Talk:Sentry (Robert Reynolds)

Pointer from Robert Reynolds

So, should we make a pointer to this character on the Robert Reynolds page? There's already a real person with that name, which is why there is an article in the first place, so I'm not sure if it would be a good idea or not.

I'd say so yeah. We do so with other comic articles, usually. Kusonaga 08:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I made that edit, using Otheruses4. Don't know how it messes with the style used in other articles though. FrozenPurpleCube 14:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Sentry's strength

I very much doubt sentry is stronger than the hulk. Hulk's bones may be hard but they are definetly not bonded with adamantium. So when sentry breaks the hulk's bones, i doubt that that proves anything.

Well don't you think the Hulk might have been resisting? The Void basically broke every bone in the Hulk's body. I've never seen that done before. The Sentry is at least as strong as the baseline Hulk and maybe even stronger. Lochdale 16:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

We haven't seen the Sentry lift a mountain so far, so we can't say he is stronger than the Hulk. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want a strength for the Sentry, he was given Class 100 strength in the recent Civil War information book. That's pretty much as definitive as it gets for comics characters. (which is to say, sometimes not at all, but that's another matter) FrozenPurpleCube 18:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

We can't use those books as a reference. See WP:CMC/EG. Yesterday, I removed such info from around 200 articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that's misrepresenting the policy as discouraged is not the same as can't(and that's even assuming concurrance with the policy, which is not a given anyway). If you want to say "shouldn't" then that is acceptable to me. However, let me get into the meat of the issue. Take how the Beast, Wolverine, Spiderman, Thor, the Sentry and the Hulk are all described as having Superhuman strength, yet clearly there is a wide gap between the first three and the latter three, even if it's occasionally inconsistent in the stories. If you're going to object to using official terminology like "Class XX" I can at least understand it, but to use the information as a grounds for modifying the statement to say "Vast Superhuman strength" in order to indicate the relatively greater strength would still remain acceptable to me. But I do agree that such resources are often problematic. As I said above, sometimes it's not at all definitive. FrozenPurpleCube 04:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You're right; the language is not clear enough. On this next pass, I will be sure to get it right. Thank you for pointing that out to me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Aint no way Sentry is stronger than the Hulk because the Hulk's strength is unlimited the madder he gets the stronger he gets Sentry's strength does not increase.--The K.O. King 01:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

In World War Hulk, The Sentry fights him (this is the hulk that has increased his strength hundred-fold etc.) to a standstill. Therefore, it is very reasonable that the Sentry is more powerful than the regular Hulk, and around the same strength of 'War Hulk.' Highcount. 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No, he did not 'increase his strength a hundredfold' as you make up out of thin air. Even the Thing was able to hurt him with his punches, and he wasn't nearly at full power either, as shown when getting far madder by Miek's admission. Stating that he is stronger than Hulk is nonsense. We've even been explicitly shown that saying that his power potential is higher than Hulk is nonsense. This is given fact. What you can say is that his full power (i.e. energy projection + strength fully released) were able to match a very mad Hulk (i.e. Hulk losing much of his hampers) until his lack of healing factor got the better of him. Dave (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

NO ONE knows the abilities of the sentry. Not even tony stark or the skrulls. Its in the new avengers, forgot what ish.

Superman/Sentry

Read the Link: [1] Paul Jenkins admitted that Sentry was inflenuced by Superman. T-1000 21:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Needs a rewrite, however. -Zero^Talk 21:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It really does. It's informal, it reads like original research, and I think it should be gone unless someone can save it with some heavy citing. --Chris Griswold 05:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the entire section until such time that it includes citations that support the claims. CovenantD 14:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I read the link for the Sentry as Marvel's Superman and it does not suggest anything that the section says. The interview suggests that the Sentry has about as much in common with Superman as Thor does. Superstrength, flight, invulnerability, loved by the public, those could be used to describe many different superheroes. Perhaps this section is more personal belief than fact.

Come on. it's obvious. The guy has a freaking S on his costume and the drawing on this very wikipedia page of him opening his jacket to reveal the S logo... gee, I wonder what iconic superhero is known for doing that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.124.211 (talk) 09:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

New Avengers Annual

Ok, here's my reasoning for why I think it's possible the Sentry is controlling the Void power there.

