Carter (talk) 18:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to send Brevoort a message. What I don't understand is the whole "original research" angle. I mean, some things on a page like this are going to have to be extrapolations based on the available data. I was playing Devil's Advocate on, for example, the Ant-Man issue. I think he's a member. I'm sure Spshu think he is a member. But how do we know he is a member if he wasn't shown to be a member using the criteria that Spschu is using to deny the membership status of other characters? That is to say, based on the charter as seen in Avengers Annual #11.SlamBurger (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In that case, if he was formally made a member by a member in good standing at the time, or if at any time Lang was individually referred to as a formally recognized member by a creator in a verifiable source, then, actually, that would be preferable to the in-universe explanations. If anyone is ever actually formally explicitly described as being a formally enrolled member (yes, the legalistic terminology is probably required) by a reliable source on the message boards or elsewhere, that would also be among the preferable options. In this case, however, the verifiability issues are a bit of a problem. If I am going to send such a message though, which other individuals are of questionable status? We could ask him to clear them all up at the same time. John Carter (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See, that wasn't exactly my point. I really don't think a guy who has an extremely busy job as an editor at Marvel Comics has the time to go down a list of who exactly is and isn't an "offical" member of The Avengers. My point is that Avengers Annual 11 shouldn't be used as some sort of benchmark of who and who isn't an "offical" member of the team because so many characters that are considered "official" members wouldn't hold up to the scrutiny of having their status put up against the Avengers Annual 11 charter "check list".SlamBurger (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

We fairly often ask for expert opinions here, when that is the only way to resolve questions. It should be noted that that source is in a sense the only "official" document we have regarding individuals who are not clearly and explicitly stated to be members in good standing elsewhere, so it is our best current source on those individuals. And I've "bothered" people who are probably busier than him in the past and gotten generally favorable responses. We are, after all, probably one of the first sites that comes up in these matters, so it's in their interests to ensure we're accurate too. John Carter (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to denigrate wikipedia, I know it is a valuable resource many people use. I'm merely stating that I'd feel like I was pestering someone over something most people would view as a fairly insignificant matter. But feel free to contact him yourself. I'm sure it would carry more weight coming from someone who has an official standing within the wiki orginazation.SlamBurger (talk) 20:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I spoke with Tom through newsarama.com, which is a popular comic book website. I'm not sure what his "official" email address is. A quick search brought me the following:

tom@silverbulletcomicbooks.com kitchent@aol.com

If neither of those work out and you can't find it, I'd be happy to forward him a message from you on newsarama, asking him to get in touch with you via his "offical" email address.SlamBurger (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

D-Man is an Avenger. He was offered and accepted membership by Captain America at a time when Cap comprised the entirety of the Avengers team. So joined CAPTAIN AMERICA #349 (1989) Moondragon is an Avenger. She became a probationary member in AVENGERS #137, a full member in AVENGERS #151 Firebird is an Avenger, largely through a mistake. She joined prior to AVENGERS #305. Apparently, either John Byrne or the editor, Howard Mackie, thought that she'd joined in West Coast Avengers, and had her activate as part of the total membership summons. But since she responded to that summons, she must have been made a member at some point. Thing is an Avenger. He joined in WEST COAST AVENGERS #9, even though he didn't immediately take part in an adventure. Hellcat is an Avenger, though never a full member. She became a probationary member in AVENGERS #148, a reserve member in AVENGERS #151. All of this info is culled from the AVENGERS CASEBOOK 1999, which includes a full and annotated roster up till that time, researched and disected by Kurt Busiek and myself. It's the best and most complete and accurate source concerning who is and is not an Avenger up to the point where it was published. ---- Tom Brevoort —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.202.37.6 (talk) 13:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well now that all of this is settled, would anyone mind if i got to editing?SlamBurger (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not settled. Captain America(C.A.) was the Captain in C.A. 349 and did not "comprised the entirety of the Avengers team", there was a whole West Coast team but no East Coast active team. The Thing took the offer in West Coast Avengers 9 but turned the membership down in West Coast Avengers 10 before a vote. That is not very accurate. Spshu (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, guy. We've got verifiable word from Tom Brevoort. I think you're done for in this matter. Let's not continue this needlessly. But you're right, let's see what John Carter has to say.SlamBurger (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I can verify that the above message is from Mr. Brevoort, if required, having received an e-mail from him with the virtually identical content. I will forward it to all interested parties at request. Also, it is worth noting that he cites an official source for the statements he makes, which as it is published by Marvel itself, I think has to be taken as the definitive source on the subject. It is worth noting that the people behind Marvel comics are, if anything, considered to be more reliable than the individual issues, and that this statement, citing an official source published by the same publisher, is, to my eyes, the final word on the matter. I will however ask J Greb, who's probably more involved with this subject than I am, to offer his opinion as well. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

On review

(Deliberately setting this off from the above to try and put things into perspective)

First off, to try and make something crystal clear: I had not posed my three questions with the intent for them to be an excuse to point fingers. I was hoping for simple "yes/no" answers that would give give both sides a chance to set the keyboard aside and evaluate exactly what they are bring to this discussion. To ask themselves if they need to rethink how they are presenting sources.

Now the nuts and bolts:

• D-Man

• Most of the discussion appears to be revolving around in story points and plot devices. With a good deal of reader interpretation on both sides.
• "Reliable, verifiable sources" is taking a beating through out the discussion. Just some reminders:

• e-mails — These are considered both unreliable and unverifiable. This is not to impugn anyone specifically, but based on the real concern that e-mails can be fabricated. When writing an entry for an encyclopedia that is enough to not cite the e-mail, but to look at what sources it's referencing.
• Forum posts — A half step up from e-mails. They have the same problems, though depending on the host site of the forum, the authorship may be verifiable.
• Fan sites and other Wikias — While they may contain verifiable information, without a site by site consensus they are considered unreliable, fan sites since they are generally considered self published and Wikias because anyone can edit.
• Blogs — Are a bit gray. If it can be verified that the attributed author is indeed the author, then a blog is a good source for that person's opinion and recollection, no more. Citing such comments is to cite an assertion, not necessarily a fact.

That leaves the standard primary, secondary, and tertiary sources:

• Primary — The comics themselves, with the text as printed. However much we as editors may love or hate a particular arc or issue, we don't get to pick and choose. if it's there, it's there.
• Secondary — Interviews with the writer(s), editor(s), and anyone else that would have had input into the stories. Also, critical reviews and commentaries on the stories, and generally not taken from self published sources.
• Tertiary — Other reference materials, in the case of this list that would be things like the OHOTMU.

• Looking at the reliable points that have been cited, it looks like we have:

• Steve Rogers offered D-Man membership in the Avengers, which D-Man accepted.
• D-Man operated as a member of the team that Rogers put together.
• Nothing has been put forward from a primary source clearly showing that the Rogers' team was not an "Avengers" team or that D-Man's membership was invalid.
• Avengers Casebook 1999 has been offered as a secondary source. That along with the Avengers pages of the various OHOTMU should be reviewed, as well as any other reliable secondary sources that can be found.

• The bottom line is that right now is that the sources support including the character within the members section.

• Moondragon — Based on the sourced information cited, the character should be in the members section.
• Firebird — Same here. And as an aside, this is also a prime example of why "Joined in" isn't the best column title. There are going to be cases where characters just appear as members of the team, no induction ceremony, no vote, no offer shown.
• Thing - Seems fine as is, but the note needs clarification based on the story points.
• Hellcat - Again, seems fine with the current tabling.
• Last thoughts... the "Non-Members" table needs a re work since it's a hodge podge or honorary, probationary, staff, and "other".

- J Greb (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm confused. If Hellcat and Thing are confirmed by Tom Brevoort as "official" members why would it be ok to leave them in the "nom-member" section? What sources are being used as a basis for that decision? Are you and John Carter in disagreement over whether Tom Brevoort is a verifiable source?SlamBurger (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I indicated in my original e-mail that a statement from Mr. Brevoort on either his blog (which I think is one that only he can use), or clearly from him on the message boards (again, would be from him), would help make it clear that he was the source. I was rather surprised by the e-mail myself and IP post myself. John Carter (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh since it was an e-mail sent to you it isn't verifiable? That's a bummer.SlamBurger (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Basically, that's it, yeah. We can't prove he wrote it, so it won't pass WP:VERIFIABILITY rules. John Carter (talk) 01:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Both Hellcat and Thing are odd balls:

• Thing, as pointed out, was offered and accepted, then the next issue withdrew rather than let the membership be ratified. That's an in story plot point. And it's at odds with Brevoort's assertion and secondary source.
• Hellcat, by the assertion and secondary source, never went beyond "probation".

This is part of why I think the "Non-Members" table needs a re work — there are characters in it that are members, either "of a type" or "in a way". Thing is a member in a way, and that needs a bit more explanation that it's getting right now. Hellcat is a probationary member, and should be grouped with the other like characters, not peppered through a longer list. - J Greb (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

So even if I got Tom Breevort to post basically the same thing as he did above in a public newsarama forum it wouldn't change that status of Thing and Hellcat? On the Hellcat issue, even though she was never a "full" member she was a reserve member, which is a lot more than "not being a true Avenger". Wouldn't Thing also be a member, since he responded to the "full membership summons" Tom mentioned as being the reason Firebird was a full member? I agree that the "non-member" sections needs work.SlamBurger (talk) 01:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can respond to a call for members. Hellcat, as a pure "probationary" member, never received full membership, although she could I guess be listed as a reserve member. Thing apparently basically turned down membership, and it's hard to imagine he would be counted a member against his own apparent wishes. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a call for members. Why would Thing respond to a call for members(Avengers 305) if he was never a member? As far as Hellcat being listed as a "reserve" member, that would be fine by me. Since a "reserve" member is a "true" Avengers member.SlamBurger (talk) 01:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Who knows the motivations of fictional characters who act strictly according to the whims of their writers and editors? My answer would be "because the writer put him there", for whatever his reasons were. However, as someone who was offered full membership, he probably would have been welcomed to such a meeting in any event, simply on that basis. John Carter (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Aren't we engaging in the kind of speculation that is frowned upon here? I'm merely saying, according to the logic presented by Tom Breevort in reference to Firebird being a member by virtue of being at the meeting in Avengers #305, so would The Thing.74.69.248.48 (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• Looking at the reliable points that have been cited, it looks like we have:

• Steve Rogers offered D-Man membership in the Avengers, which D-Man accepted.
• D-Man operated as a member of the team that Rogers put together.
• Nothing has been put forward from a primary source clearly showing that the Rogers' team was not an "Avengers" team or that D-Man's membership was invalid.
• Avengers Casebook 1999 has been offered as a secondary source. That along with the Avengers pages of the various OHOTMU should be reviewed, as well as any other reliable secondary sources that can be found.

• The bottom line is that right now is that the sources support including the character within the members section.

J Greb, I can offer to make you a millioniare that doesn't make you a millionaire does it? Other have "joined" the team using trickery (basically fraud) who are not listed as members but the nonmember section. Other have been offered one time through a tryout by Captain America, but we don't include them; I guess we will have to included them if we include D-Man. The question to D-Man was "How would you, Dennis Dunphy, alias Demolition Man, like to be an Avengers?" The team put together by Rogers was Thor, Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman and the Forgotten One in Avengers 300 unless you mean in his mission against ULITMATIUM and Flag Smasher, but then we would have to include Battlestar, no one is arguing that is the case. Or do you mean the Avengers team in Avengers Annual 17 of only Reserve and inactive members: Falcon, Hulk, Beast, The Captain and aided by a villianous Yellowjacket. Demolition-Man article in The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Volume 3 Issue = 2 Date August 1989 Publisher Marvel Comicswhich seems to gotten lost under forum posting and emails as a closer secondary source directly from the primary source publisher. Spshu (talk) 16:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thing

Source against membership for the Thing: see "Membership list" section below --Avengers Vol 1 Annual 15 1986, Solo Avengers 1's Mark's Remarks, Solo Avengers 15 (Feb. 1989) Mark's Remarks and West Coast Avengers Vol. 2 10 page 1 panel 1
Tigra: "So Benjy -- what changed your mind? Why are you joining our team?"
Thing: "Aw, Tigra, I ain't no loner after all those years with th Fantastic Four! i can never go back ta them after -- what happened back there -- But ya know, I just like bein' with People -- People who can hold up their end' any tussle we stumble inta -- an' I gotta admit Ya knew it all the time, Hawkeye! I've like Tigra a long time -- Iron Man even longer -- Wonder Man's gettin' world class in front'a my eyes -- Mock's got as much guts as she's got glamor -- "
Mockingbird: "Awwwwww..."
Thing: "-- an' -- well four outta five ain't Bad!"
Hawkeye: "That's it -- you're fired! NAH -- Just kiddin'! You're our sixth member, Benjy -- an' I wanna do an official ceremony for it, in front of all the Media --! How 'bout three Saturday Afternoon?"
Page 2 Panel 1: Hawkeye: "Where is he--?"
Page 3 Panel 1
Hawkeye: He said today at 3:00 was fine! I've got fifty guys with cameras out on the lawn -- and its 4:05 PM!"
page 8 Panel 1
Hawkeye: "-- But if you se 'im anywere, be sure to let us know!"
Mr. Fantastic: "Whatever you want! What's all the excitement about, though? Why are you looking for him?"
Hawkeye: "Oh, uh, didn't I mention that? He was, uh, gonna join our team out here!" Mr. Fantastic: "Join -- The Avengers --?"
page 8 Panel 6
Hawkeye: "Then I won't keep ya -- just called you to ask you to keep an eye out for the Thing if he shows up in New York! We were about an hour away from making him our final member, but he's done a disappearing act!"
Wasp: "The Thing -- ?" Spshu (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• This means nothing, since it can be interpreted in a vast number of ways. If you notice, Hawkeye is written as saying "You're our sixth member, Benjy". Englehert was playing with the audience a little throughout the early run of the WCA, injecting a humorous plot line into the background, a macguffin if you like to generate plots and link them together, possibly as a way of getting the obligatory guest appearances in in a natural manner. But that doesn't really matter. We can't pretend to know what those words do or don't mean, since Wikipedia policy firmly states that is not within our remit. It is your personal opinion that The Thing is not a member of The Avengers. Your personal opinion has no place on Wikipedia unless or until it is published in a source we consider reliable. Where primary source material is unclear, we fall back on secondary source. Do we have secondary sourcing which comments on The Thing's membership of The Avengers? If so, summarise them. Hiding T 14:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hiding, you are forgetting the rest of the sentence, you are interpreting. Official means official. It is not my opinion. You are failing to read the full sentence and taking out of context. The rest of the primary/secondary sources were list at the top. Spshu (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are also interpreting. Nowhere in the quotation is there anything even remotely resembling the word "official". All I see is a statement that, at that point, the Thing disappeared before he could be formally admitted. Which may be true. However, by definition, it cannot address events subsequent to that time, such as possibly a later acceptance of membership. And it is your opinion that the quotes are the final word on the subject, and an unverifiable opinion at that. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hawkeye: "That's it -- you're fired! NAH -- Just kiddin'! You're our sixth member, Benjy -- an' I wanna do an official ceremony for it, in front of all the Media --! How 'bout three Saturday Afternoon?"

I would bold the word official in this sentence but J Greb has taken objections with that.

Hawkeye: "Oh, uh, didn't I mention that? He was, uh, gonna join our team out here!"

