Talk:List of Avengers members

Editing of D-man's references

Considering that there has been such debate over D-man's status in the past, I would appreciate it if people did not edit and remove references that the "other side" are citing. Even though I have shown that a number of Spshu's "Never Joined" references are irrelevant or just plain wrong, I have left them there so as to not create an "edit war." The most recent incidence of this was particularly nonsensical, as the issue being moved from "Joined Sources" to "Never Joined Sources" was Captain America #349, the issue in which Demolition Man is offered and accepts membership into the Avengers.LobtsterJ (talk) 16:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, unfortunately Spshu has not given up his quest of disproving D-Man's membership. This is the same edit that he has made several times before, which has always been corrected by another editor of this page. This time, I removed some of the NPOV statements from his edit, but I have left Captain America #349 in the "Never Joined Sources" for now, because I also do not want to start an edit war. If there is a consensus, that the issue where D-Man accepts membership, is an indication of him having status with the team, then the reference should be moved back to the "Joined Sources" side whether Spshu believes that invitation to be official or not. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunatey, Spshu does not seem to read (or at least he doesn't respond to) what is going on in the talk section of the article right now. I realize he has his opinion, and there can certainly be differing opinions when dealing with a fictional universe, but his edits are making the article itself look bad. While keeping civil, I do want to note that some of his most recent edits have had, at best, problematic use of the English language, especially the notes section for Firebird, Stingray, and Rage. LobtsterJ (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote for putting it back solely in the 'joined sources', but honestly most of the 'sources' Spshu uses to show D-Man isn't an official member make little rational sense.SlamBurger (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Spshu's latest edit actually had Captain America #349 as a reference for BOTH sides! At the risk of starting another edit war, I "fixed" the references for D-Man, and left a message on Spshu's talk page. Hopefully he will see that he's not being constructive, by showing up every few months to edit this article, and just changing the things that he doesn't agree with, without any references to back up his edits. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Captain America 349 and the other sources are by the author of CA 349, Mark Gruewald. I previous agreed to have it be a source for both sides, but the notes (mentioning Avengers Annual 17) within that ref supports my side keeps on getting move to supporting D-Man's membership. We keep on have "groundhog day" moments because you can keep up with the logic. Don't forget that Breetvort was completely undermined by the declared problems with the 3rd party Marvel Encyclopedia of which he wrote the article with the greatest mistake, the Alpha Flight article and other mistatements of his. To say my sources are invalid you invalidate the author of CA 349 cause problems with it being a source for the pro-membership. Spshu (talk) 15:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Spshu, if the third-party Marvel Encyclopedia's are inaccurate, why do you use two different entries from it as sources?LobtsterJ (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. How can Spshu claim that the older Marvel Handbooks are valid sources for D-Man not joining when the most recent Handbook Hardcover has him listed as a member? These Handbooks are official, meaning that the most current form of them is canon and that the older ones are not up-to-date. The most recent volume should always be considered the best sources. Also, how can Spshu list The Marvel Encyclopedia as a source for D-Man not joining? The Avengers article only lists "Key Members" and does not say anything about a complete list. Omission of members from the list in the Encyclopedia doesn't mean that they never joined. Also, just because D-Man's article in the Encyclopedia doesn't say anything about him joining doesn't mean he didn't join. Like with the Moon Knight entry in the Encyclopedia we know that Moon Knight joined even though they do not mention it anywhere in the book. If we were to apply Spshu's logic, every Avenger that the Encyclopedia didn't list as an Avenger should not be listed as an Avenger. This does not make any sense. Ultrabasurero (talk) 06:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you can see some of the frustration over this article that has been felt over the past few years. Not to play pile on Spshu, but he seems to have a particular viewpoint of who should and shouldn't be an Avenger, and he picks and chooses sources to support whatever viewpoint he has regarding a particular character, even going so far as to claim some sources are valid for characters he wants included and invalid for those he doesn't want. Considering that we are dealing with a fictional universe where things are retconned all the time, I agree that the most recent official Marvel Handbook should be the final word on the matter. It is their universe, and they set the rules. If Spshu doesn't agree with a handbook, he is wrong, not the handbook. Take D-Man. It is entirely possible that Mark Gruenwald and the editorial staff did not intend to make him an Avenger with the event of Captain America #349. However, Marvel now considers those events to have made him an Avenger. So he is. End of story. If we are playing by Spshu's rules, many more Avengers will have to be put into questionable, because at some point many of them were are not included in the shoddy "sources" he likes to cite. LobtsterJ (talk) 20:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The "Questionable" section

Is anyone else interested in eliminating the Questionable section, and integrating those characters back into the original team section? I know there are some editors of this article, who adamantly argue about the status of certain characters with The Avengers, but at this point were talking about 8 characters here! (Hellcat, Two-Gun Kid, Jocasta, Thing, D-Man, Sandman, Rage, Machine Man). Clearly all of them have had some status with The Avengers at one time or another, and there is just the question of when they might have been given that status. We wouldn't even need to change the notes for most of them, as long as we continue to indicate the conflicting information. I just don't think that there needs to be a separate section for these characters. What do you think? Fortdj33 (talk) 14:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be for it. As long as the notes continue to reflect that there are differing opinions. If we went through every reference for every Avenger, I'm sure we could find omissions of characters the people consider 100% Avengers no questions. No need to keep these 8 separate because they are more contested than others LobtsterJ (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't like the 'questionable' section and feel it serves no real purpose. Put them back into the regular listings with notes as needed.SlamBurger (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just because you don't like the section isn't a reason. It serve the purpose that there are reasonable disagreement over a number of characters' status. This section was part of a comprimise made under moderation. Spshu (talk) 15:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I love it when actual progress on making this page look and read better gets stalled.SlamBurger (talk) 16:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to make the necessary changes, but I thought it would be best to reach a consensus on the talk page first. I have asked other editors of this article to express their opinions here, and the only person who seems opposed to re-integrating the Questionable section is Spshu. Whether this is because of a "compromise" that was proposed by an administrator, or just because he is the only one that thinks it's necessary, I don't know. If the other editors of this page agree to maintain the questionable nature of certain characters in the main article, without having a separate section for them, please say so. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it pretty ridiculous that the current Marvel Official Handbooks aren't considered because they aren't a third-party source even though they are the best source and most up to date. It seems that Spshu is the only person here that is against Demolition Man being an official member and is using irrational logic to keep his views on the page. To me it seems that Spshu's actions seem like he's claiming ownership of the article. I'm all for reintegrating the Questionable section into the main section. Ultrabasurero (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)