1. It starts off with the Sentry threatening Belova when he says "Wanna Bet" which indicates to me that it's a more active role than passive.
2. The Sentry claims he can make the Void go away.
3. The Void-image whatever it is, is speaking the Sentry's words for him, asking "Where?" and so forth, not just talking darkness. That's pretty direct interrogation.

And that's why I think it should at least be mentioned as an "apparently" as well, that's what it looked like to me. I'm not certain of it, so that's why I prefer to keep it apparent or seemingly rather than a direct statement. FrozenPurpleCube 00:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I just read it, and it's not apparent to me, so it's better not to mention it until it is explicitly stated. --Chris Griswold 03:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can understand not being certain of the meaning of that scene, this is why I'm willing to go with "apparently" or "seemingly" but I do think it should be mentioned. If you don't, you'll have to convince me with more of an argument than "I don't see it" because other people did. See:

1. http://www.spyder-25.com/review.asp?ID=305
2. http://calvinpitt.blogspot.com/2006/04/reflections-15-new-avengers-annual.html
3. http://www.606studios.com/bendisboard/showthread.php?t=74536&page=2

That's just a few examples of other people who did read it that way. Is there any wording you can live with that would include what I want, and what you want? I do feel the scene was ambiguous enough to warrant some disclaimer words, but I still feel it should be mentioned. FrozenPurpleCube 16:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

PS, I am using apparently as "seemingly" not "readily obvious" . If you really can't stomach apparently, is seemingly better? FrozenPurpleCube 16:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, because they are both weasel words to bypass saying it's all speculation. CovenantD 17:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't follow your criticism, why do you object to being aware of the ambiguous meaning of the situation? And seriously, do you have a better suggestion of how to include the idea? FrozenPurpleCube 20:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included, period. It's speculation pure and simple. CovenantD 20:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's interpretation of a fictional work. I (and others at the links I provided above) see that scene as one thing, you see it as another. Is there any way at all to include the idea that would satisfy you, or should we just deleted the NAA section from this article pending confirmation of which position is accurate? FrozenPurpleCube 20:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

An editor's interpretation of a fictional work does not belong on Wikipedia. We should only add verifiable statements. --Chris Griswold 03:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why is your interpretation allowed? I believe you're confused about the depth of the meaning. I'm not analyzing it to determine some psychological meaning, I am merely saying how I read the scene. I found three other people whose interpretations matched mine. So if you insist on outside sources, I've got those. I haven't seen you cite anybody who feels the way you do about the scene. Besides, your latest edit claims "It's not entirely clear who is talking" which is an interpretation of its own, isn't it? One that I find hard to swallow since the Word balloons of the panels I referenced were white and clearly coming from the Sentry, as opposed to the White on Black of the Void. I suppose I could understand you saying "That really wasn't the Void" or somesuch but that's an interpretation, isn't it? If you want to say there's doubt about the meaning of that scene, or say it's exceptional in some way, that's fine, but I do believe it's clear there is demonstration that the Sentry and Void dynamic has changed. Of course, that may turn out to be a mistake of the writer, and ignored in future comics, or some other thing since comics can play fast and loose at times, but saying that would require more supporting evidence as that would be speculation without it. FrozenPurpleCube 16:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Blogs and message boards do not meet the criteria for reliable sources in Wikipedia, because anybody can say anything in a blog. For example, I have a strong belief that inertia works differently in the Star Wars universe. I can find any number of examples to show why this is the case, and even create a blog that says the same. Does that qualify it to be included in Wikipedia? No. It's all original research until explicitly stated in a canonical medium. Same applies here. It's all just your interpretation, your (and the bloggers) original thinking on the matter. CovenantD 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with pointing out that my interpretation is held by other people? Besides, you may note that spiderfan.org IS a comic review site, so it should be as credible as anything else in the comic book world. At least, I can't think of a reason to disregard it. Besides, I think you're confused about interpretation. Reading a book, including a comic, and saying what happened in it is not the kind of interpretation that is a problem which requires great deal of refence. That would be something like saying "Superman is Jesus" which would require more sources(such do exist, but that's another matter). Since I'm not saying anything about what that scene could mean about the Sentry and the Void's relationship (and yes, it does open some questions), I just don't see the problem. I'm just reading the book and saying what I think happened. Not getting into the meaning, not speculation. Not to mention the problem that if you object to me doing it, then you have the problem when someone else does it. And that is what is happening. FrozenPurpleCube 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Later, Jessica Drew and Luke Cage become husband and wife!" That is an example of how reliable the spiderfan.org site is for this issue. They don't seem to have a lot of fact-checking going on. CovenantD 17:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Typo's happen. They get it right earlier in the page, so I'll just assume it is the kind of common mistake that can happen to anybody. They are both named Jessica, and it's not that exceptional to me. Heck, I just noticed that we both mean spyder-25.org not spiderfan.org. That kind of mistake happens. It's not enough to convince me that they're wrong. If you do think they're wrong, provide your sources. Heck, write a letter to BMB if you want, maybe he'll clarify things. FrozenPurpleCube 17:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