Show a latter acceptance of membership, John Carter. Tom Beevort points to issue 9 and in effect 10, as that story picks up there, for the Things membership proof. He does not indicate another issue. This therefor is not my opinion but Tom's opinion that this is the point of offer. Until a future event is brought forth that directly address a new offer of membership to the Thing, which no one has, this is the best in accuracy that we can get. Spshu (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I am not misunderstanding what interpretation means. My position is that the issue is unclear. Your position in that the issue is crystal clear. As I have shown above, the source contradicts itself. The Thing is made a member of the team, with an official ceremony to present that membership scheduled, at which The Thing fails to attend. How this affects The Thing's membership is unclear. Later writers and secondary sources interpret the events differently. It appears you are attempting to state your interpretation is the correct one. I am stating that it is not our job to interpret the sources at all, only to present them and allow the reader to evaluate. The reader of our article needs to form their own opinion based upon the information in the same way you have. We do not present our own reading of the facts within an article. We present the facts and allow the reader to reach their own conclusions. Each reader should decide whether The Thing was a member of the Avengers for themselves, we should not decide for them. I am arguing to give them their right, the right our policies enshrine. Do you wish that readers be free to draw their own conclusions, or do you believe that your conclusion should be presented within the article? Hiding T 17:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your position as indicated original was base on a partial sentence "If you notice, Hawkeye is written as saying 'You're our sixth member, Benjy"." instead of "You're our sixth member, Benjy -- an' I wanna do an official ceremony for it, in front of all the Media --!" It is not unclear in the least bit. Thus you fail to properly evaluate the quoted material and spin it some how prove that my interpretation is wrong. I gave no interperation than a generalized one. This site job it to be encyclopedia not maybe were are right or not, it is to be correct. I only provided the quotes and in general stated it supported it and you just come out take partial quotes and out of context. As far as presenting the information and letting them decide, we would be up to our eye balls in copyright infringement. Don't see any rights enshrine like you say, the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a maybepeida. My conclusion are based on sources and you just seem oppose to oppose for your personal stance.

Additional source listed above do not interpret this differently. Failer of future writers and sources don't retroactive effect past events and should general just be explain as character confusion of whether or not he official joined the team. If you write some book that John Adams was the 1st President does not make him retroactive the 1st President. Spshu (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

This seems to be the root of your misunderstanding. John Adams is a real person. The Thing and the Avengers are fictional constructs. We can definitively state the order of Presidents of the United States. We cannot definitively state things about fictional universes. As to your concern regarding copyright law, you are in fact mistaken. If the Avengers Casebook states that The Thing is a member, that is a secondary we can use to state that the Avengers Casebook lists The Thing as a member of the Avengers. We can also summarise the scene you have presented above, plus any other references to The Thing's membership status. We cannot, however, state either way whether The Thing was a member or not. You misunderstand the nature of an encyclopedia, and as to what rights are enshrined on Wikipedia, please see m:Foundation issues and WP:NPOV, especially WP:NPOV#Reasoning behind NPOV which explicitly states that we "make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them". You wish to advocate a particular view. You believe you know the truth. That's fine. However, on Wikipedia you must put that aside. That's a bias. For example, look at the argument over the sentence "You're our sixth member, Benjy -- an' I wanna do an official ceremony for it, in front of all the Media --!" What does policy tell us to do with this sentence? Declare that it means Ben Grimm is not a member of the Avengers since the official ceremony never took place, or tell the reader that Ben Grimm was offered membership and accepted, but failed to show up at the official presentation, as depicted in West Coast Avengers #9 panels whatever? Anything else is against policy. I hope that clarifies the position for you. Hiding T 20:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The regards to copyright has to the amount of quotes (keep up with Administrator requests of us). When you take thinks out of context to prove nothing can be consider definitively stated, then yes we cannot definitively state things about finctional universes. I don't misunderstand "the nature of an encyclopedia". If said NPOV is the way you say then John Adams should there for be consider (in my example above) a possible 1st President of the USA, not Washington completely unopposed as facts would tell us. You assuming alot about me regard advocating a view but that bias, talk about the facts. You never have clarified anything but a hostility to the original source or that NPOV should force nonfactual statements. So, according to you, if I go to the Holocaust article on Wikipedia that it will state that we don't know it happen or not because Holocaust deniers claim such.

Avengers Annual 11 Avengers By-laws Section 2.B.2.: "Candidates for membership must be nominated by one active member in good standing at a regular or special meeting. Election for membership must be held within one week or nomination and be attended by a simple majority of active members. A two-thirds vote is necessary for election to membership." There you have the official ceremony, which you intial took out of context, the active membership meeting which makes some superhero a member of the Avengers. Spshu (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm well versed with regards copyright, I have discussed the issue briefly with the foundation lawyer and am confident in my ability to comply with the law regarding fair use. There are no copyright concerns in quoting the odd sentence from comic book issues. With regards your comments about John Adams, I am missing your point. Are you stating there is confusion over whether George Washington was actually President of the United States? If you can source this to a reliable source then I suggest you discuss that at George Washington. I have no idea which President John Adams was. I suggest you stick to examples that all members of the English Wikipedia would readily understand so that there is no confusion, or better yet stick to the topic at hand. Regarding the Holocaust, you will find the article does link to Holocaust denial, due to editorial consensus, WP:NPOV and space considerations, although I must point out I don't feel comfortable equating the dispute over a fictive comic book character's membership of a fictive superhero team with the deaths of some six million Jews. I would like to clarify one point with you. You are aware that Avengers By-laws are a work of fiction. That they don't actually exist. That they have no legal basis, and that they do not have to constrain the writers on the book. You are aware that writers are free to disregard them, and that fiction can be analysed and interpreted differently? You are aware that we write about works of fiction encyclopedically, we do not consider them as real things, nor do we write about them as if they were real. We can state that fictional By-laws were presented in Avengers Annual 11, and we can even state, if we can source it, that subsequent writers have held that those By-laws are still in effect within the fictional universe, but we cannot assert that those By-laws are true, that they affect, control and supercede everything presented before and since. They are not real. They do not affect what makes a character a member of a superhero team. They may affect your reading of the works, but there are many readings of a work, and none of them is the literal truth, since there is no literal truth in a work of fiction. All we can do is summarise primary source with no interpretation, present it to the reader and let the reader judge. I hope that helps explain what Wikipedia's purpose is. Hiding T 17:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

In the DK Publishing's Marvel Encyclopedia, the Thing is listed as an ally not a member, so he will be move back to Other Status. Spshu (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain what profile this information you're using is from? The Thing profile? The Avengers profile? What exactly does it say?SlamBurger (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have mentioned the Avengers West Coast article. It is in a sidebar and states in an "Allies" field: Thing. Spshu (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You're all barking up the wrong tree

The massive debate above is foundering upon a misunderstanding of what we do on Wikipedia. We don't declare, decide, interpret or theorise, full stop. We summarise sources, neutrally, balanced and unbiased. We do not interpret primary sources, for example issues of comic books, we describe what happens in them, we do not synthesise sources, stating that if x says this and y says that then z must be true, we summarise. We have secondary sources which state D-Man was an Avenger's member. We have primary source material which shows D-Man was offered membership. If secondary sources state something, we cannot state it is wrong because we interpret primary source material differently.

If your goal here is to get your particular interpretation of a comic book issue or the fictional membership rules of a comic book team into the article, you are in the wrong place, and you are editing in breach of policy. Read the sources. Summarise them. Base your consensus on our policies. Check your bias at the door. Stop trying to be definitive, that is not our role. Our role is to summarise reliable sources so that the reader of the article can go make their own mind up, through further research if they so desire. Our job is not make the reader's mind up for them. Please edit and debate in keeping with our fundamental policies and principles. All the best, Hiding T 14:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, sir. Based on the statements we have, including the statements from Brevoort, although I don't know that anyone has yet gone to the volume to confirm it yet, we have reliable sources indicating that D-Man, Moondragon, Firebird, Thing, and Hellcat are all members of the team. It has been pointed out before that the extant structure of the article, which lays emphasis on the eexact nature of membership, including indicating individuals are "Reserve Substitute" members, which isn't explained anywhere, and the fact that "Non-member status" says that the individuals listed there "are not true Avengers members", with the rather unnecessary "true" added, Would it make sense to alter the article structure to more reasonably reflect the apparent fact that the individual membership's may have been changed, and possibly drop the membership status column altogether, as that seems to be rather a sticking point? John Carter (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Summarize and synthesize are the same because a summary is a synthesis of a number of different sources. We have secondary source that say D-Man is a unofficial member -- please read the information. I can not believe all these administrators not check there bias at the door!!! The idea of the Wikipedia is some sort of assurance not oh well go search else where. Is this place an Encyclopedia or not? They will make up there mind like they do at Byrne Robotics that the Wikipedia is a piece of trash and the Wikipedia should not be cite nor linked to under penalty of deletion of their post. How sad a state this is mess is. That do to Tom's email that we go to every one switch over to declaring every thing in fact to be opinions and opinions to be in fact. Spshu (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

First, I would very much suggest that you learn English spelling and grammar a bit better, given the at best inelegant nature of the above comment. And please refrain from making unfounded judgements on others. There are several sources to be considered, not just the ones that favor your own interpretation. And, in a case where there are multiple reliable sources which apparently disagree with each other, it would be unacceptable to mention only those that support a given party's own opinions. We also apparently have a secondary source, the 2000 Sourcebook, that says D-Man is an official member, and there is no good reason to prefer one source over the other, particularly when the sources with which you disagree are written by people who are among the best informed on the subject. In a case like that, we must try to find a way to present the information as clearly and accurately as possible. Please address the issues rather than making such unjustifiable aspersions on the character and motivations of others. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

"Unfounded judgments" have been repeatedly heap upon me and I have repeatedly refrained from replying. I reply to facts or the lack of verifiable or vague sources. I have shown restrain almost beyond any reasonable person and have not replied. Another administrator, jc37, request directed quotes from said item and to explain them but then J Greb indicates that improper. I don’t have the previous mention sources to refer to. A direct quote with the word official some how has the “official” but you can not see with your own eyes the word “official”. If a secondary source directly conflicts with the primary source indicated then it is not much of a source. By the way, I used Hiding’s spelling for some the words please feel free to attack his language and spelling skills. I have provided list from Solo Avengers that might support the Things membership but you state I don’t offer any source like that. But have you forgot that you take issue with the said lists? Spshu (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, this is getting heated. spshu, guy, seriously....step back a second and relax. It's just comic books. It isn't the end of the world. Someone disagrees with you over a very minor issue. I don't think John Carter or anyone else is showing bias. Do you think the admins on wikipedia honestly have some vested interest in D-Man being listed as an "offical" member of the Avengers?SlamBurger (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, John Carter, I bought a copy of "Avengers Casebook" off of ebay so I'll be able to confirm the contents when it arrives.SlamBurger (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why or if they are bias, Slamburger, but they sure act like it. But John Carter just attacked me for spell and grammar, something they are not supposed to do on Wikipedia particularly on talk pages. Carter and Hiding claim there is no word official in a statement where it clearly is and believe some how I am interpreting that there is the word "official" there when according to them its not there when it is as plain as day there in a statement by Hawkeye regarding the Thing's membership. Carter invalidates a list of documents that does not support the Thing's membership in the Avengers also on the bases that I don't list documents supporting his membership. I intending to make a separate post for that but instead I have to defend the one post because neither can read the word "official" in a quoted sentence. Some how primary source are not now valid sources according to Hiding and John Carter and there for if a secondary source clearly contradicts the primary source then some how the secondary source overrules the primary source? How then are we suppose to evaluate secondary sources for validity then? Might as well shut down the whole Comicbook wikiproject and delete all the characters, teams, storylines because many of them are base on primary sources and there will most likely never have a secondary source to support them. Why in the world is there a cite comic form for reference? I just feel so spun around by John Carter, Hiding, jc37 and J Greb that I have no idea any more how to discuss the source any more. We might as well place all the members in question on a board and throw darts to decide if we list them as official members. Spshu (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

First off, start by looking at the presented sources. Not all sources are going to be considered verifiable or reliable. If a source can honestly be said not to meet those benchmarks, it cannot be used as a reference. Though such a source may point to other sources that do meet them. Some examples:

• An e-mail to an Wikipedia editor is not considered verifiable. But that e-mail may point to an article from a reliable source providing the same information.
• A poll of fans is not reliable, just like a fan site is not reliable.

Second, remember that information about elements of fiction based on primary sources can change over time. Comics are the medium that coined "retcon", what is presented as in-universe fact in 1989 may be shown as false in a story in 1999. And that's assuming that the stories spell things out in black an white with crystal clarity.

Last, as Hiding points out, we do not get to pick and choose among conflicting sources that are both reliable and verifiable. All get included. That may mean we will have notes sections for lots of characters that have secondary sources either:

• Vary in listing a character as being a member or never being a member.
• Vary in citing when the character joined or first appeared as a member.

- J Greb (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• You have quoted the Official handbook, as shown above. That is however a primary source, since it exists in the same sense as the comic books do, being written from an in-universe perspective. I'd also note that they state "the Captain unofficially inducted Demolition-Man as the team's first new member." You need to summarise this source along with the others in the list. Use this information to write the list, annotating the D-Man entry so that the primary source and secondary source material are presented so that the reader can decide whether the character was a member of the team or not. All the sources seem to agree the character was a member, whether as an official member or an unofficial one. Do we really want to get bogged down in a discussion over the nature of official and un-official, given that Wikipedia writes from an out of universe perspective? Does everyone agree that D-Man was offered membership of The Avengers, and that that offer was accepted? The debate seems to founder on interpretations of primary source. We have two conflicting sources. The best answer would be to create a disputed or unclear status section, which delineates stuff like D-Man's status and the WCA's quest for a sixth member which was presented in-story as being based on a mis-understanding of the charter. Remember, we are writing an encyclopedia. We do not write from a canon point of view, editing to suit revisions of the continuity. What we do is document those continuity changes. If Captain America's origin changes, we do not erase all other versions of the origin from our articles to be in line with continuity. We discuss that revision alongside the pother versions. We cannot pretend to know what the writer or editors had in mind when writing and publishing Captain America Vol. 1 No. 349 "Icecap". We cannot state that anything was done in contravention of any charter, since said charter does not exist in any real sense, and the writers are free to ignore it if they so choose. All we can say is that Captain America is shown creating a new Avengers team and that he offers membership to D-Man. We can state that it is unclear how these actions fit with previous depictions of The Avengers, and note that a charter has been mentioned and shown before, but we can not invalidate this offer based on our interpretations of the scene. We can only summarise what has been depicted, we are not allowed to interpret it, and we should not write from an in-universe perspective. Summarise the conflicting sources, show how they conflict. Do not decide what they mean. That is not our role. Hiding T 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The editor need to agree on his status not the reader. If it solely up to the reader then pull the plug on the Wikipedia since there is no intent to be accurate. If D-Man was unofficial then truly he was not official a member. The comics do exist in our universe if the Wikipedia is not interested in-universe of comics then at best there should just be an article about the publishers and the concept of comic book then no more. The unclear status section was the Non-members section that they wish to move him out of and into the member section. The quest of a sixth member is not a mis-understanding of the charter but has to do with the restriction to seven member rosters (Captain America reduce it to Six later) to keep their National Security Clearance which was supended with the Vision attempted take over of the world's computers. The Avengers charter goes to the character of the Avengers. The Avengers are not a non-team like the Defenders were in Defenders vol.1 #1-124. The writer of Captain America 349 was Mark Gruenwald who was the editor of the Avengers and writer of Mark's Remarks which give no indication of official membership in the Mark's Remarks list in Solo Avengers. The last list included the deceased member Swordsman so D-Man's missing in action period seem to his lack of appearence. Mark indicated a willingness to extend them to beyond actual members to "almost" members of Thing and Firebird and at no point in any of these list extent to include D-Man. Even Mr. Immortal made the vote list instead of having his name tossed off the list. Spshu (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• I really don't want to reduce the debate to this, but at the end of the "Lost in Space-Time" saga in WCA 23 & 24, Hawkeye is told on panel that that charter no longer applies and there is thus no six member rule anymore. He then offers Moon Knight and Firebird membership, but Firebird declines. Hank Pym joins instead. This also undercuts your statement that the charter goes to the character of The Avengers, since it has been disregarded on panel in this instance at the very least. Unless you have Mark Gruenwald on record stating that D-Man was not a member, then all we are left with are the sources we have, which we must summarise. The fact that he isn't on the list in Solo Avengers is worth mentioning however. But I do not believe a Non-members section constitutes an unclear status section, since by listing there we are taking a position on the status of the membership. If sources disagree, then there should be an "Unclear status" section where these points can be discussed so that the reader can determine based on all the reliable sources we can find to summarise, per our policies. It looks like we currently have good sourcing to state that the membership status of D-Man is unclear, since we have conflicting sources. Is the list Gruenwald made compiled after the offer was made to Captain America? As to writing about fiction, we most certainly can write about fiction from an out of universe view, we have a manual of style on how to do it. Many other sources manage it to. And as stated above, you are incorrect. It is not the editor's place to analyse, interpret or define. That's the very nature of Wikipedia, that we conform to a neutral point of view. It may help if you realise that there is no definitive answer as to whether D-Man was a member of The Avengers or not. Marvel can choose to decide he was or wasn't whenever they like, and change that opinion whenever they like. For example, is Lex Luthor bald or ginger haired? Did Donald Blake transform into Thor or was Thor trapped as Donald Blake? Did Jean Grey die in X-Men #137 or not? It depends when you read the comics. There is no linear reality which winds its way through these comic books, a definitive truth to be discovered, established or pronounced. It's all made up, it's all putty to a writer, shaped and re-shaped at their whim. Nothing is definitive, nothing is real, all we can do is present the sources and allow the reader to make their own decisions. Please review Wikipedia:Neutral point of view for clarification on this point. Hiding T 21:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect, the number of active members is not limited by charter but throught the by-laws which give the chair the option of limited the number of active members. First, Gyrich demaned that active members be restricted to seven to keep Security clearance then Captain America via the by-law reduced it six. With Vision's attempt to take over the world's computer, the Avengers' security clearance was being revaluated/supended. It is a easy mistake to confuse charter and by-laws. So there is no undercutting or not following the charter nor the by-laws in that instance. It was also pointed out to Hawkeye in West Coast Avengers 10 (it follow up on the quoted matterial from WCA with the Wasp pointing it out) then he made his first offer of membership to Firebird which she declined.

It is clear the lists I mentioned are after Captain America 349 as they list Mr. Fantastic and Invisible Woman whom with Thor, Forgotten One, and Captain America restores the East Coast team in Avengers 300. Spshu (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll find the events of West Coast Avengers 23 & 24, where the relevant by-laws are stated as not applying any more, occur after West Coast Avengers 10. Which lists are you referring to as being printed after Captain America 349? The one by Mark Gruenwald? If so, then we have conflicting sources and by our policy at WP:NPOV we cannot decide which one is right. We have to summarise each source, and therefore D-Man's membership status is unclear and should be summarised in a section headed unclear, since to place him as a on-member or as a member means preferring one source over another, something policy does not allow. Hiding T 10:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think i will find the "events of West Coast Avengers 23 & 24, where the relevant by-laws are stated as not applying any more," because there is no such mention as I have read those issues twice Making said truely and utterly false statement and then repeating it hurts your credibility.

Avengers Annual 11 Avengers By-laws: "SECTION 2.C.1. It shall be the prerogative of the Chairman/woman to limit the number of active members."

Continuing West Coast Avengers 10 qoutes that ended on page 8 Panel 6 above in the Thing section

Page 9 Panel 1

Hawkeye: "Anyway, we're scouring Southern Califorina for the Guy, but we don't know all his resources, so --"

Wasp: "-- If we see him, we'll call!"

Wasp: "Tell me, though, why did you say he'd be your "final" member? Are you running out of room on that estate?"

Hawkeye: "Well, you know. The six member rule --!"

Panel 2:

Wasp: "What six member rule?"

Hawkeye: "You know -- The rule about six members!"

Wasp: "You mean that thing that Agen Gyrich imposed, limited an Avengers Group to seven members* -- which cap later changed to six?**

Hawkeye: "Give the lady a cigar!"

caption: * Avengers 181 **and #211

Panel 3:

Wasp: "But surely you knew that when the covernment suspended our priority clearance, * we were no longer bound by any of their edicts!"

caption: * Avengers 258

panel 4:

Hawkeye: "You're..."

Hawkeye: "...Kidding...!"

List that don't support D-Man's membership: Solo Avengers 15 (Feb. 1989) Mark's Remarks and Solo Avengers 26 (December 1989) The Winners of the 1989 Favorite Avengers Poll! So you are going to tell me the writer of Captain America 349, the Editor of the Avengers line of Marvel Comics and Executive Editor of Marvel Universe Update 1989 is there for iffy because other come to a different conclusion when he has been consistant with his treatment of D-Man as a nonmember? Spshu (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• • • • • This conversation seems to have taken a surreal twist. I stated that the six member rule was shown on panel to have been revoked. You state I am wrong and then provide the very evidence which proves me right. There is some sort of miscommunication under way here. Also, please undewrstand I am not telling anyone that they are wrong. I am stating that if we have two sources which conflict, we must present them both. If Mark Gruenwald says x and Kurt Busiek says y and we have them both on record, then we cite both sources and we let the reader decide which source to believe. That's encyclopedic treatment. In your own personal life you get to decide that Gruenwald is right. On Wikipedia, we don't have that luxury. That is the whole basis of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view which you indicate you have read and understand. It quite clearly states The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. That is what we are dealing with here. Could you please indicate whether you are happy for D-Man to be moved to a questionable or unclear status section, along with other characters for which sources conflict. Thanks. Hiding T 17:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

No you stated "I really don't want to reduce the debate to this, but at the end of the "Lost in Space-Time" saga in WCA 23 & 24, Hawkeye is told on panel that charter no longer applies and there is thus no six member rule anymore." is what you stated to begin with. Restriction to seven active members by Gyrich/NSC where implimented through the given by-law for restricting active members by the chair. There for the charter still applies and Hawkeye (as West Coast chair) does not willing break any by-law nor can state that the author is willing ingoring the by-laws nor the charter being ignored. The miscommunication here is far as I can tell is you can not seem to understand what you are asking or understand what is going on in the comic books as best I can tell. Your right I don't get to choose that Gruenwald is right but he is the primary source's writer and primary sources (shown to be nonbiased) trump any other source as these are the most reliable. Just because some is ask to join the Avengers does make them a member any more then if I ask anyone if they what to be a millionaire makes them a millionaire. We would have to back date Spiderman back to the Stan Lee days as I understand they tasked him with capturing the Hulk as a membership test but refuse to do it. 17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Spshu (talk)

I apologise, the misunderstanding was at my end. However, you are wrong when you state that primary sources trump other sources. That is not the case. That is something for readers to decide. Consider, for example, the many interpretations of the plays of Shakespeare. Which ones are correct? What happens if they contradict the text of the play itself, by suggesting the play means the opposite of what it says? We have to allow the reader to decide. Therefore, could you please indicate whether you are happy for D-Man to be moved to a questionable or unclear status section, along with other characters for which sources conflict. That would help to settle the debate, and would comply with our policy. Thanks. Hiding T 10:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

With the plays of Shakespeare the original is correct but as far as I know none of his plays are "sequels" or exist in the same fictional universe and are in the public domain. The other interperation since they don't impact any other play should be mention that they exist but the original should stand. I would not be happy with D-Man to be in a questionable or unclear status but that seem to be better than out right putting him in as an official member. I have tried in other occasions on Wikipedia to such weakening of language when it seem appropiate and still had them refute that. Spshu (talk) 18:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC) How is it you cannot understand that you're wrong? Like, multiple people and sources say you are wrong. You are basically trying through sheer force of will to make what you believe correct.SlamBurger (talk) 20:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, several of Shakespeare's plays are related. The Merry Wives of Windsor, Henry IV, part 1, Henry IV, part 2, Henry VI, and others are clearly related. Personally, my opinion would be to list everyone who has ever been called an official member as an official member, but maybe add remarks to indicate that specific cases are disputed, specifying why and what sources exist to the contrary. I mention this because retcons, even if they don't happen as often in Marvel as elsewhere, do exist. Also, doing so helps establish an out-of-universe context, which many comics articles can use help with. John Carter (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

SlamBurger, you have not been paying attention. If you were you would know I have seven sources supporting my position. I just /love/ your projection of your mental state onto me -- not really, so would you stop it. See what I mean, Hiding, regarding a compromise. In the other, case I speak of, it came up again and someone used my moderated statement in an article to refute me. Show me were in Wikipedia policy that secondary+ source trump primary, Hiding? In any regards you consider anything from Marvel primary there for all we are discussing is primary sources. Spshu (talk) 15:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I would only add that, if you're talking about the "Membership lists" section as your sources, most of them require drawing conclusions to at least some degree, as most of them do not specifically state categorically that they are all-inclusive. If they don't clearly say that they do include everyone who has ever been an Avenger, then it requires at least some OR to come to the conclusion that they do, and any degree of OR is at least potentially problematic. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Two of the six (sorry, I miss counted) sources are membership lists section and they indicate that they might be over expansive from the comments like: "If I really wanted to stretch it (with reader approval, of course!), we could also feature the Thing and Espirita (Firebird), honorary members Stingray and Rick Jones, and friends of the Avengers, Ant-Man and Paladin." and the inclusion of Mr. Immortal from the "Great Lake Avengers" in the voter poll results. Yes, there is an inclusive problem with the failure to list the Beast but give that another editorial office (X-Men) controls the Beast do to his then current membership in X-Factor there is a good reason for him not be listed in that they can not feature him with out X-Men editor's OK. Mr. Gruenwald was the Avengers line editor/Executive Editor and writer of Captain America 349 and Mark Remarks author of which includes the post-Avengers 300 list, so I would be hard press to say that he was unware the events of Captain America 349. These list are more supportive of other sources than anything else.Spshu (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Spshu, I appreciate your frustration and also your help in working towards a solution. You have provided sources to back up your claims, which is how Wikipedia works. Slamburger, I would ask you not to be confrontational and to avoid personal attacks. You indicate multiple sources state that D-Man is a member of The Avengers. What would those sources be? Hiding T 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Avengers Casebook 1999, Avengers Vol. 3 #3, the statements of Kurt Busiek and Tom Breevort stating that D-Man is an official member of the Avengers. But honestly, I'm going to bow out of this now. Peace.SlamBurger (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the source. Hiding T 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Official member

John, up above you say "my opinion would be to list everyone who has ever been called an official member as an official member". Can you define what you mean by official member. Hiding T 17:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good question. There appear to be multiple "levels" of membership here, reserve, inactive, inactive reserve, what have you. I would think that maybe the best way to structure it might be something like "Ant-Man, first active with team #24, became an associate member in #26, active full member in #29, and a standby member in #267." By doing so, anyone who has ever been officially recognized as a member of the team in any way would be counted as an official member. This might be relevant considering that there have apparently been several grades of membership which have not been consistent over time. And, while I acknowledge that official status in a team book is important to the team, in at least a few cases it seems to have been the case that the character was introduced to the team before joining, for some purpose or other. Indicating when they first became active with the team, whether as official members or not, as that can be a bit of a contrivance in more than a few cases. Regarding the problematic cases, maybe something like "D-Man, first became active with the team in Captain America #349, has subsequently been said to have been made an official member of the team at that time". John Carter (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that the original organization of Avengers is defunct, I don't think that the various levels membership mean much of any thing to an article like this unless they began under some odd membership status like Captain Marvel II/Photon as a member-in-training. It could get quite long with Dr. Pym join and leaving alot. With the D-Man note, I am not so sure that it indicates that there is any question about his membership now that I think about it more. How about: "D-Man, recruited by The Captain for a future new East Coast team in Captain America 349, has subsequently been said to have been made an official member of the team at that time." Spshu (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever edited the D-Man entry recently(taking him to non-member status). YOU ARE INCORRECT. As you can see on this page, there has been quite a bit of back-and-forth on this issue!SlamBurger (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

D-Man status being messed with once again.

Sspshu, are you editing D-Man out of the the correct listing and/or editing the "notes" to fit your view of things once again? The latest edit to the D-Man listing was extremely POV.SlamBurger (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

No, It is a clarification of what was agree with John Carter and which you did not object to. You are force your POV on this page again. Spshu (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't think :

"to have been made an official member of the team at that time where clearly even honorary members and others were call in."

Is full of POV editing? You were proven wrong on this one, pretty conclusively. I don't know why you altered the wording we all agree was fair.SlamBurger (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind that fact that it makes no grammatical sense. People use this as a legitimate resource, guy.SlamBurger (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but it is direct from Avengers Vol. 3 No.1 as Rage, Justice and Firestar were not Avengers members and a discuss regarding who was called in between Capt. America, Wasp, Ironman and Ant-man indicated that honoraries were call in. The admin. that involve themselves in this mess indicated that it is up to the reader of Wikipedia in these cases to decide not you nor me. Neither of us has any third party scholarly level support only primary. And no I have not proven wrong on this in any conclusive manner. I seen your IP address altering the wording to match what you wish that it not be there what so ever. I just modified the original wording not deleting it. Or do you wish to drop Avengers vol.3 No.1 from your list of supporting documents? Effectively you are. Nor has D-Man's status been effective changed, he is were is has been since the end of our original discussion. (OK, I may have a relapse of where D-Man was suppose to be listed versus the Thing...) As far as the grammatical sense, you are free to fix it if you feel the grammar is wrong. So if this is a legitimate resource is the facts of Cap. 349, Marvel Handbook, Avengers By-Laws, et. al. (my sources) being suppressed? Spshu (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You are trying to alter the wording to suggest to the reader of this wiki that he isn't a "real" member when it was been settled once formerly that he is indeed a real member.SlamBurger (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You have not been following a thing here, SlamBurger. The agreed apon verbage was to leave it up to the reader whether or not D-Man was a member. It was only marginally decide in your POV do to current editorial standing of D-Man's Avengers membership. Spshu (talk) 20:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I really am having a hard time understanding what you are saying here. I don't even know what we are arguing. But anyhow, you were wrong. Hell, Tom Brevort and Kurt Busiek said as much. The wording we agreed upon was:

"D-Man, recruited by The Captain for a future new East Coast team in Captain America 349, has subsequently been said to have been made an official member of the team at that time."

Someone changed that. I assumed it was you. If it was, your change was attempting to present evidence that D-Man isn't an actual Avenger. Isn't that the point of this talk page? And why the need to alter it now, months after we agreed upon the aforementioned wording? If it wasn't you who changed the D-Man entry, I apologize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlamBurger (talk • contribs) 23:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Spshu, why are you trying to mess with the D-Man entry yet again? I am ever-vigilant on this issue, just so you know.SlamBurger (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, you are. Indicated I have third party sources up above under official members- qoute: "D-Man will be move back to the Other Status section based on the DK Publishing's lincensed Marvel Encyclopedia's Avengers & D-Man article. Just giving a heads up. Spshu (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)" D-Man is not mention as an Avengers member in either article. Spshu (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

New Source

A user has requested mediation on this issue. ErikTheBikeMan is here to help resolve your dispute. The case page for this mediation is located here.

D-Man will be move back to the Other Status section based on the DK Publishing's lincensed Marvel Encyclopedia's Avengers & D-Man article. Just given a heads up. Spshu (talk) 22:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

A book like that is simply another tertiary source, many of which you've presented and none of which made changing D-Man's listing appropriate. I'll change it back for you to the correct listing. But good try.SlamBurger (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the only secondary source brought into the discussion ie. a neutral source so to speak and that the administrator are looking for. I am not the only one reversing your edits.Spshu (talk) 17:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it a neutral source more than the offical handbook of the marvel U. or any other source already cited before?SlamBurger (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

To quote John Carter on this issue: "We also apparently have a secondary source, the 2000 Sourcebook, that says D-Man is an official member, and there is no good reason to prefer one source over the other, particularly when the sources with which you disagree are written by people who are among the best informed on the subject. In a case like that, we must try to find a way to present the information as clearly and accurately as possible."SlamBurger (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

to quote wikipedia guideline/rules -- Wikipedia:Reliable sources: "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

The DK Publishing is a third party. Any thing by Marvel even the 1999 Sourcebook are primary athough they seem like they are secondary, the Marvel Universe Handbook I cited was reject on that ground even when the above quote states: "...there is no good reason to prefer one source over the other..." they lead towards your source because it was newer. The DK's Marvel Encyclopedia articles were written by Tom DeFalco and Daniel Wallace, either comic book writer/editor or writer of other DK Publishing comic book material and was published in 2008. Spshu (talk) 19:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The book in question has a giant MARVEL logo right on the cover. I don't think it's any different than any other resource we've mentioned. Out of curiousity, what exactly does it say about D-Man's status?SlamBurger (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, according to the wiki article, things like encyclopedias are tertiary sources."Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. "SlamBurger (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Futhermore, to quote the wiki page on sources: "The inclusion of a view that is held only by a tiny minority may constitute original research. Jimbo Wales has said of this:

• If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If your viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.[8]"

A tiny minority. Original research? You getting my point here?SlamBurger (talk) 20:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

D-Man is not list as a member nor mention as as Member of the Avengers by the DK Encyclopedia.