As for your concerns about Star Wars and inertia, I'd have to see your actual arguments before deciding on whether or not they should be included. There are certain pages which reference such problems in the series though, so I can say I might be convinced to agree. Is there any discussion page on it where I can review the debate? FrozenPurpleCube 16:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

And Ok, there is my version. It has the facts that the Sentry does explain that his powers come with the Void, and he does claim he can send it away. Is that more satisfactory? FrozenPurpleCube 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

As long as it's kept to a factual recount of the page in question I have no problem with it. When you start to place interpretations of the meaning of the words, then it's a problem. CovenantD 16:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, just noticed that the contents of one whole issue were stripped from the article. Since that issue offered a rather exceptional bit of behavior by Nick Fury and Dr. Strange to contain the Sentry, I think it should be included, even if I might personally believe it came out of left-field a bit, and I wonder if it'll ever be referenced again. Also, I'm sorry, but you've not convinced me how the content I added was not acceptable POV or how it was OR. Instead, it seems to me that you are relying on your interpretation of the comic to reject how I, and other people have read it. I have provided examples of people who believe that was what happened, whereas you have not shown me anything other than your opinion on what it means. I can accept that there is reason to doubt it, absolutely, this is a comic book, and one about a character who they've thrown us several curve balls before, but I believe simply writing it out is not the proper way to do it. If you want to suggest a better way to write it, please go ahead. If you want to explain more clearly what your problems are, go ahead. But so far all you've relied on is arguments that amount to nothing more than saying "This is X, and X is bad." . I'm sorry, but I'm going to ask you to at least try to show me why it is X, and how I can make it not X in a way that is satisfactory to you. Do you want to write BMB and see what he meant or what? FrozenPurpleCube 07:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sentry and the Void

One thing I think will help us is to create a section dealing solely with how the connection between Reynolds, the Sentry, and the Void is depicted in various comics. No interpretation, just descriptions of what is shown. --Chris Griswold 21:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly be worth considering. It might even be a good idea to have a seperate article for the Void, though I'm iffy on that. After all, he is an aspect of the Sentry, and I don't think we have enough detail on him to get into it. However, I don't think you should delete the events of issue 7 of the Mini-series. I can understand if you might think it a little lenghty, but you deleted it weeks ago, and I've not seen any effort by you to add it back in. The issue exists. I believe the description I have of the content is accurate. If you've got any objections to that, I'd like to see it. If you merely think it's unimportant, well, I don't disagree that it may never be properly followed up on. But that's from experience with Marvel's occasionally sloppy writing. The No-prize has been around for a while, even without characters who are considered to be as inconsistantly handled as the Sentry has been. Yes, it's possible that the whole comic will be ignored in the future or something, but without a statement as to that from Paul Jenkins, Brian Michael Bendis or somebody else involved in the production of it, I think that would be a bit premature on our parts. So I feel it should stay. If you can write it better, great, let's see it.

As for the fight in NAA, again, I don't see POV or OR problems in the description I've provided of it. I read the issue. That's what I read it as happening. You read the issue, you don't see what I saw. I've explained as best I can why I believe my reading is correct. I haven't seen any explanation from you. I've provided examples of other people whose reading concurs with my own. I haven't seen anybody outright say they agree with you, though I have seen some question as to whether that was the Void, and I have my doubts about it myself. But that's a discussion without enough validation, so we probably shouldn't include that without some sources. FrozenPurpleCube 21:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is why I have removed the troublesome details from the NAA description. All we know for sure is that she is overcome by the Void. We don't know for sure that is the Sentry or the Void talking to her, and it's not clear that the Sentry is controlling the Void. I will work with the issue #7 information. --Chris Griswold 11:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thor Rumors

On a side note, I just read in a Wizard interview with Brian Michael Bendis (or some Marvel guy anyway, I can't recall which), commentary on the rumours that the Sentry might be Thor. Since he commented on that, should we include it in the article, and if so, where? Perhaps in the Hoax section?