"Our policy: Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources."

Point taken that you are conducting original research. I will ask for the article to be deleted. Spshu (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

So he isn't listed at all? You think an omission, a MISTAKE, justifies not having him listed as a member? Dream on, brother. As far as ME conducting original research, I've got Tom Breevort and Kurt Busiek backing my stance. I think that puts you in the "tiny minority".SlamBurger (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Mark Gruenwald, writer of C.A. 349, editor of Official Handbook of Marvel Universe, editor/Group Editor of the Avengers line, Tom DeFalco, Marvel Editor in Chief/Executive Editor & writer of Avengers article for the DK Marvel Enc., Peter Sanderson writer of "Demolition-Man" entry for The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe vol. 3, #2 (August 1989) agree with me. Tom Breevort in his email re: Captain America being the only Avenger was wrong there was a whole West Coast team! So what about Breevort's omission, a MISTAKE, that cause you to think that D-Man is a member. Avengers Vol. 3 no. 1 indicates honoraries are present so no definite with that from Busiek. Spshu (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, well, obviously you are never going to admit you're wrong on this one so I think we should bring in some people for "dispute resolution". Do you agree?SlamBurger (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Ok, I put in a request for some sort of mediation. We'll see what happens.SlamBurger (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Spshu, I had to go to Borders today so I looked at this Marvel Encyclopedia. Honestly, you got nothing. I thought maybe there might be some complete roster listing with D-Man omitted to make you feel justified in altering his status. There was no such list. Apparently because his biography didn't EXPLICITLY state he was an Avenger that means he wasn't? This book has thousands of entries, they can't list a characters entire life. Maybe if the biographies has a specific "team affiliations" list I could grant you points, but they don't. Just from a cursory look I saw Iceman wasn't listed as being in The Champions in his listing, does that mean he wasn't? No, he was and you and I know it. It says Justice and Firestar only got as far as "reserve" members. We both know they became full-fledged members of the roster. I'm changing your erroneous edit back to the correct listing and I really am mystified by your OBSESSION with disproving D-Man's legit member status.SlamBurger (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Recruited members were included in the Avengers article. The Champions was/is not a major team like the Avengers and he was listed in the Champions article. Given the importance of the Avengers, I assume based on the lack of mention in the two articles and the several other sources (including an Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Update) you dismiss that D-Man is not a member. As far as Justice and Firestar space limitation may have force the mention that they became active members as the editor may have felt that was enough to indicate membership. I am sorry you mistake being accurate with being obsessed. This is not the only article or even wikiproject that I edit in. Spshu (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you're pretty much obsessed with proving yourself correct in this matter, to the point of misrepresenting materials that don't come close to proving your point. The Marvel Encyclopedia I looked at(hardcover with Frank Cho cover/pale yellow/brown background) didn't have a complete Avengers roster list like you claim. It listed like ten different members under "notable recruits" or somesuch. The OHOTMU listing has been proven to not prove your point, and this does even less to prove your point.SlamBurger (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You are making things up about what I said or did not say. I said: "Recruited members were included in the Avengers article" not that there is a "Avengers roster list". No, the Listing states "unofficial member of the Avengers" as quoted above in team affiliation which mean he was not an official of the Avengers. And in no way did any prove that did not support my point. Spshu (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, are you saying in the Avengers article in the MARVEL ENCYCLOPEDIA it states D-Man is not an official member?SlamBurger (talk) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, by not mentioning him in the Avengers article (and all its "infoboxes") nor in his own article. Spshu (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But there were many other Avengers not listed in the Avengers article or the infoboxes. There was no complete roster list in the book so you're kind of drawing your own conclusions aren't you? As far as his own article, there are many articles in the book where every team a character has served in isn't mentioned. A simple omission due to lack of space doesn't mean it never happened i.e. Iceman not being mentioned as a Champion, Reed and Sue not listed as having served in the Avengers etc. etc.SlamBurger (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as Iceman and the Champions go, there is no Champions of LA (but a Champions of Xandar) article and it does mention that they were members in each individual members' article (Ghost Rider, Hercules, Black Widow, Iceman, Archangel). As far as Reed and Sue, I will check their articles. Membership in the Avengers is an important item for a character given the Avengers prominence in the Marvel Universe. Put the whole point of this new source that it is a third party source, ie. neutral point of view and is the most current document on membership as they choosed your source as it was the most current give comic books to change history retroactively. Given the mountain of Marvel (1st party) sources and a NPOV DK Marvek Encyclopedia, your single source, Avengers Casebook, seems to be a glich. Spshu (talk) 19:45, 17

January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I just don't get your point, I suppose. They didn't list EVERY member of the Avengers in the Avengers article. So D-Man not being in that article isn't relevant. As far as as the "importance" of the Avengers membership being listed in D-Man's profile, that is your opinion, nothing more. I don't think it'll float as a reason to change his listing on this wiki, but you're welcome to present it. Honestly, the information I've read on here given the various sources(first,third,tertiary) has been ,at best, confusing and quite often contradictory, but wouldn't a third party source be something that isn't published in cooperation with Marvel? I mean there is a big honkin' Marvel logo on the cover of the book. How is that any more or less neutral than the Avengers Casebook or OHOTMU?SlamBurger (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as the Invisible Woman and Mr. Fantastic it is mention that they were members in her article. So you see no importance to the Avengers what so ever in the Marvel Universe and thus to membership in the Avengers?! Gee, it seems to vary important to you given how hard you are fighting to not recognized the various documents not supporting actual membership for D-Man. It will float based on the fact that it is the most current information on D-Man's membership same reason that the Avengers Casebook was given prominence, the possibility of retconning by the author(s) (Dispite that generally being against Marvel policy). While the DK Encyclopedia is licensed, the editorial decision are DK's. Spshu (talk) 17:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, well, we are just going around and around on the same points once again. I don't think that encyclopedia changes a darn thing and you do. Hopefully one of the admin-types we've contacted will come give an opinion before too long.SlamBurger (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

One of them admin-types

As I have said before, the problem you have here is conflicting sources. As I have suggested a number of times, given our policies you cannot state either that D-Man was an official member, not that he wasn't, since doing so takes a side and we cannot do that per WP:NPOV. The only option is either to have a section titled unclear status and place D-Man in it, and summarise the sources accordingly. There is no right answer at this moment in time, sadly. The article should not present the view that D-Man is either an official member or that he is not an official member. The article should state both views, attributed to the appropriate reliable sources in line with WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. If you tell me which sources support which view, I will amend the article myself. Thanks, Hiding T 11:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, that certainly isn't what I expected to hear. Oh well. I don't really think the current "other" listing is the right place for D-Man if we are going to incorrectly suggest he isn't an official member. I think there should be a "disputed" listing for the members that apparently are the victim of conflicting sources.SlamBurger (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• You've asserted that it would be incorrect to suggest he isn't an official member. Given that sources conflict, on what basis do you make the claim that it would be incorrect? Please bear in mind we cannot take a point of view in this manner, and must operate with an open mind. As a Wikipedia editor, our only approach is that we don't know if D-Man was a member or not, but we do know that x says he was, and y says he was not. We have to have an open mind on this matter to reach a solution that meets our policies. The issue with using the term disputed is one of connotation. I have no real objection, as long as we have sources which show that the status is disputed rather than simply unclear. What would be better is if we had sources on the intentions of authors and editors. Do such exist? What sources do we have? How do we present D-Man's membership in terms of a table liad out chronologically? These are questions we have to solve with recourse to policies, not what we believe to be true. Hope that clarifies. Hiding T 15:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as sources on authors and editors, I spoke to Busiek(Avengers writer of 4+ years) and Tom Brevoort(who even came here to clarify issues and backed all my points), but apparently neither of those are admissible so you're stuck with a wikipedia page that is going to be rife with inaccuracies. The most recent source Spshu is using doesn't even have a roster listing of Avengers membership. How would this source change a single thing from what we've already established?SlamBurger (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't care about "disputed" as the definite term used but to put D-Man in the current "other" listing wouldn't really be the best solution since he obviously falls closer to a "true" member than the other people listed.SlamBurger (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Only one source indicates that D-Man is an official member, Avengers Casebook 2004 (I believe that is the correct year). While Mark Remarks lists for Avengers Solo/Spotlight don't list him, Official Handbooks of Marvel Universe Vol. 3 indicate that D-Man is an unofficial member and now DK's Marvel Encyclopedia makes no mention of Avengers membership but mentions he was assume to have blown up in an Avengers Quinjet (that actually indicates Captain Mar-Vell's honorary status with the Avengers). He has no active stint on record required for membership per By-Laws (before the UN Charter) and a call up of even admitted honorary members or expelled member for underage (Rage) in Avengers Vol. 4 No.1 was his only appearence in the Avengers comics. So five+ or so documents/sources should be chucked under the rug and assume unrealible on only one document, Avengers Casebook 2004? We are suppose to use reliable and verifiable resources are we not? So some slip up and Casebook 2004 accidentally drops his unofficial status thus invalidates everything else instead of making a judgement of unreliability on the Casebook given it doesn't match up to everything else?

Since you are so connected, SlamBurger, why don't you ask Busiek and Brevoort what the rules are on using other comic book's characters. So, is it OK for one the writer of one book to write a story with a major plot point effecting the another book, say if Alpha Flight still had their book and New Avengers editor and writer still went a head with killing off Alpha Flight.

By the way Hiding, SlamBurger indicated that before that he would be unhappy with a "disputed or questionable" catagorization of D-Man. All we have established is that Slamburger is D-Man's biggest booster and is intent on D-Man being considerated a member of the Avengers regardless of accuracy covering it up with statements like "but apparently neither of those are admissible so you're stuck with a wikipedia page that is going to be rife with inaccuracies". Spshu (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources states: "Wikipedia articles[1] should use reliable, third-party, published sources. Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Tom DeFalco, former Marvel Executive Editor, Editor-in-Chief and general Marvel writer is not a "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand"? This is the only third party source we have.

Since you asked, Hinding T, here are the sources no that do not support his membership:

• Avenger, Inc. by-laws in Avenger Annual 11
• Avengers Annual 17 (1988)
• Author Mark Gruewald. Captain America Vol. 1 No. 349 "Icecap"
• Peter Sanderson (w), Josef Rubinstein (i). "Demolition-Man" The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe vol. 3, #2 (August 1989). Marvel Comics (24-25).
• Kurt Busiek (w), Perez (p), Al Vey (i). "Once an Avengers" Avengers vol. 3, #1 (February 1998). Avengers Vol. 3 No. 1. Inside cover fold out - Member list
• Author Mark Gruewald. Solo Avengers 15 (Feb. 1989) Mark's Remarks
• Solo Avengers 26 (December 1989) The Winners of the 1989 Favorite Avengers Poll!
• DeFalco, Tom. "Avengers" Marvel Comics Encyclopedia: The complete Guide to the characters of the Marvel Universe. DK Publishing. p. 22-23. ISBN 978-07566-2358-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |nopp=, |month=, |chapterurl=, |laysummary=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)
• Wallace, Daniel. "Demolition-Man" Marvel Comics Encyclopedia: The complete Guide to the characters of the Marvel Universe. DK Publishing. p. 76. ISBN 978-07566-2358-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |separator=, |nopp=, |chapterurl=, |month=, |laysummary=, and |lastauthoramp= (help)

Source supporting D-Man membership:

• Avengers 2004 handbook

There you go Hiding T. Do you mind comment on the Thing and Darkhawk disputes too under there respective sections. Thanks. Spshu (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let's cut the snooty tone. I'm not the one throwing tantrum after tantrum to get "my way" on a wikipedia page. I'm not "connected". I never suggested I was "connected". Tom Brevoort and Kurt Busiek have public email addresses. You can contact them if you want. As far as Avengers Casebook "accidentally" dropping his "unofficial" status. You know that isn't the case. The book was researched by the aforementioned Busiek and Brevoort and they have both gone on record backing it up. As far as me being "unhappy" with D-Man not being listed as an official member, I would be "unhappy" with this wiki being inaccurate because of your personal weirdness about the issue but I will abide by the decision ultimately made by those with more authority than myself rather than throw tantrum after tantrum until I get my own way.SlamBurger (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking up were to where StarSpangledKiwi quotes the Avengers Handbook 2004 D-Man article states "recruited into Avengers". Hmm... that doesn't mean hard and fast that D-Man became a member. Just like the recruitment drive Captain America has for the Avengers in Captain America Vol. 1 #352 or so with Speedball, Gladiatrix, Blue Shield and Mechanaut and nobody nobody will name them as Avengers members. Spshu (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ever see the movie "Groundhog Day"? I feel like this is my own personal Groundhog Day. We keep arguing the same points over and over again.SlamBurger (talk) 17:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Possible restructuring of the article

There is some significant disagreement about the nature of the article as it now stands. Part of this is due I think to the unstated assumption that it is and always will be clear exactly when a given individual joined, as the article places a great deal of importance on that point. This is not always the case, as we all know. Moira Brandon is at least one case in point. I think it would make most sense to have the "joined in" column completely eliminated, or maybe replaced with a column indicating when a given figure first became "active" (whether as a member or not), in the team. And I would have the "activity" determined on the basis of out-of-universe chronological time, not in-universe time, again, based on cases like Brandon above. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

As long as good 'ol D-Man gets his love, do what you gotta do.SlamBurger (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It should be clear as a new member joining is a major plot point for a team book. Of course, we have the problem with poor writing with some issue that cause this problem. Spshu (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As far as using "active" is a level of membership for a time, so you might not want to use that title. Spshu (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Archived

Archived Captain Mar-Vell, image use section and membership list to the archive page 1.Spshu (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Darkhawk

I changed the Darkhawk listing too. That is just ridiculously POV. you have no right to suggest what "should have" happened on a wikipedia page. Go write fan-fiction is you want to do that.SlamBurger (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My edit on Darkhawk is not ridiculously POV as it had happen to Rage and he is currently listed as a non-member. The young Tony Stark is list there also as he too was a teenager. Just they have not found out about Darkhawk so he was left in the member section. No fan-fiction here just the facts in the stories. Spshu (talk) 14:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the up to us to decide what "should happen". That would be like me putting a note for Wolverine saying "should never have been allowed onto the Avengers since the Avengers are against killing". I happen to agree with it, but it's my POV. Just like Darkhawk "should" have not been allowed on the Avengers. Do you have a source that proves he wasn't 18 at the time of his induction into the Avengers or hasn't had his 18th birthday subsequently?SlamBurger (talk) 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between the New Avengers and the original Avengers organization as they are seperate organizations, so the Wolverine example does work. The whole Darkhawk comic book series indicates that he was a teenager. And a subsequent 18th birthday would not undo the invalid nature of initial induction. I guess I could see where my first edit would indicate that some would assume that I was deciding what "should happen". My second edit was better and I still pointing out that his membership could be consider invalid, re:example Rage. Spshu (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude, that wasn't my point. Ok. How about this: "Beast should never have been made an Avenger since he was better in the X-Men". That is basically what you did. SUGGESTING what should be rather than providing the information of WHAT IS. He WAS made an Avenger, it isn't up to you to decide whether or not Roy Thomas or Hawkeye or whoever was correct in doing so.SlamBurger (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

But the original Avengers organization had a charter that government membership of the Avengers, so I am not deciding anything as I did not remove him from membership status, just pointing out that the rule that tosed out Rage should apply to Darkhawk it just has not happen and that is membership from a readership stand point is in question (knowing the charter) and in universe his membership has not been questioned. It brings us back to you (and the others) deciding that the by-laws don't apply, the text of Cap. 349, the Avengers Ann. ending Evolutionary War, the exist of the West Coast team at that time, the text of the Marvel Handbook entry on D-Man do mean a thing as these are "providing the information of WHAT IS" regarding D-Man while you and other other SUGGESTING what should be. Spshu (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we call John Carter or someone with authority to mediate on the Darkhawk issue? I really think you're injecting your own POV into his listing.SlamBurger (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

To quote from above: "We don't declare, decide, interpret or theorise, full stop." That is exactly what you are doing. Trying to suggest what you think SHOULD be, not what is.SlamBurger (talk) 02:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Then stop declaring, decide or theorizing about D-Man's membership. Darkhawk is still listed with the regular members not nonmembers like Rage so I am not declaring or deciding. No one objects to those who gain membership under false pretenses are "nonmembers". Even Wonderman who initial join under false pretense (or not given membership but just hung around) and later properly join up is list as joining up when he properly joined up, so is Sersi, etc.