Yes, because both Marvel and the PR magazine Wizard were complicit in the first hoax. Neither source is truly believable at this point, so any crazy news like that should go in the hoax section. We need the actual, accurate information.--Chris Griswold 11:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think reporting what Brian Michael Bendis said would be best considered accurate. Yes, sometimes they can engage in fakery, but too much paranoia on our part would be extreme. Especially given that Thor seems to be returning as his own character, and as Thor did appear in the original Sentry series with him, so it'd be hard to believe anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 22:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I still think that announcements concerning a character based in a hoax should be taken with a grain of salt. There is no reason to believe anything that's said by Marvel or Wizard about this character. They have already shown that trust in them concerning this issue is misplaced. --Chris Griswold 08:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I just don't think they'd keep doing the joke, plus I can't see how they'd benefit from making up a line with BMB saying he thought it was a great idea. But if you don't mind it in the Hoax section, that's ok with me.

FrozenPurpleCube 16:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You still need to cite the rumors or they will be removed. CovenantD 16:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd post to this, since it'll help me remember to check which issue of Wizard it was, though if somebody else remembers which one they had with the BMB interview about Marvel's Civil War, that'll be it. FrozenPurpleCube 03:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Checked today, Wizard 178 if you want to look it up. Article New Avengers Disassembled. FrozenPurpleCube 23:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

he does?

"The Sentry's powers derive from a serum that moves his molecules an instant ahead of the current timeline, although he also absorbs solar radiation for strength."

???

--Charlesknight 21:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that is referencing either the second mini-series when he entered the Phantom Zone, or the issue of Thunderbolts where they took on the New Avengers. FrozenPurpleCube 03:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Volume numbers:

I know this is a stupid, nit-picky question, but how does one site a comic with a volume number?

Like for The Sentry -- Is it:

The Sentry vol. 1 #2 (with "vol." all in lower-case)

or

The Sentry Vol. 1 #2 (with a capital "V")

or something completley different?

I just want to know for my sake. Anybody? Bhissong 19:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never been sure. Ask at WT:CMC/X. --Jamdav86 19:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The WikiProject Comics Exemplars page isn't always 100% up-to-date, but lists it as a capital V, so I'm currently assuming that's the official format. --Mrph 21:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right: The exemplars page needs to be updated. It's X-Men, volume 2. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (comics). --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all who replied. Bhissong 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)bhissong

MORE INTERNET RUMORS

I have been seeing increasing internet rumors that the Sentry will ultimatly be revealed as the Beyonder. Is anyone aware if this stems from any legitimite citable source, or is it mere conjecture? In short, there seems to be increased speculation that Sentry is not really the Sentry, either by his actions (tearing apart Carnage and vaporizing Creel) and/or by some Marvelesque source (which I am unaware what it might be), the speculation might be benificial to mention in the article (particulary if any sources can be expanded upon). 66.109.248.114

no. It's rumor. --24.3.194.217 07:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Article name change?

In the second mini-series, it is revealed Robert Reynolds actually turned into the Void after taking the serum. The Sentry is the actual divergent personality. "Robert Reynolds" developed into yet another personality, as The Sentry talked about fooling him and the Void seperately.

I think this article should be renamed Robert Reynolds (comics) as a result. opinions? --EXV // + @ 16:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to say move, since well, the character name is more identifiable than the "person" regardless of any details of his nature. FrozenPurpleCube 16:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

true, but they renamed the Speedball (comics) because he changed his name. Further examples include Jason Todd (Red Hood and Robin), Dick Grayson (Nightwing and Robin). They used different aliases at different points in their lives, while Robert Reynolds uses two at the same time. Genis-Vell was known predominantly as Captain Marvel, but also went by Legacy (I think) and later Photon. these characters have a longer, more established history, but are not labeled by their codenames.

The character of Sentry has always been presented as having multiple aliases/personalties or what not. he is as much the Sentry as he is the Void. --EXV // + @ 04:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since Robert Reynolds is still known as the Sentry, I'm not sure it makes much of a difference. I dunno, maybe ask on the Comics Wikiproject, see what the decision is? FrozenPurpleCube 03:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Last line correction.