And by the way you are so way off what my POV is, so stop assuming that I am injecting it. Given that you are so far off what my POV means I am good at suppressing my POV. Spshu (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The D-Man issue has been decided. I was proven right, but we agreed to the current wording to keep you from throwing a fit. As far as Darkhawk, that fact that you think his membership should be invalid IS your POV. But I'd be happy to have someone with some authority some in and mediate on the issue.-SlamBurger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.245.88 (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You were not proven right, just some misdrawn conclusion by the current editor that conflicts with all previous Marvel stories. The current wording for D-Man is suppose to be ambig. so the read can decide and is to stop you from throwing a fit, so I guess it should be more disabig. So don't bother responding until you understand that you were not proven right and the statement is to be ambig.

What happen to Rage is not my point of view it is what happen to Rage, so no my statement about Darkhawk is not my POV. If you are right you could convice me, but you have been have you? You would need a administrator if you were right? You have address the situation with Wonderman or Sersi or Ravonna or look back at previous edits regarding Sersi, so you have no clue what I am talking about do you? Spshu (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If you and I can't come to an agreement on the Darkhawk listing, I would suggest a moderator comes in to make a decision, so we simply don't keep going back editing each other's edits, like happened with the D-Man entry for so long. I shouldn't be antagonstic about the D-Man entry, so I apologize for that. Obviously you think you're right and I think I am right. The way it reads now isn't ideal for either of us, but I don't think either one of us would budge in either direction on the issue. I regret that I can't make you see my position on the Darkhawk entry or the D-Man entry, but that's life, I guess.69.207.248.210 (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Avengers 2011 film section

I think this should be deleted. Since nothing it truly know about this movie which may or may not ever be made it is all total speculation. Thoughts?SlamBurger (talk) 23:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be on a list page, certainly, especially not 3 years in advance Darquis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Other Avengers?

Should this really serve as a list of groups of Avengers who aren't in the same continuity - The Ultimates, A2, Marvel Adventures, a movie based on the Ultimates movies, etc.? I feel as if a reference to these other groups of Avengers is enough, especially considering how little many of their rosters have changed - they hardly merit a list. Darquis (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A2? MC2's A Next and Ultimates teams has some membership changes. I think the idea is that each individual list would not stand on its own and if changes are made there is less scrambling to figure out when characters join the team. Great Lake Avengers/Initiative is one that graduated from this page to its own. Spshu (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, A Next, my bad. You're right that the individual lists would not stand on their own - my thinking is they don't need to exist whatsoever. Since both have gone through so few roster changes, they can easily be covered on the pages for such articles in a non confusing manner. And certainly for Marvel Adventures or the recently released cartoon movie which have had no roster changes - since this was the only response I got (and it didn't have an objection to those changes) I'm gonna go ahead and nix those two rosters - if need be they're more appropriate for the articles about those teams. Darquis (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Given that the GLA list was here then some started a seperate article for that list. (After some continual nixed the link to this list), your suggestion might be a good idea, Daraquis. Spshu (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistency?

In terms of characters who occur on this list multiple times, such as Captain America (Steve), Iron Man, etc. should each time they occur read the same in terms of their status (example, for Steve Rogers his death description remaining the same throughout rather than multiple versions)? Darquis (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure except for the one from parallel Universes like Ultimate, Marvel Adventure Universes. It should just indicated when he died (issue wise). The reader can always go to his article to get more details. Spshu (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed! On another note, I went through and bolded every entry of someone who is currently (as in, not basing it on unpublished material) an Avenger, which includes bolding Iron Man in his New Avenger listing, for example. Additionally, when new members are confirmed for the New and Mighty Avengers, their entries should be replicated below to hold with consistency (as all the New and Mighty Avengers until now have had second (and third) entries generated when they joined the New/Mighty Avengers) Darquis (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Basing changes on materials not published?

I don't know if it constitutes original research or not, but should we be basing changes to this article on assumptions (even well founded ones) of what will happen in books that aren't published yet? Specifically a lot of changes reference NA 48 which won't be out yet for another week (and which has misleading promotional materials, lending credence to it's potential inaccuracy). There's certainly been precedent for authors to lie and/or mislead in interviews before, including about team membership (the Justice League article of a similar nature had this exact problem). I think we should be waiting until materials are published to write up the corresponding articles. Darquis (talk) 19:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is worse then original research as it would be hearsay. Original research is when you do the research yourself and not use scholarly or journalistic sources, but that is an problem with comic books not too many scholarly or journalistic sources regarding the whole range of comic book subjects. For if you wade through some of the above discussion even say a Marvel Handbook issue is a primary source not a secondary as it is published by the original publisher. Can not even use it to disprove any secondary sources. Additionally an interview or inquiry with say a Marvel Editor is original research.Spshu (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I reversed your edits of a couple things, Darquis. New Avengers has shipped to subscribers. I've read it. So it's a verifiable source, I believe. Also, the Mighty Avengers were created as the New York team under the Initiative program so I see no problem mentioning that in the article.-SlamBurger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.248.210 (talk) 03:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, should have checked here before I edited! Right now I'm taking Iron Fist off, he definitely left. But I'm not convinced about the rest of the lineup - certainly not about Dark Avengers, so until that ships I think none of them should be listed as a member of that team. As for Mighty Avengers - my point is that while they were NY's Initiative team, listing them as the Avengers Initiative on this page is misleading, because there's A) a book with that title, and B) essentially every registered hero is a member of the Initative. However, what about mentioning that the Mighty Avengers were New York's Initiative team? This clarifies things in a way that leaves the information intact but doesn't allow for confusion. Darquis (talk) 07:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

True names of Teams

And while I'm thinking about it, Mighty Avengers is going in what I assume to be a whole new direction out of Secret Invasion given what Slott is saying in interviews - does the fact that they're being published under the same title mean they're the same team, especially as the previous incarnation was an initiative team and this one likely isn't? (obviously wait on the issue to come out, but it needs considering I think) Darquis (talk) 07:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree we should wait until the issue is out but the original Avengers were reorganized several time in the original run but they were still "The Avengers".SlamBurger (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this follows with the flow of this thread, but it seems to...

Have the "New", "Mighty", and "Dark" Avengers been referred to by those specific team names in story? Or is the use of the terms in the list shorthand for "Member of the Avengers team featured in New/Mighty/Dark Avengers"?

The reason I ask is I could have sworn that, with "New" the team was always referred to as "the Avengers" or, early on "a new Avengers team". Also, Osborn's team in Dark Avengers" is referred to only as "the Avengers" with a point being made that Sentry and Ares are carry overs from the old roster to the new.

I'm all for the magazine titles being used as the sub heads since it's for ease of use, but the "Member of " listings seems more than a bit dodgy.

- J Greb (talk) 11:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It does follow the flow of the thread. Because the Mighty Avengers title initial follow the Initiative team which no longer will (I am assume) be the Initiative team that slot taken over the group in Dark Avengers under the Thunderbolt Initiative but there will I assume be contintuity of the team in Mighty Avengers. Spshu (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The rub is:

1. Was the team in Mighty Avengers operating in the Initiative program as "Might Avengers" or was it the Avengers team (no distinguishing name) which the comic focused on and worked more closely with the Initiative?
2. The team in New Avengers was always referred to in continuity as the Avengers, no "New". It has been how fandom has referred to the team.
3. The same is holding true so far with Dark Avengers the team is the Avengers, but fandom is hanging onto the "Dark" to distance it from the good guys.

The adjectives are a good way to section the list, but they seem very out of place in the "Member of" column.

- J Greb (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, we should just move the "New", "Mighty" and "Dark" Avengers membership list to their respective articles as discussed in the Other Avengers section and leave this article for the orginal organization. If they move from Avengers org. to another that info can be found on their individual articles. Spshu (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Wrong answer - At this point the comics present the all of it as one team. All moving the sub-lists to the 3 article does is, at best, relocate where the problem gets worked over. At worst, it glosses of a point that needs to be verified: Are/were the 3 iterations referred to in the stories as "the New Avengers", "the Mighty Avengers", and/or "the Dark Avengers"? The best I can tell the answer is "No", "Maybe, someone want to clarify?", and "Not as of yet." That speaks to keeping them here and fixing the issue. - J Greb (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this can be cleared up with just being clear in the text - it makes sense to break the different teams up by the titles/storylines where the name changes. So you'd have: 'In Dark Avengers the team is made up from a mix of supervillains and anti-heroes (a number of the former being drawn from the previous line-up of the Thunderbolts). The writer of the series has described the thinking behind the character selection as "[t]hese are bad-ass, hardcore get-it-done types. They'll close the door and take care of business and he's dressing them up to make them something that the people want".'. Or something like that. (Emperor (talk) 18:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, but the three different team sure aren't a single team, so don't give me "wrong answer" as a response. As of the New Avengers, Cap.America and Iron Man clearly seperated their new Avengers organization from the orginial so the only thing holding them back from their own article is some more membership changes. Back in the day the West Coast Avengers were not hunting the East Coast Team down as criminals as the "Mighty" team was hunting down the "New" team. And with the "Dark" team displacing the "Mighty" team with the displacement of the Initiative with the Thunderbolt Initiative, the "Mighty" team assuming a more international focus (or so I have read), seem like they will be staying out of USA to avoid the SHRA. The Mighty Avengers were refered to them in the issue of Ms. Marvel were she accepted leadership of the Initiative team from Ironman/Tony Stark as her PR person wanted them billed that way, but other that that no. Perhaps post-Civil War, the "New Avengers" crew should be call Secret Avengers as Captain America refered to his group as that during the Civil War and Cage continue that group (with those joining up solo for Civil War consider associate or temporary members). Avengers (Initiative) would/could follow Ironman/Ms. Marvel's Mighty Avengers until displace by the new Initiative team in the Dark Avengers. The new team in Mighty Avengers could be refered to Avengers (International) if indeed they act international as I have read.Spshu (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the thing: all of the iterations (I'm tempted to say both since it appears that the line of demarcation is that in-story the "Founders" - Cap and Stark - state there is no continuation of the defunct team/charter) are "The Avengers".

Does that mean that is reasonable to list the full memberships of the "Original" and the "New/Mighty/Dark" groups? Yes, I think it does, even breaking the second down further since there is an element of story tone defining the three sub-groups. And the headers can follow from the series titles (The Avengers, New Avengers, Mighty Avengers, and Dark Avengers) or fan destinations ("Original" Avengers, "New" Avengers, "Mighty" Avengers, and "Dark" Avengers).

Does that mean it is reasonable to split the list up into 2 to 4 (or more) list articles? No, it isn't. The list should be a relatively simple thing providing a roster of character, when the first appeared as a team member, when they left or if they are still active in the team. Possible adding notes about if they served as a leader and if the were brought in from another team, belonged to another team at the same time, or left to become a member of another r team. That type of list, where all the teams listed are called "The Avengers" and the characters/groups are separated, does not need to be split up.

You do bring up another point/problem - Cap's team during Civil War... which IIRC extends to the Initiative. IIUC almost every character in the MU slotted into 3 groups: Cap's Avengers, Stark's which included the Thunderbolts and Initiative, and the inmates in the Negative Zone. At the time, I think, it was agreed not to add everyone since it would have been clutter on the character article as well as this list. That being said, the "side picked" can be noted for the members under the "New" and "Mighty" sections.

And one last thing, which follows from the "full membership" point... the time and effort that went into the "Who's really and Avenger" debate has put in place a fairly clear idea of the limits to the memberships. So, for example, Beast would not be a "New" Avenger nor would Wolverine be an "Original". This is a reason for characters like Stark or Cap to be listed in each section.

- J Greb (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

During the Civil War you can see them as sides not neccessarily teams.Spshu (talk) 21:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. So there would be a "'New' Avengers" section with "Sided with Cap/Tony" in the notescollomn for those that were members during the storyline. - J Greb (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

So is the structure to be

• New Avengers section - to Civil War
• Secret Avengers section - New Avengers post-Civil War
• Avengers - Initiative team section - original Mighty Avengers
  • Thunderbolt Initiative (Dark Avengers team takes over for original Initiative team)
• Avengers (International) - new team featured in Mighty Avengers ? Spshu (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well with no comments, I suppose I will be bold and reorganizes the article based on the above structure I outlined. Spshu (talk) 16:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are there such extensive notes on Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch

it was my understanding that notes were not for such extensive character bios, just brief "joined in/formerly known as/died in" type notations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.246.163 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Good question. You are right on mark on what is suppose to go there, after all readers can follow their link to their article that should have this info. I think that other matters like the new teams and other membership arguments have allow this to slip under the radar. Spshu (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Lockjaw and the Pet Avengers

I just got off of Lockjaw's page and it lists a roster for the new Pet Avengers and then I went to http://marvel.com/news/comicstories.6837.NYCC_~apos~09~colon~_Lockjaw_%26_The_Pet_Avengers and this confirms it So I just posted it onto the page If you have any opinions or further knowledge, or know what universe its in it'd be greatly appreciated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.153.22 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

teen tony and the 'ineligible' section

why is there a separate section for supposedly 'ineligible' characters when there is already a section designed as a catch-all for members with unclear or provisional status? why is rage in this section when he achieved the same level of status as sandman, who is listed in the main body? as for teen tony, he clearly served and was a member of the avenger, when was he declared ineligible on panel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.246.163 (talk) 12:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The ineligible section is an other status section's subsection. You can see it by the table of content structure:

1.11 Other status

1.11.1 Ineligible

1.11.2 Honorary Members

1.11.3 Guardians of the Galaxy

1.11.4 The Great Lakes Avengers

1.11.5 Infiltrators

Secondly it is clear that he is a teenager "on page", so there is no need to announce that he is ineligible "on page". In Rage's case, they had to discover it as his origin of a chemical "bath" made him seem adult like and got toss from the team for ineligible. Darkhawk is in an odd position in that like Rage he was a teenager but transformed into a form that is adult like during his run as a Subsitute Reservist for the West Coast team but never was discover to be a teenager. Of course, Rage attempt to join under the original NY Charter while Darkhawk joined under the U.N. Charter, but I doubt they dropped the underage section of their by-laws they admended them to make them more agreeable to the UN with the subsitute reservist change (if I recall correctly on the admended part; I will take a look later). Spshu (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As far as Sandman, he quit but had an official status, subsitute reservist, and was an adult. Basically, what gets a character in the Other status is the possible confusion that they were truely an official member. Spshu (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The by-law used under the UN Charter were admended by-laws from the NY Charter per issue 329. And Rage "joined" in that issue under the UN Charter & by-laws not the NY Charter & by-laws. Spshu (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

it seems like the 'ineligible status' teen tony is given has nothing to do with anything that happened on panel. he joined the avengers and served as a member. the avengers went so far as to seek him out for crying out loud. he joined long after the reorganization under the UN charter, so we don't even know about age requirements. i dont think this wikipedia should have these arbitrary sections based upon what you think should have happened. this whole article looks and reads terribly now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.246.163 (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because the Avengers when looking for some one and they help the team out does not make them a member of the Avengers. That is quiet arbitrary on your part. And you are making an arbitrary decision in saying the age requirement are gone. If you feel that the whole article looks and reads terribly that is because various Avengers authors have baddly writen or made mistake in whether or not previous author made so-and-so a member. Spshu (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read New Warriors #26, Rage clearly has some status with the Avengers because he has access to Quinjets and Avengers property, and is kicked off the team in that issue. I'm not saying he is a full member, but he evidently had some kind of trainee status which is why he consistently shows up in material as an former Avengers member. I say his we move him to the main roster, with a clarification if necessary about his status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LobtsterJ (talk • contribs) 20:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mediation of D-Man's Membership Status

Hello, I am ErikTheBikeMan (talk), the mediator who has accepted this case with the Mediation Cabal.

This discussion appears to have been going on for over a year and has descended into incivility several times. The current subsection, titled "New Source", is a disagreement between SlamBurger and Spshu over the validity of several sources.

As I've been reading through the discussion, I've been frequently confused, so I've left a few basic questions below. They are mostly background information on the Avengers and the sources, so I don't think both parties would need to answer every one, though they may if they disagree with the other parties response. That said, I don't want to see any removal of comments.

Below, I have also left two subsections: one for both SlamBurger and Spshu to explain their positions about D-Man's status, viewpoint on the sources in question, and to references any relevant policy to their arguments. Only the appropriate editor may edit their section; any questions or comments should be placed in the "General Discussion" sub-section at the bottom of this section.

Finally, I would like to stress that civility must be maintained at all times and that sarcastic comments and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Sincerely, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Questions

• In a few hundred words or less, could one or both of the parties summarize the discussion so far about D-Man's status? As a newcomer to the dispute, I have found the current 30,000 word discussion to be very confusing and unclear.

D-Man was asked to join in Captain America (CA) 349 when the East Coast team had been closed down and a West Coast team existed which raises the question of C.A.’s, a reservist by the flow of the stories & by laws, to officially offer membership and editorial rules forbidding major changes to a character or team featured in another book.

A number of Marvel Comic sources indicate D-Man's unofficial status: Some of the membership lists, Another (O.H./Marvel Universe vol. 3, #2) states “unofficial member”. These sources have the Captain America 349 author, Mark Gruewald, as an editor. While some of the list have problems in completence none effect where or not D-Man should be listed.

Many source supporting membership are inclusive (as I see it). Avengers Casebook 2004, Avengers Vol. 3 No. 1-3 (Morgan Conquest), a newsarama.com poll, a "Kurt Busiek" poll thread post, a “Tom Brevoort” email and other wiki sites. The Avengers Casebook only states he "was recruited into the Avengers" which recruit is inclusive as recruit does necessarily one had acctually joined. Other guest stars appeared in Avenger Vol. 3 No. 1-3 to assist the Avengers who were not members as Slamburger believes his appearance there in means that he is a member. The Busiek post and Brevoort email are unverifible as from them and have factual errors ie. if they "returned to help out in the Morgan Conquest" or "...and he accepted when Cap was the only standing Avenger" when there was a whole team of Avengers, the West Coast Avengers, still active.

It boils down to what sources are reliable and/or NPOV. Spshu (talk)

• What is the "new source" in question?

It is Marvel Comics Encyclopedia: The complete Guide to the characters of the Marvel Universe published by Dk Publishing under license from Marvel.

• DeFalco, Tom. "Avengers" Marvel Comics Encyclopedia: The complete Guide to the characters of the Marvel Universe. DK Publishing. p. 22-23. ISBN 978-07566-2358-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |coauthors=, |nopp=, |month=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |editorn=, |chapterurl=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); Text "editor-link" ignored (help); Text "editorn-first" ignored (help); Text "editorn-last" ignored (help); Text "editorn-link" ignored (help)
• Wallace, Daniel. "Demolition-Man" Marvel Comics Encyclopedia: The complete Guide to the characters of the Marvel Universe. DK Publishing. p. 76. ISBN 978-07566-2358-6. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |laydate=, |coauthors=, |nopp=, |month=, |separator=, |laysummary=, |editorn=, |chapterurl=, and |lastauthoramp= (help); Text "editor-link" ignored (help); Text "editorn-first" ignored (help); Text "editorn-last" ignored (help); Text "editorn-link" ignored (help)

Slamburger challenges its as NPOV as it is a licensed book and in its reliablity as there is no direct list of members and lack of artice on the Champions of LA while each individual members indicates they were member of the Champions.Spshu (talk)

• Am I correct in saying that D-Man's current position on the list in the "Questionable" section is a temporary compromise?

SlamBurger has rejected this compromise before. I have not heard him agree direct to this solution so to a degree, yes, it is. He has object to D-Man's listing in the Other Status (previously Non-member Status) section even though it has included some statement to the effect of "unclear membership status".Spshu (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanation by SlamBurger

Hey there. Sorry I've been away from my computer for a bit. I will definitely try to keep things civil. I think we've both tried to(and failed) in the past. Hell, even admins on here have gotten a little testy, as you can read for yourself.

My basic feeling is that D-Man is an Avenger, officially. Not 'honorary', not 'unofficially'. Tom Brevoort himself(Avengers editor since 1996) himself came on here and said as much. I've spoken to Kurt Busiek through e-mail and he also confirmed D-Man's legit status. I've also been speaking with Sean McQuaid(editor of the offical Marvel handbooks) on the CBR messageboard and he confirmed D-Man's status, as well. This is what he told me:

"D-Man is (or was) a full member, joining in Captain America #349 (1989).

-Sean"

I know all these professionals agreeing with me isn't 'admissable' or whatever in the world of wikipedia but I just wanted to point out that three people whose jobs it is(or was) to be totally knowledgable about the Avengers universe back up my belief that D-Man is a legit member.

As for my 'sources', I have the Avengers Casebook, published in 1999, which lists D-Man as an offical member(confirmed by Tom and Kurt, the authors of the book itself) and the All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A to Z, Vol. 1, which was published in 2008 and lists D-Man under "inactive" members(the heading under which all 'real' Avengers who aren't currently(circa 2008) serving on a team were listed under. There were separate lists for 'former' and 'honorary' members.) The aforementioned Sean McQuaid worked on this book.

As far the encyclopedia Spshu lists as a source, it doesn't even have an Avengers roster listing in it(the 2008 handbook I'm citing does), so it really doesn't serve as proof of anything regarding the offical standing of any character in the Avengers. The fact that the text doesn't mention D-Man specifically doesn't mean he isn't an Avenger(many 'official' Avengers aren't mentioned).

On the subject of the 'reliability' of the encylopedia, It wasn't produced in-house by Marvel. It's purpose is to give a basic background to a wide variety of subjects in the Marvel U. Whereas the handbooks, produced in-house by people whose sole job it is to research these subjects, is far more accurate as far as the minutiae of the Marvel U. is concerned. I'm not saying the encyclopedia is going to be filled with inaccuracies, but a the Marvel U. is 'inhabited' by tens of thousands of characters, a 350 page book is going to provide only very broad strokes.SlamBurger (talk) 05:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I was actually just looking at the amazon.com page for the Marvel Encylopedia spshu is using as a source, and among the user reviews, the most common complaint seems to be the large amounts of errors/inaccurate information in the book. I don't have the book myself but I'd be glad to repost some of the mistakes that made it in if need be(which spshu can verify or not, since I assume he owns the Marvel Encyclopedia).SlamBurger (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the Sean McQuaid I listed is one(not the only)of many people who worked on the latest editions of the OHOTMU and is specifically listed as an "Avengers expert" on the back book flap.SlamBurger (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Explanation by Spshu

The Captain (Steven Rogers the original Captain America's Identity at the time) in Captain America 349 has been shown to be a reservist or inactive member do to the direct follow up of Captain America 349 after Avengers Annual 17 (1988) which feature a team of reserve and inactive Avengers members, as the East Coast Team was shut down. (Note the fact that a West Coast Team was still operating.) The current by-laws in force at the time were published in Avenger Annual 11: Avengers Vol. 1 Annual 11 By-laws §2.B.2. "Candidates for membership must be nominated by one active member in good standing at a regular or special meeting. Election for membershp must be held within one week or nomination and be attended by a simple majority of active members. A two-thirds vote is necessary for election to membership." Additional-- "Group Afiliation: former member of the Unlimited Class Wrestling Federation, Former partner of Captain America, unofficial member of the Avengers"

"Demolition-Man searched for the Captain and finally located him on Avengers Island, formerly known as Hydrobase (see Avengers Hydrobase). Seeking reorganized the Avengers, which had disbanded shortly before, the Captain unofficially inducted Demolition-Man as the team's first new member." Source: Peter Sanderson (w), Josef Rubinstein (i). "Demolition-Man" The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, vol. 3, no. 2, p. 24-25 (August 1989). Marvel Comics.

As far as "Kurt Busiek"'s and "Tom Brevoort"'s statement, I have shown that they have made factual errors in those statements. They are worried about getting out the next comic book they are working on not some comic book from a while ago, so their going to make statements off the top of their heads. Here is a quote from Avengers Vol. 3 No.1 Iron Man: "I agree, Jan, of the members and honoraries we haven't heard from -- virtually all of them are deceased, in another time period, or just plain enigmas." (bolding is mine)-- Clear that they are call in beyond official members. So his appearance here does not prove anything as there are honorary members there in addition to official members.

"This was his reply:

Captain America offered him membership and he accepted when Cap was the only standing Avenger. He counts.

Tom B" As pointed out above their was a West Coast team still active so he was not the only standing Avengers.

I rely on Mark Gruenwald, Avengers Editor for many years, author of Captain America 349 & Marks Remarks in Solo Avengers 15 (Feb. 1989) on who is elgible for the lead slot in Solo Avengers, Peter Sanderson, Marvel historian and writer of multiple volumes of "The official Handbook of the Marvel Universe", Gregory Wright, Gruenwald's assistant editor on the Avengers line and editor of The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Volume 3 Issue 2.

Most errors in the DK Marvel Encyclopedia are mostly has to do with coloring and the wrong picture assign to an article. Mr. Brevoort was one of the writers on said work. So some how, Brevoort is not accurate when not writing for Marvel but is when writing for Marvel or to Slamburger dispite clear error his statement. Given how important the Avengers to the Marvel Universe, any Encyclopedia would list if a character was a member or not in some fashion or other and Slamburger has test that to no avail in regards to DK's book.Spshu (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

General Discussion

I am having trouble understanding why SlamBurger is not confident in the NPOV status and reliability of the new encyclopedia. Yes, it is licensed, but for a book about a fictional universe that is still under copyright, I can't see how it legally cannot be. Secondly, the fact that it is licensed appears to me as though it would enhance the reliability of the encyclopedia, since I highly doubt that Marvel would allow inaccurate material to be published.

A few housekeeping notes: I've moved Spshu's replies to the "Questions" section, since he only answered the questions and did not give his personal opinion about the issue. Sorry if I did not make that clear enough in the introduction.

Let me rephrase it here: one, or both, of the parties may answer the questions in the "Questions" section, while I would like each party to specifically state their positions about D-Man's status, viewpoint on the sources in question, and to references any relevant policy to their arguments. Only the appropriate editor may edit their section; any questions or comments about explanations should be placed in the "General Discussion" sub-section at the bottom of this section.

ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Spshu, there is no need to put Kurt Busiek and Tom Brevoorts names in "quotes" as though they aren't really the people they claim to be. John Carter confirmed he spoke with Tom Brevoort and you're certainly welcome to email Kurt Busiek, he has a public email address.SlamBurger (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want an email from Brevoort's email address I can send you one. It is call spoofing. Spshu (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

So, SlamBurger mentioned above that the encyclopedia does not have a full roster of Avengers in it, while SlamBurger's handbook does. Therefore, Spshu, do you believe that it may be possible that the handbook may be more reliable in this case than the encyclopedia? It seems to me that being mentioned in a full roster outweighs not being mentioned in a book that does not have an exhaustive roster. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Spshu, I would think it would be impossible to say that Tom Breevort was incorrect in his work on the Marvel Encyclopedia, as so many people worked on it I don't think we can hazard a guess as to who worked on what section. With that being said, I don't think the Encyclopedia is 'wrong' in regards to D-Man, just that there isn't nearly enough information present for the claims you're trying to make in regards to his membership status.SlamBurger (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that inclusion in a list is more reliable then the encyclopedia, but list in Avenger Vol.3 No.1 in the front fold out also by Bevoort and Busiek have been inclusive as it clear included honorary members. I indicated the wrong source for the "was recruited into the Avengers" quote that StarSpangledKiwi quoted he indicates before the qoute according to him from the Avengers 2004 Handbook, I assume he means the 2005 Handbook not the 1999 Casebook. Additional the cover has Young Avengers on the cover. So between the cover and the inclusive statement in his entry, I can not say that the 2005 Handbook is reliable. I don't find any of his source to be verifiable as they seem to ignore Captain America 349 author and confirmed in Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Vol.3 No.2.Spshu (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

spshu, the fold-out cover of Avengers vol.3 no.1 isn't supposed to be a complete roster listing, it's a listing of the characters who appear in the comic book issue itself, which was a common practice in Marvel comic booksSlamBurger (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC) from that time period.

Two out of four articles writen by Breevort in the DK's Encyclopedia have factual errors in them. Alpha Flight's article has an incorrect founding members list (both Guardian and Vindicator listed with Puck and no twins) and no mention of The Flight. Arcanna's article seem to had a some made up stuff. Yes, Slamburger, I do understand that it is about who are the feature character, but the title on the issue is "Avengers" after all and should list the members and this issue is one of your sources. Spshu (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for a bit. Anyway, Spshu: I agree with SlamBurger about the fold out. It is most likely in no way an all-inclusive list, so can't really be used here.

Basically, this just leaves the Encyclopedia. SlamBurger: Could you accept that, because of the errors present, the source is not reliable? Spshu: Do you think that perhaps the two errors that Breevort made in the Encyclopedia are unrelated to the reliability of the encyclopedia?

Also, just a general question: Did Breevort write the roster that includes D-Man?

Thanks,

ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The fold out was from Slamburger's source, Avengers Vol. 3 No.1 and I was indicating its unreliability. The errors that Breevort made in the Encyclopedia are related to the reliablity of Breevort. The Encyclopedia is writen by multiple authors, so each article must be judged seperately. The solo source that might support D-Man's membership, Avengers Casebook 1999 was written by Marc Steven Sumerak, Kurt Busiek and George Perez are credited as Content Consultants and Breevort as editor.

Checking the Captain America issue 400-401, written by Mark Gruenwald (writer of Captain America 349), when D-Man was found alive there was no mention of him being a member even though the Avengers (USAgent & Falcon) were involved in his rescue. Spshu (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I countinue checking Captain America issue 384, 402-434 (still written by Mark Gruenwald) and in no case has D-Man has been refered to as any thing other than Captain America's friend even when dealing with other Avengers members or staff. Issue 384 is when Captain America goes looking for D-Man after a reported sighting of a man frozen in ice instead find Jack Frost frozen. Spshu (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

An Avengers membership isn't going to be mentioned in every single appearance by any character. Do all(or even most or even a few) issues of Fantastic Four published after Avengers #300 mention that Reed and Sue Richards were members of the Avengers at one point?SlamBurger (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Captain America, after Avengers 300 and Captain America 350, operated out of Avengers Mansion until the "Fighting Chance" story line about issue 424, so Avengers' Members and Staff were the supporting cast in his own book, so the likely hood of mention that to an Avengers staff member or Avengers member when discussing D-Man is greater than a mention of the Richard's Avengers membership in the Fantastic Four. Still, Avengers members and staff continued being supporting characters after he moved out of Avengers HQ.

Don't forget SlamBurger that Captain America 349 is the issue you are claiming D-Man's membership stems from, even dispite that I pointed out that the writer of Captain America would not -- as it editorial policy for the writer of one book to write major events that effect another book-- determine who the members of the Avengers are as that is a major event. Common sense dictates that it would be so on top of any editorial policy. On your say so then we should toss all proof of D-Man's membership based on Captain America comic, right? Spshu (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been away for awhile. While I believe the discussion is making progress, I would like to remind both parties to please remain civil. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

So, it generaly looks like SlamBurger is citing an issue of the comic as why D-Man is a member, while Spshu now seems to be saying that the writer not commenting on D-Man's membership status is proof that he is not. I think that, in accordance with WP:RS, we should use what it says in the comic, as this is a definitive statement, not the lack of one from a busy writer. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, looking for additional support for or against D-Man's membership does not negate that I base it on several sources. I still have other source like "Demolition-Man" article in The Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe vol. 3, #2 that indicate that it is an unofficial act in offering membership to D-Man. No one has given any reason for that to be unreliable. I looked over the other Captain America issues as a reinforcement of Captain America 349 author, Mark Gruenwald, position on D-Man's membership status as unofficial who was an editor on Marvel Universe Vol. 3 No. 2. He had 85 issues in which to state D-Man's Avengers membership with Avengers members or staff (as pointed out where supporting characters in Cap.'s book). Slamburger's position is unconfirmed while mine has supporting documents. Should or do I have to rehash my initial supporting documents in the general discussion?