I believe that the last line of the page should be changed. It should state that Sentry is the most powerful "human" in the marvel universe. Check out the official rating's from marvel.com. Sentry does not even come close to Silver Surfer and other cosmic superheroes. -dub22

The Silver Surfer (like most other cosmic heroes and villains) is not human i.e. does not come from the planet Earth.

The Sentry is the most powerful Human in the marvel universe. Highcount. 22:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

No ohotmu stats?

Regarding Odinsbeard's edit: Why was it seen as warranted to remove these? The comparison scale is set by Marvel's main editor, the guy ultimately in charge of keeping track of the official power levels. Even if you or I personally disagree with the inane '100 ton' strength listing. How is it against Wikipedia policy? Would it be acceptable to simply reword it to "His strength and invulnerability has officially been listed at the same level as Thor, Wonder Man and Hercules" instead? Dave 11:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a policy that was created well over 2 years ago about the time I started contributing to it. Even if someone isn't aware of the policy, all one has to do is browse the Marvel character articles. Most of the articles involving Marvel characters had OHOTMU stats and power ratings in them. Now, evidently, using OHOTMU stats is somehow a violation of copyright. I don't pretend to understand entirely how. I might be wrong, but I think it has something to do with the fact that those stats are found in certain encylopedic comic books, like the OHOTMU and one shot specials like Civil War: Battle Damage Report. All of the info that's been gathered on the characters has been taken out of regular monthly comic book appearances that they've had over the years. However, OHOTMU stats are found only within certain Marvel publications or within industry trade magazines, like Wizard, but with Marvel's permission. Since Wikipedia doesn't have Marvel's permission, their encouraged use by Wikipedia administration could result in Marvel seeking legal action. I tried a few times to have the policy overturned but I was always severely outvoted. Even if the stats are taken from a website rather than out of the OHOTMU, it's still the same thing since the stats came from the handbook to begin with. I won't say I completely understand the whole copyright issue. If you disagree with it though, I'd bring it up on the project's discussion page. Maybe you'll have better luck than I did.Odin's Beard 22:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

To first copy the text, in reply to your comment at my talk.

The strength I obviously agree about being far lower than shown, and the Hulk maintains his 3000 Fahrenheit durability 'limit', despite consistently withstanding 1000,000 Fahrenheit from the Human Torch, and even more from Thanos, Galactus, Silver Surfer, Firelord, Gladiator, a few point blank nuclear explosions etc. Wolverine used to be spot on, until writers started powering him up with super-strength, and super-healing. In the last case this was inserted just a few months back from a writer who misunderstood the old "Wolverine briefly turns into a god by a cosmic crystal of evolution and healed from a single cell" Claremont-Davis annual. ~It's firmly contradicted in past appearances, and is a _major_ retcon. Regardless, the comparisons between the characters tend to be spot-on, and, beyond being the guy who actually gets to _decide_ how powerful the various characters are, Tom Brevoort arguably knows this stuff much better than even you or myself. Listing a comparison seems very fair, even if keeping the silly 100 ton reference isn't.

That said, if it's a copyright issue, that could be tricky, but it's still our only source for certain gauges, so it should be kept somehow. Simply stating that a character is listed at the same level in swiftness/strength/durability should be unspecific enough to be workable. At least until somebody from Marvel complains. In which case we remove them in a few hours. Does this sound acceptable? Dave 13:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that's pretty much what we've been doing in the articles. There are some articles where a character has extreme levels of strength is compared with some others, though no sort of number is mentioned. If I'm not mistaken, an actual amount of weight can be included if it's mentioned in a regular monthly issue of a comic book instead of something like the OHOTMU. In the Hulk article, the weight of the mountain range he supported in Secret Wars #4 is given on the cover. Some have argued that that amount of weight is merely hyperbole. Perhaps it is, but there hasn't been any source to prove it. The issue is part of a storyline that's part of mainstream Marvel continuity, as is all the other info taken to make up the articles, so that amount of weight can be entered into the article.Odin's Beard 23:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I just edited the article a bit and it's more accurate to say that his strength and durability rival those of Thor and Hercules. While their ratings in the OHOTMU are the same, that doesn't mean that their maximum level of strength and resistance to injury are exactly the same. The current OHOTMU rating of "Virtually Indestructible" is extremely broad, kind of like the whole "in excess of 100 tons" deal. Terms like indestructible and invulnerable are tossed around very very casually in comic books.Odin's Beard 02:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AODvsMZ1pg17.jpg