A similar situation to Captain America's offer to D-Man is the offer of the Vice-Presidency to Sara Palin by John McCain. The offer to Palin of the Vice-President does not guarantee that Palin become the Vice-President more must accure for that to happen ie. winning the election. Just because some one is offered the position does not mean that

So we should include those who joined under false pretenses, mind control or other infiltration methods (not withstanding those that later join without any such tenses or date) like Ravonna or "Anti"Vision? After all they are confirmed on page as "being members". Spshu (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would you say my position is 'unconfirmed' when I have presented plenty of back-up to my belief, most of it far more recent than the stuff you cite?SlamBurger (talk) 05:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Please follow along, I will restate some facts that have been put out in discussion. The Avengers Handbook 1999 was not writen by Tom Brevoort nor Kurt Busiek. They have made factual misstatements about the time period of Cap.America's offer to D-Man. Brevoort made blatent errors in the DK Marvel Encyclopedia. Mark Gruenwald has some input over all my sources and he is the author of Captain America 349. I over looked your source of the All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A to Z, Vol. 1 (2008), but Sean McQuaid has indicated that membership in the Avenger is "With such a wide variety of perspectives in the mix, there are bound to be errors or differences of opinion or both when it comes to figuring out who's who and what's what in the Avengers roster." McQuaid tries to indicated that Avengers Vol. 3 No. 1 specifies membership: "AVENGERS vol. 3 #1 made it clear all three of them had some formal membership", when by direct quote from the issue shows that it does not. He also makes it clear that mistakes in the Avengers Casebook 1999 continue on into other works although he calls it being confirmed. He also tries to indicated Members that were not confirmed in West Coast Avengers Annual 1, ie. Guardians of the Galaxy or any where else for that matters. For a supposed Avengers "expert", he throws in a lot of errors and likes to perpetate others. Hardly a ringing endorsement of All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A to Z, Vol. 1 (2008). Spshu (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, your grasp of the english language seems so tenuous it is often hard to tell what you're talking about at any given time. As far as the involvement of Breevort and Busiek in the Avengers Casebook 1999, Brevoort came to this very page to comment! Have you forgotten?

"AVENGERS CASEBOOK 1999, which includes a full and annotated roster up till that time, researched and disected by Kurt Busiek and myself. It's the best and most complete and accurate source concerning who is and is not an Avenger up to the point where it was published."

That is from Breevort himself.SlamBurger (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Slam, I feel that I must urge you to remain civil. Phrases such as "Honestly, and I'm not trying to be a jerk here, your grasp of the english language seems so tenuous it is often hard to tell what you're talking about at any given time," can hardly qualify as civil language and are at the very least somewhat inflammatory.

To comment on the discussion, it appears that both sides seem to be well sourced. Would it be acceptable to both parties to work out way to show that D-Man's membership is questionable. His current listing, under the "Questionable" section, appears to be an early compromise, though I personally think that it might be the best way to end this dispute. As other suggestions, we could possibly list him as a member, with a sidenote about his questionable status. We could also list him in the honorary members section, with a sidenote about the same. I personally believe that both parties will find the first suggestion the most reasonable, although the other two may work as well.

While we have not been able to determine who is "correct", it appears that, in this case, the word "correct" is fairly ambiguous, as we are dealing with a fictional character who is called a full member in some sources, though an honorary member in others.

Respectfully, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 03:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with it being questionable at all. I am just going to bow out of this and you can all do what you want. The membership page, honestly, look and reads like crap once spshu decided to go to town on it, and I'd just as soon not be part of it. Things didn't go the way I wanted them to and I don't feel the need to throw over a years worth of tantrums like some people on here to get 'my' way. Peace out.SlamBurger (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

While I was waiting on you, Erik, to comment on SlamBurger's lack of civility, I was on my Sandbox page building summary of the error thus unreliability of his sources. Slamburger has been know to "back out" then show back up. How do you want to proceed now, Erik? Perhaps, I might as well post my work on the unreliability of his sources. Spshu (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away for awhile... Show week was crazy for me... I would suggest that you post your work here now, and see how SlamBurger responds, though it appears by his comment that he may not. If that is the case for about a week from your posting, I feel that we should proceed in the manner you see fit.

Secondly, I would like to strongly admonish SlamBurger for making personal attacks on another editor, especially one that he is currently engaged in negotiations with. He has been previously asked to remain civil, so I find his behavior in his most recent post to be borderline unacceptable. If he wishes to resume civil negotiations, I would strongly recommend that he make an apology to Spshu, who appears to be very willing to communicate calmly and civilly.

I also feel that it would be a good idea to remind Spshu that he should also remain civil in spite of these attacks. While this warning is most likely unnecessary, I feel overly reminding someone to be civil cannot do any damage.

Cheers, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Breevort Reliability

"AVENGERS CASEBOOK 1999, which includes a full and annotated roster up till that time, researched and disected by Kurt Busiek and myself. It's the best and most complete and accurate source concerning who is and is not an Avenger up to the point where it was published."

Breevort is not writer of Avengers Casebook 1999, but was credit as editor; Marc Steven Sumerak is. Breevort is solely editor per credits.

"This was his reply: Captain America offered him membership and he accepted when Cap was the only standing Avenger. He counts. Tom B" FALSE

West Coast Avengers was being published from issue 1 (October 1985) to issue 102 (January 1994). At no time was their a gap in the West Coast team having active members during its existance.

Then who are Hulk, Hercules, Falcon and Beast if they are not Avengers in Avengers Annual #17 directly previous to Captain America 349 (per the first page caption)? They, including The Captain (C.A.) at the time, were reservist and inactive Avengers called up at the time.

Breevort: "Thing is an Avenger. He joined in WEST COAST AVENGERS #9, even though he didn't immediately take part in an adventure."

Show to be false directly from West Coast Avengers 9 & 10. (And reinforce in DK's Marvel Encyclopedia listing the Thing as an Ally.)

Breevort wrote the "Alpha Flight" article for DK's Marvel Encyclopedia with major errors in the original membership.

Is Breevort reliable? NO

• Kurt Busiek Reliability

By the way, this is exactly what Kurt had to say on the subject:

"D-Man's an inactive Avenger.

"He was offered membership by Cap, he accepted, he's a member. He was on the books, he returned to help out in the Morgan Conquest, he's an Avenger."

Kurt Busiek repeated THREE TIMES that Demolition Man is legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.248.48 (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC) (Morgan Conquest refering to Volume 3's first three issues.)

As pointed out before -- Avengers Vol. 3 issue 1 page 25 Panel 1 -- Iron Man: "I agree, Jan, of the members and honoraries we haven't heard from -- virtually all of them are deceased, in another time period, or just plain enigmas." (bolding is mine)-- Clear that they are call in beyond official members.

Rage was clearly in Avengers Vol. 3 issue 1, but his membership was withdrawn for being underage in Avengers vol.1 issue 341-342. At the time, other non-members showing up too: Stingray, Justice and Firestar, etc. So just helping out in the Morgan Conquest is not an indicator of membership.

Is Busiek reliable? NO

• Sean McQuaid Reliability?

Sean McQuaid has indicated that membership in the Avenger is "With such a wide variety of perspectives in the mix, there are bound to be errors or differences of opinion or both when it comes to figuring out who's who and what's what in the Avengers roster."

McQuaid basically gives up in this statement in any attempt at being correct.

McQuaid tries to indicated that Avengers Vol. 3 No. 1 specifies membership: "AVENGERS vol. 3 #1 made it clear all three of them had some formal membership" (refering to Swordsman [Gatherer], Magdalene and Deathcry).

Which is it McQuaid correct or is Busiek?

As pointed out before -- Avengers Vol. 3 issue 1 page 25 Panel 1 -- Iron Man: "I agree, Jan, of the members and honoraries we haven't heard from -- virtually all of them are deceased, in another time period, or just plain enigmas." (bolding is mine)-- Clear that they are call in beyond official members.

Rage was clearly in Avengers Vol. 3 issue 1, but his membership was withdrawn for being underage in Avengers vol.1 issue 341-342. At the time, other non-members showing up too: Stingray, Justice and Firestar, etc. So just helping out in the Morgan Conquest is not an indicator of membership.

MQuaid statesJocasta is a member but then direct points out that she never accept substitute status with the team and thus not a member.

Is McQuaid reliable? NO

• Avengers Casebook 1999 Reliability

Editor Breevort found to be unreliable.

Consultant Busiek found to be unreliable.

Some else, Marc Steven Sumerak, wrote the book. Increased likely hood of errors.

Conclusion, Casebook 1999 is unreliable.

• New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A to Z, Vol. 1 (2008)

McQuaid, the Avengers "expert" of this Handbook, is unreliable. Spshu (talk) 13:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

wait, how is sean mcquaid admitting there are different perspectives in the mix at all him giving up on being correct? he is conceding the fact that there are DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES involved, isn't this argument proof of this? Demolition Man is in the "questionable" status here because of that very issue. would you have prefered he said "there is only one opinion of who was an avenger ever." would that lie have made his opinions more "valid" to you?

also, when mcquad refers to "formal membership" in regards to deathcry, magdalene, and swordsman, he is not necessarily refering to full membership. honorary membership is "formalized" in the sense that it is a status bestowed by the avengers. an "honorary" avenger has been given that status, it isn't just applied to people who hang around the team.

as for avengers casebook 1999, you do realize what an editor does right? he EDITS the book, making sure the information in the book is correct. the buck stops with the editor.

Solo Avengers 15 is not a useful source in the case of Demolition Man. The roster list is for the purposes of a readers poll to determine who the readers would like to see take over the title. The list is presented as "eligible" people, not official members - at the time the comic was published, Demolition was considered dead so was not exactly "eligible" to headline a series. To quote the issue, "Just to remind you who's eligible, here's a list:" not "Just to remind you who had official Avengers status" or something similar. Did you notice how Swordsman is not on the list, as well? You know why? He was dead, not because he wasn't a team member. If you want to cling to this source as a reason D-man isn't a member, we are gonna have to throw Swordsman I into the questionable category also. While we are at it, Stingray, Rage and Two-Gun Kid are all cited as members in the Avengers entry in All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A to Z, Vol. 1, so I move to put them in questionable as well.

Can we get some kind of comment from the moderator on the way that SPSHU just picks and choose when sourcs are relevant or not, even going so far as to claim that emails from Breevort, Busiek, etc. are not reliable and verifiable and then using them as "proof" that the authors themselves are unreliable! My God. He does the same thing, using the text of Avengers Annual 15 to justify certain exclusions of members and then dismissing the events of Avengers #305, claiming the writer of that issue is "wrong." Can I get a word from the moderator whether on-panel happenings are only valid when they support SPSHU's opinions? Otherwise...

It just seems to me that, when dealing with a fictional universe, Marvel holds the final say and we should use the latest resources they specifically develop for this purpose. In their latest handbook, in the AVENGERS section, they have a clear list of who had what membership status. In the real world, if I claim George Bush was a member of the LA Lakers, well that is absurd. But if Marvel prints it in a comic, well then the fictional George Bush was a member of the Marvel Universe Lakers. Its up to us to reconcile that with whats on panel, not dismiss it with a simple "the writer was wrong" right?LobtsterJ (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for flying off the handle. It is somewhat frustrating to be engaged in the same debate for well over a year, especially when I believe the issue to be pretty clear cut. In my defense, though, if you look at all of the previous posting on this issue, it isn't like Spshu hasn't gotten a little out of hand himself a time or two. Heck, even some of the admins on here have said some of the same things I did. But again, sorry for my outburst. I will remain civil from here on out. That being said- I don't really think you can dismiss all of my sources simply by putting a fancy red x next to them. I think Lobster J has made some very good points I wasn't even aware of (especially in regards to the uselessness of the Mark's Remarks column as a source). So by my count Spshu now has one actual source that backs up his claim in regards to the non-membership of D-Man, a source that is over 20 years old. SlamBurger (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

and even that source is questionable, when you consider the fact that there is a current edition of the handbook out that lists demolition man as a member. i mean, don't you generally go to the latest edition of a work to get the most up-to-date information? i'd refer to this years encyclopedia for an overview of a topic before the one put out in 1989. LobtsterJ (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

SOLO AVENGERS 26 - the readers poll for this issue isn't really a valid source because the ballots printed in avengers 305 and wca 46 contain no roster listing - they just ask for readers to vote for their favorite avengers. the results printed in avengers spotlight 26 don't include demolition man, but that may be because he didn't receive any votes. that is an entirely plausible scenario - he was made an avenger in captain america, not an avengers book, and he is pretty obscure to begin with. i'm willing to bet some readers didn't even know he was an avenger. so you can't use the result of a vote to determine whether he was an avenger or not, especially when no eligible roster was printed from which to choose. it looks like you have 0 actual sources right now, spshu. moderator, can we move d-man back to the members section?LobtsterJ (talk) 00:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the defense of McQuaid's reliability in regards to the different perspectives but you can not deny that he does contradict himself. The only perspective is the chain of events in the comic books as shown. Honorary "membership" is not a formal membership per the by-laws as I do recall. In regards, LobtsterJ, as to what a editor does, the moderator asked participants (original just myself & Slamburger) to be civil and that applies to you too. But being the editor does not neccessarily indicate that he particapate in the research. A editor glances it for for any glaring mistakes and decides who gets credits for what. If he was so involved in the research, he could have easily given himself credit. As far as Solo Avengers 15 Mark's Remarks list not including D-Man because he was dead and therefor not a reliable source is not a correct assumption as Moondragon was decease for both Solo Avengers 1 and 15 lists and still made the them. Death is not permanent in comics.

Stingray was clearly only the caretaker of Avengers Island and only assist them in one case. Rage was clearly tossed out in Avengers 342 for being under age.

As far as me picking an choose which source are reliable or not. SlamBurger is the one who went down that road by attack the DK's Marvel Encyclopedia. He indicated that he could not keep up with what I was saying nor did he challenge any of it. In most debates if statements are not challenged then they stand. The whole bullet listing group on reliability was to summarize it for the moderator (and previously Slamburger, until he left). The emails and forum posts for Wikipedia are not reliable as source, but Slamburger keeps bringing them up thus beleiving them to be legitmate message from them. He continues to use them as a denial against my stance. Hence they are open game for me to disprove their content and against the author's reliability. The wording of Avenger Annual 15 is clear in that they were trying to determine who of the membership would be working with Grych against them. Avengers 305 as I have shown by logic is unclear in effecting anyone not currently an official member, not that the author was "wrong". Please stop mischaracterizing my actions or over read into the authors writing. By the way, Avengers 305 was writen by John Byrne who had to indicate that he incorrectly included Tigra in the "Atlantis Attack" storyline that ran through a years set of annuals. If LobtsterJ wish that no reliability judgements be made then the DK's Marvel Encyclopedia under Wikipedia is the prefered source as it a third party source.

Breevort: "AVENGERS CASEBOOK 1999, which includes a full and annotated roster up till that time, researched and disected by Kurt Busiek and myself. It's the best and most complete and accurate source concerning who is and is not an Avenger up to the point where it was published."

This indicates that Avengers Casebook was researched that meaning that they were looking to see what happened in book, not change a character's status based on a whim. Nor has anyone indicated that at any other time then D-Man's attempted recruitment in Captain America 349 has he been recruited for the team. Also, all I have for the text for D-Man in Avengers Casebook 1999 is that he was recruited for the Avengers that does not neccessarily means he join the Avengers as Spiderman was recruited multiple times before he joined in Avenger 349. And so were Blue Shield, Speedball, etc. (in Captain America 352 or so) and none of them are even listed as members.

Slamburger, the images were to get it across to you each reliability issue in a clear manner since you could not understand what I was saying. So don't be dismissive of the the red "x", the message they contain is that you have nothing supporting your position. And after LobtsterJ's argument, you still don't. I have 5 sources and a few supporting sources.

You are right, LobtsterJ, in indicating that the SOLO AVENGERS 26's the readers poll results are not vary valid for determining membership as Mr. Immortal and Yellowjacket II make the list and they are clearly not Avengers. But that indicates that no one at that time even considers D-Man a legimate Avengers as there would have been one vote from Slamburger for D-Man. As I have gone over before: given Marvel's Editorial policy, a writer of one book cannot write a major plot point for another active book. Slamburger has been unwilling to confirm this policy, so it stands. Who is a member of a team (that has a book) is a major plot point. So, D-Man is not going in with the offical members. Spshu (talk) 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

spshu - please don't erase my citations on the D-MAN listing. thank you. i left yours alone, even though they are mostly invalid or irrelevant. thanks.LobtsterJ (talk) 22:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you complaint about me supposedly unilateral deciding reliability then you decide that you can declare my sources "invalid or irrelevant". That is rich and uncivil.Spshu (talk) 18:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider it to be uncivil, i am not personally attacking you. I find your sources to be irrelevant and invalid. you assume the same thing about my sources, don't you? isn't that why you edited them out? isn't that what this debate is over? what sources are valid and how this avenges member wiki will reflect those sources?LobtsterJ (talk) 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Spshu, are you really trying to suggest that the fact that no one voted for D-Man is some sort of evidence backing you claim? Are you really suggesting you know Marvel's editorial policy? Over Tom Brevoort and Kurt Busiek?SlamBurger (talk) 18:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

" But that indicates that no one at that time even considers D-Man a legimate Avengers as there would have been one vote from Slamburger for D-Man." What does that sentence even mean? are you trying to imply that d-man should have one vote in a comic poll for 1989 because slamburger should have voted for him? is that seriously part of your case?

As for your supposed 5 sources for D-man, none of them are any valid .The Avengers and D-man entries in the DK encyclopedia contain omissions.I mean, the Avengers entry does not include a full roster listing. How can you use it as proof of anyones membership when it is clearly not a full roster? D-man is an obscure Avengers. He is not going to make a list of any notable Avengers. If you want to use that as a source as to why D-man is not an Avengers, aren't we going to have to throw the 40 or so other Avengers not listed into the questionable list? The book is clearly incomplete, incorrect, and has omissions. Just because a source conforms to your opinion does not make it good or credible. This book is neither.

The Mark's remarks columns in Spotlight 15 and 26, by your own admission, contain errors. How can you attempt to use them as a source against D-man when you admit they are inaccurate? Are we going to put Mr. Immortal and the female Yellowjacket in the member list now? Which is it? Either a source is accurate and we go by it or it isn't. You don't pick and choose parts from something and cite them as your source. Nevermind the fact that 15 is a list of people eligible for a solo series and 26 is from a readers poll that DID NOT INCLUDE A LIST OF ELIGIBLE PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR. i mean, these "sources" are completely worthless in terms of determining membership. as for the listing in avengers 15 listing dead people, where is swordsman? he was dead and an official avengers right? so the list is incomplete. d-mans omission or inclusion on this list is irrelevant to his status, because the list is incomplete and includes omissions. it is simply not meant to be an actual or complete roster, and it seems dishonest to try and use it as such.

The 1989 Handbook update is your source that comes closest to having some validity, but it seems odd to choose handbook from 1989 when a new edition exists from 2008. shouldn't more up to date sources be used, reflecting further research? especially when dealing with a fictional universe. if marvel says d-man was a member of the avengers, doesn't that make him a member of the avengers? he exists in a fictional universe that marvel wholly owns and controls. and they say he was. and the most recent handbook reflects that.

As for Stingray, he is indicated as a member in Avengers Casebook 1999 and the most recent Handbook of the Marvel Universe. His inclusion in the questionable category is merely to acknowledge that sources exist that contradict each other. He also served on far more than "one case." He appeared in Avengers vol. 3 1-4, The Crosing Line sage in vol. 1 319-324, during Dissasembled, and during the saga in vol 3 where Kang took over the world (circa issue #50.) and those are just off the top of my head. The same goes for Rage. You may think that his being taken off the team over his age means he was never a member or belongs in some special "ineligible" category, but there are differing sources. He had access to Avengers property and material after his supposed dismissal from the group, so he evidently had some sort of status past the point you cite of his dismissal.

"As I have gone over before: given Marvel's Editorial policy, a writer of one book cannot write a major plot point for another active book. Slamburger has been unwilling to confirm this policy, so it stands. Who is a member of a team (that has a book) is a major plot point." can you find some source or evidence that this is the case, not just your understanding or opinion of how marvel editorial works?

but this is getting us nowhere, obviously you have sources and i have sources and arguing over the sources could go on forever. i guess many avents are going to have to go into the questionable category, because there will exist for most of the b-list avengers some source that omits them. for example, the dk publishing book is going to put a lot of actual avengers into that questionable category.

As for me not having any sources, you've got to be kidding with that after the absolute trash you try to pass off as "sources." Mine are actual books (with complete roster listings!!) published by Marvel. The only thing you've done to discredit them is attack the credibility of emails and blog posts from the creators involved, blog and email posts you have said aren't even from the creators involved! I am going to the most recent (and more importantly, complete) sources and citing them. You are looking for sources that reinforce an opinion you already hold. Its no wonder you have to rely on stuff like MARKS REMARKS from 20 years ago, both of which I've shown to be incomplete and irrelevant.LobtsterJ (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Spshu, how exactly is Captain America 349 now a source for D-Man not being an Avenger? I'm gonna love this one, no doubt.SlamBurger (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

mighty avengers (interational) membership section - jumping the gun?

with one issue released, does it seem a bit premature to give some of these people membership status? who knows how things will hash out when the first story-arc is resolved. seems a bit like when jessica jones was listed in new avengers based on her presence in NA #48LobtsterJ (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be happening way too soon, people were trying to re-do the rosters as soon as preview art for the Avengers titles were posted. Just because the characters are in the storyline doesn't mean they're gonna be members of the team.SlamBurger (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

this section is being monkeyed with again. is it that hard for people to understand that appearing in a comic does not make a person a member of a team? has hulk done anything to indicate he'd be joining? hes a mindless "hulk!" why would amadeus cho, a teenager who hangs out with hercules, be an avengers member? cmon now folks.LobtsterJ (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, just like offering membership and accepting does make one automatically a member, else Spiderman would have a much earlier join date. He was offer membership and he accept with the condition that he capture the Hulk in issue 11 (? or so) then again offered membership by Thor in Avengers 211 which he turns down then attempts to accept in 236 & 237 but is turn down. Again offered membership in issue 318, he inital accepts then turns down membership. Not until 329 does he actual fully accept membership and voted on to the East Subsitute Reservist Team.

The author even indicates that those appearing may not be members except for Pym and are only there to invoke a facit of the original membership ie. USAgent to represent Captain America, etc. Per the CBR interview -- Slott states: “Not everyone on the cover is going to be on the team-- And not everyone on the team is on the cover. We’ve got some surprises for you.” Spshu (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

after reading issue 23 its clear that USAgent, Stature, the new Vision, and the Wasp are members. Hulk and Quicksilver refuse, and Iron Man is not asked to join. Hercules and Jocasta are seen with the new team, but no in-story confirmation was given of their membership.LobtsterJ (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Another possible source?

I admit I did not read the entire D-Man discussion, but I did look over the roster listings and thought I had seen other 'statuses' for some members. My Source: The Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game Guide To The Hulk & The Avengers. ISBN 0-7851-1158-1

It lists:

• Captain America - Founding Member (Retroactive)
• Yellowjacket (Rita DeMara) - Honorary Member (Posthumous)
• Two-Gun Kid - Honorary Member
• Masque II ("Bio-duplicate" of Whitney Frost) - Honorary Member

It also lists Demolition Man and Stingray under "Recruits" which seems to be a catch-all section for people who are not Founders or Honorary members. I understand that this might not mean a thing, as it doesn't give a certain 'Member' status to the character. I wanted to offer this source up as a possible tertiary(?) source. TheKnightlyOne (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the source. It is not a tertiary source as it was published by Marvel Publishing (who is D.B.A. Marvel Comics). Some one had tagged Captain America as being designated retroactively as a founding member but they listed the issue that it happened before as Vol.1 issue 2 which makes little sense as Captain America was revived in Avengers Vol.1 Issue 4. That helps move Two-Gun Kid to honorary as I seem to recall that he was but could not find a source. The more that we can move out of the general other to a more defined category the better.Spshu (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

why is this being used as a source for two-gun kid and not masque or yellowjacket? they are still listed in the other category. also, the official handbook of the marvel universe list two gun in the former members, not honoraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.246.163 (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Two-Gun Kid is from the old west, and assisted the Avengers when several of them were caught back in the period of time. It would make sense then, that he was made and honorary member, not a former member, as the Avengers did not exist yet in his time. TheKnightlyOne (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

according to sean mcquaid who helped write and research the most recent handbook, "He made it into a few roster lists here and there as well, but 3.1 was one of the first AVENGERS comics to make it clear he was a member (though we'd also seen fairly clear indications in other books, like his Avengers ID card seen in SUNSET RIDERS). While some sources have interpreted TGK as an honorary member, Busiek later confirmed him as a reservist. I agree with Kurt's interpretation, partly because it gels well with the 151 story where TGK and various confirmed reservists are described as being ready to help as needed, and partly because non-standard memberships-while-based-away-from-the-team (as TGK was in those days) tend to be reservists -- i.e. Black Knight, Firebird, Machine Man, Darkhawk, Ronin/Echo -- as opposed to non-standard memberships-with-regular-HQ-access, which tend to be honoraries like Deathcry, Magdalene, Marrina, etc." He posted this on a messageboard over at comicbookresources.com Now i know this is not a valid source, and i'm not suggesting it is, just an interesting perspective for someone who has an interest in avengers membership history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.246.163 (talk) 14:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume your reference to 3.1 means Avengers Vol.3 Issue 1. In that case, it is clearly stated by the founders summoning members that honoraries were called in too. Second of all, although I have nailed down the time that the Avengers Annual 11 by-laws come into effect, before you can be a reservist under those by-laws you must serve atleast six month as an active member and be available for call up. Returning to the past sure doesn't make one available for call up. Spshu (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

as i clearly noted, i wasn't suggesting him as a source that could be used for wikipedia. just thought his take was interesting since he actually works for marvel and has been invloved with the most recent editions of their handbooks, which give two-gun member status. but speaking of avengers annual 11 and the bylaws, for every character listed above, have we seen them all nominated at meetings and the voting process? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.246.163 (talk) 00:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC) and furthermore, if the bylaws state this "3. Active Avengers shall be issued an Avengers identification card and an emergency signal device." how can two-gun have an ID card? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.246.163 (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The author and Busiek made a mistake. To be a reservist (under the Avengers Annual 11 by-laws), a member has to serve six months as an active member and I don't think that Two-gun Kid met that requirement. Also, Englehart, the writer for both Avengers 142 and West Coast Avengers Annual 1, never mentions Two-Gun Kid as a member in the West Coast Annual as a member (as they when down the list to see who betrayed them). None of the above (Yellowjacket (Rita DeMara), Two-Gun Kid, Masque II -- all as honorary) never came up for a vote. They get lump as honorary probably as people assume that they are members. Becoming a team member should be recognized by authors as a major plot point in a team comic book, so something indictive that a vote will go down (with no interruption) or has gone down should be shown on page. This is the Avengers not a non-team like the Defenders after all. Spshu (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

so you decide who is an avenger, not the authors of the comics? interesting. it seems kind of asinine to base so much on a back-up feature in an annual that appeared in 1982 and not on in-story events, but whatever. that is why wikipedia will continue to be inaccurate on this matter, i guess. do we see votes for every single member listed as official? did we see the west coast team voting to allow gilgamesh, thor, the captain, invisible woman, and mr. fantastic in as a reconstituted branch, for example?74.69.246.163 (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For some clarity, I mean that the author that made a mistake is the author of SUNSET RIDERS, as I clearly point out the AVENGERS AUTHOR that made the wrote Two-Gun Kid in the Avengers issues position on his membership: "Englehart, the writer for both Avengers 142 and West Coast Avengers Annual 1, never mentions Two-Gun Kid as a member in the West Coast Annual 1 (as they when down the list to see who might have betrayed them)." So this is not me decided who is an Avengers what so ever.Spshu (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

well, you clearly hold the charter to be the standard and use it to justify your every position on this wikipedia. the charter clearly states that members get ID cards. yet, two gun shows up with one in SUNSET RIDERS. it may be your opinion that this is a writers mistake. but yet, there he is in SUNSET RIDERS with an ID card. now, that either means he was made a member (according to a strict definition of your beloved charter) or we have to entertain the fact that maybe things happen that aren't seen on panel, and that the by-laws aren't completely relevant to 100% of membership questions and sometime situations fall outside the charter. when you say "the author is wrong" well, maybe he didn't do his research. but there is two-gun with an ID card. if he was never made a member, how did he get it?74.69.246.163 (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not think you can take the continuity of one comic for granted as being true for all other comics in the same universe. I don't know when Sunset Riders was written, but there seemed to be a lack of communication and continuity in Marvel during the late 80's and early 90's, which is where most of this argument is coming from. TGK and the others were never really defined in their memberships in a clear way, which causes this argument. I think it is safe to say that we all agree that TGK is an Avenger in some way, shape, or form. I think, until we have solid proof from another source, that 'Honorary' is a good home for him.TheKnightlyOne (talk) 15:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, which comics count as source worthy for a list such as this one? Obviously an Avengers titles would be hands down the best, but how many links away are we willing to go? The title book for an Avengers character? (IE: Captain America; Iron Man) What about books about other teams featuring Avengers? (X-Men, Defenders). There comes a point when you really can't use a comic as a source for this. I wouldn't call anything in an X-Men comic as proof for anything for the Avengers, unless the source inside the comic had a direct, undeniable tie to the Avengers. (Beast stating a matter-of-fact from during his time with the team; A conversation with an Avenger; etc.) TheKnightlyOne (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)(PS: Before anyone gets upset, I'm not claiming someone used an X-Men comic as source material, it was just an example)

Took a look at it at the library. I don't think it is a realible list as it includes Rage who is clearly not a member. Spshu (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

EDWIN JARVIS

i think he should be removed from the listing, what is unclear about his status? he is an employee of the avengers and/or tony stark and the maria stark foundation. i don't think it has ever been suggested that he has any kind of status with the team? has anyone ever seen him listed as an honorary anywhere? LobtsterJ (talk) 12:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Now Mantis is not a member?

hey spshu, why is mantis now in the honorary section? she is included as a member in what seems to be two of your favorite sources - avengers annual 15 and solo avengers 1/15. there are no qualifications or questions given in those issues. what gives? i'm moving her back to the regular section.LobtsterJ (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

expansion of the 'questionable' section

I'd like to expand the questionable section to include a number of members, and cite my sources for inclusion for:

Rage, Thing, Two-Gun Kid, Stingray, Hellcat, Firebird

These sources include Avengers Casebook 1999, Avengers vol 1 #305, Avengers Vol. 3#1, the Avengers entry in the All-New Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe A to Z, Vol. 1, and various others. Any objections?

And before we get into it, I am not going to use an appearance in Avengers vol. 3 #1 as proof of membership, just cite the bit with the Fantastic Four where they make direct commentary to the prior membership of The Thing.LobtsterJ (talk) 12:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got no complaint.SlamBurger (talk) 14:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the questionable list to include those members I will cite membership sources for. Will be doing that over the next few days. Just wanted to get them all in the right group before I started citing. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by LobtsterJ (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

see all the objections to there reliability above in the D-Man arguments.Spshu (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mighty Avengers members 'real' Avengers members?

According to Hank Pym in Mighty Avengers 24, the new international team is operating under the Avengers charter. "the way I see it, I'm currently the only founding Avenger running one of these, by our charter.. that makes us the real Avengers". Should this team be folded into the regular Avengers roster listing? Also, how does this work with Stature, Vision and Amadeus Cho all being active on this team, since Spshu insists anyone under 18 is ineligible for membership. I assume Dan Slott is incorrect?SlamBurger (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

well i don't see it being an issue with vision, since he is technically a robot masquerading as a teenager. but as for cho and stature...i just dont know, black, i just don't know.LobtsterJ (talk) 00:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Relationship between Avengers and Avengers West Coast?

Has it been clearly and explicitly stated anywhere the organizational relationship that existed between the AWC and the Avengers proper? As Cap was able to both re-organize both teams structure in avengers vol. 1 #305 and later disband the AWC, it seems clear the AWC was a satellite or junior team. As such, when the Avengers disbanded the team ceased to exist. When Captain America, exercising his prerogative as a member with founder status, decided to reform the team in Captain America #349, he was acting as the sole member of the team and was thus not operating under the constraints of the old charter, similar to how the New Avengers would later be formed. This is made explicitly clear a few issues later, in #305, when Cap announced the new form the teams membership and organization would take.