Image:AODvsMZ1pg17.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AODvsMZ1pg17.jpg

Image:AODvsMZ1pg17.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 00:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sentryresize.JPG

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

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 03:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Deaths

Wasn't the Void responsible for the murder of a million New Yorkers? (Should be added if he was). Lots42 16:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WWHULKcvr5col.jpg

Image:WWHULKcvr5col.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sentry 2.PNG

Image:Sentry 2.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SENTRY001 cov.jpg

Image:SENTRY001 cov.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The power of "forgetting"

It is briefly stated that the Sentry's power caused the world to forget he existed, but was it not also suggested that is power also breached the forth wall causing readership to "forget he existed" prior to his actual first appearance?--RedKnight (talk) 23:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Hyperbole

In the powers and abilities section, there are statments such as the Sentry being as powerful as a million exploding suns and being able to stalemate Galactus. The million exploding suns statement is pure hyperbole. That's the equivalent of someone saying that he can punch with enough force equal to 100 H-Bombs. The statment of him being able to stalemate Galactus, is it something that actually happened or is it just a bit of a wisecrack from Spider-Man? If a stalemated fight between the two didn't happen, then it should be taken out because it's not an accurate representation of what the character can do. Any writer can jack up the Sentry's power to a point where he could stalemate or beat Galactus of that's what the writer wanted. But, if it hasn't happened, then the statement should be taken out.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Generally I agree, but here is how I look at it. These things in general are gonna be chock full of crazy statements, because well, its about comics. But, if something is explicitly stated in the comic, it should probably be included. Statements like "broken faced" in the WWH section are something I look at a little differently. This is basically a judgement made by someone based on a picture, which is vastly more arguable than a direct statement by a character. These are the things we should try to remove. Arkon (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The direct statement made by a character is a statement that hasn't been backed up by the Sentry's capabilities as displayed in the comics. I know that a character's powers can be changed by the writers to cope with whatever situation they might find themselves in. That's not what's happened in this situation however. The Sentry has never demonstrated the kind of omnipotence that being as powerful as a thousand exploding suns could imply. An offhanded statement made by Ben Grimm doesn't make the statement fact nor does Spider-Man saying the Sentry could stalemate Galactus make it so, unless the Sentry actually has fought Galactus to a standstill.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So it appears you are using the standard of if its shown on panel, it is ok, otherwise not. This can be reasonable, but it doesn't explain why you removed the reference to what spiderman said, as it appeared on panel. The comics are all we have to go by, as such, we can't make judgements about what is said or shown, only note them where applicable. Arkon (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Sentry has never faced Galactus. Can't stalemate someone if you don't face them to begin with. A spidey one-liner about another character shouldn't be the basis of an accurate representation of a character's powers. It would be like Spider-Man popping a one-liner about how the Hulk could bitch slap God.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is the problem, you are making a statement of fact, one that is contrary to what the comics state. Spidey made a statement of fact (if it was meant to be facetious, we simply are unable to say, perhaps the writer might say?), either we report whats in the comics or we don't. If Spidey happened to say that "hulk pimpslapped jesus", we can probably leave that out soley upon the fact that jesus doesn't exist in marvel, however if spidey said "black panther put thanos in an armbar", it is reasonable to include. Silly yes, but there must be standards. Do we go by the comics, or not? Arkon (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't going to be settled here. There's a discussion about it over on the project's discussion page. As I stated earlier, a Spider-Man one-liner is not an accurate representation of what the Sentry is actually shown to be capable of within the comics. Since the Sentry never faced Galactus in a fight, then how can it be accurate to put in the article that he can stalemate him? Hyperbole being placed in the articles as actual facts are really messing some of them up. It makes them sound far too fan-ish.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Odin's Beard is correct. Deadpool could say someone could spit nails through a plank of wood or make a diamond by clenching a piece of coal between their ass cheeks but it doesn't mean they can unless they are shown doing this - there is a difference between Spidey saying "Black Panther put Thanos in an armbar" and "Black Panther could put Thanos in an armbar" as ultimately it is still only Spidey's opinion, if it was Stan Lee's opinion it might just be worth noting (except it'd be pretty much trivia so perhaps not even then). As was also said these are fictional characters and powers can change at the stroke of a pen to suit the stories requirements (see also previous discussion on Storm's powers at the Comic project). So the best we can say is "X was shown doing Y (ref)" - we have seen Superman jump tall buildings and run faster than a locomotive - if Sentry hasn't fought Galactus to a standstill then we can't say he could. (Emperor (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC))

I strongly disagree. Spider-man was making a STATEMENT OF FACT, he was as serious as he could possibly get. This wasn't a "snappy one-liner" and if you think it was, then you satisfy one or both of the following criteria:

1) You didn't read the comic book

2) You don't want to believe that the Sentry can stalemate Galactus

Stating that since the Sentry hasn't shown feats in panels to match facing Galactus is absolutely absurd. Reynolds has stated himself that if he were to cut loose and lose control for even a millisecond, virtually everything would be destroyed. There is no reason to believe that the Sentry would have any reason to hold back while fighting Galactus in open space, where no harm would come to Earth or its inhabitans. Spider-man's assertion is NOT the same as Thing's wise-crack about the Sentry releasing his power of ten million exploding suns. The Thing was just being the Thing, whereas Spider-Man was in a state of reflection, stating facts. If you have an issue with it, you go take it up with Marvel's writers, meanwhile, I'm including that back in the article since it is canon until said otherwise by Marvel, and not some original thinkers on the internet.

--74.34.209.213 (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is he and Ares in DA?

Why are they involved with Norman? (JoeLoeb (talk) 02:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Void?

As a strictly casual fan of comics, I've got a quick question about the Sentry/Void. Is the Void purely mental, or is there an actual physical change that occurs when he 'appears'? If a change does occur, it would be nice to have a "Void" picture for the article, athough I wouldn't have the slightest idea as to where to get one. As it stands, the Void is the only one who doesn't have a picture, which gives me a feeling of lopsidedness when reading the article. Tainted Conformity (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The Void is purely mental, but sometimes manifests. Usually as dark black energy of varied shapes. Lots42 (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Rick Veitch's role in the creation of The Sentry

This series of posts by Rick Veitch about the Sentry's conception has been getting a lot of attention lately. It is clear Veitch had some role in the creation, or at least in the formulation of the original concept if not necessarily playing a direct role in the character's first Marvel appearances. In a similar vein, Bill Jemas is credited as co-creating Ultimate Spider-Man with Bendis & Bagley despite not playing a direct creative role (writer or illustrator). So, should Veitch be listed as one of the creators of the character? Either way, Veitch's recollections must be included in the article as they represent an interesting look into the heretofore unknown pre-history of the creation of the character. Thoughts? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The series of posts do seem compelling [2][3][4][5], and don't appear to be 'glory-seeking' and seem to give a lot of due to Jenkins and Lee. This seems like a good incorporation about the conception of the character and lead in to the series. -Sharp962 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

Question, was the Sentry's first appearance in Sentry 1 or in Wizard or something like that leading into the series? -Sharp962 (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC).

I came to the article wondering whether Veitch's contributions (about which I just learned) had been added. I think I'll be bold and put something in. If anyone has a problem with my attempt, feel free to change it (it's the wiki way, after all). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The Sentry's True Identity

You guys know he's Goku, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.190.147 (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Owen Wilson

If the Sentry is more powerful than Owen Wilson, who's stronger than Luke Wilson, Gene Hackman or Jackie Chan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.217.131 (talk) 07:21, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't shown or stated as more powerful. Molecule Man has been beaten in single combat by Ulysses Klaw, and also completely outclassed the Beyonder, both around the same time. (I also read somewhere that the Living Tribunal itself created/empowered him as an experiment with granting omnipotence to mortals, but don't remember the source) Owen mostly limits himself to small-scale physical combat, at which he is very vulnerable, easily distracted, and occasionally schizophrenic, rather than go full higher dimensional omnipotent entity as he did in the last Beyonder battle. Sentry took advantage of just such an opportunity. Regardless, since the Sentry stated that his abilities are very similar, if this is true he really would be an even bigger problem than the Scarlet Witch. Regardless, destroying his physical body may only somewhat inconvenience him, if he learns to use his abilities the same way Sentry does. Dave (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)