This article is within the scope of WikiProject G.I. Joe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.G.I. JoeWikipedia:WikiProject G.I. JoeTemplate:WikiProject G.I. JoeG.I. Joe
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character
Can we please make it clear that this "twin" plotpoint that has been the subject of so many recent edits is referenced in the continuity it belongs in (IDW) and NOT across ALL continuities. I attempted a simple cleanup on the Dreadnok Siblings articles, and it has resulted in a truly bizarre reaction. Twins, secret languages, Zoe and Zack, all of this stuff was absent in the original mythos. 2600:6C58:4E7F:E4DC:344D:BB96:9079:FC40 (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know where you’re getting your information from that you deem appropriate or inappropriate for Zartan/Zandar’s/Zarana’s profile section, but attempting to remove what is core information is biased at best and vandalism at worst. It is not “fan fiction”, nor does it need to be removed. Wikipedia doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t, concern itself with fandom squabbles over what does and doesn’t constitute “canon”. It concerns itself with providing information from a neutral point of view, and you are biased against that particular information, as evidenced by referring to it as fan fiction and “garbage” in your earlier edit summaries. I would like to work on an amicable resolution and put an end to this edit war. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreadnok Twins None of the "core elements" you claim are being deleted are actually core elements of the characters. Zandar and Zarana were not created as twins or portrayed as twins in any of the original media. You should therefore isolate the twin references to their respective sections instead of trying to make it a "core element" of the character. Your references for these character elements are *all* from post-2000 material, long after the original line died.
Zarana and Zandar are twins. It is mentioned across five of these “continuities” over thirty six years, and therefore should remain in the Profile sections of the Zartan, Zandar, and Zarana articles.
Here are the references:
G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero #283 (June, 2021)
Hasbro Heroes Sourcebook #3 (August, 2017)
G.I. Joe: vol. 3 #8 (September 2013)
Beach, Lynn (1988). G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero - Invisibility Island
Being that the references are all part of official material licenced by Hasbro, you can't reasonably call it fan-fiction. You may not agree with the twin language stuff, or the Zack and Zoe stuff, but it was included in an official product licenced by Hasbro. HOWEVER, these additions do occur only in a single iteration of said product. For instance, the Marvel Universe is separated into multiple different multiversal designations of which the Prime Universe is considered 616. G.I. Joe is likewise split into multiple iterations across the past 40 years and I would suggest that only the information that is universal among ALL iterations be included in the main profile section, with the rest being contained to their respective universes. DarkLordMordred (talk) 08:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It is mentioned across five of these “continuities” over thirty six years."
This is plainly and simply false.
ARAH 283 - One of several post-Marvel Comics continuities. These are separte from each other. Devil's Due, for instance, pick up from the Marvel series with their own series of events. That's why it's self-contained.
Heroes Sourcebook - References a specific piece of Joe media (IDW) that, again, is very much a standalone.
Vol. 3 #8 - See above.
Lynn Beach works - Previously addressed. Standalones.
If you were to say "Zandar and Zarana are sometimes portrayed as twins" that would be accurate, but to say it is a "core element" of the character is not factual.
I also feel that your list of examples and really sort of speaks to your unwillingness to compromise on this argument. Your references not matching with your information was previously identified, and you continue to fall back on the same references despite the issues with them having been pointed out. 2600:6C58:4E7F:E4DC:70EC:7696:B445:9EAF (talk) 22:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As has already been said above, Wikipedia's function is not to resolve fans' arguments about which stories are canonical, it is only to report what can be verified with reliable sources. Dismissing some instances where characters were said to be twins as "stand-alone" publications which therefore don't count seems to me to be advancing an agenda. That impression is reinforced by some of the edit summaries, which say things like "deleting pathetic loser's fan-fiction" and so on. But they were published by the company that owns the intellectual property, so they can't be so lightly dismissed. If different versions of the character actively contradict each other then of course that can be stated in the text, but just removing sourced material just because the fact is not mentioned one way or the other in every place where this character has appeared is unwarranted. Richard75 (talk) 13:30, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing about this. Different version of the character *do* contradict the general information. The fact that some of the edits refer to twin story as "pathetic fan fiction" has no bearing on the fact that the plot point isn't present in the most well-known iterations of the mythology.
It should absolutely be stated in the text that this twins idea is reserved to IDW comics in the same way that alternate version of popular characters such as Batman or Spiderman are identified in their respective articles.
If anything points to "advancing an agenda," it's the constant attempts to work in a plot point that did not exist when the line was well and truly "active" in the 80s. 207.157.86.3 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That Zarana and Zandar are twins is general information. This article is not defined by material published at a particular time or place. Following your grievances, it began with mentioning Zandar & Zarna were twins at all, so that is the piece of information taken issue with. You don’t agree with it, so you want it gone, and if not gone, then left out of “general information”—which is really what you deem as “canon”, which has no business in a wikipedia article. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that it is "general information". There are quite a few people who have no idea that they are twins. The fact is that, outside the comics, there's no reference to it... not in the cartoons, not in the movies, and not from Hasbro's own website or toy file cards. This is the reason for the constant argument over the "twin" status... how obscure it actually is. DarkLordMordred (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your sources need to back up your information. You're trying to insert an obscure detail not generally presented in the media into a general biography. All I've done is put it where it belongs. There are several sections of this article that identify specific continuities, why would this be any different?
Your intent is to see it removed, and if not removed, then to insert doubt into this article, and thus, bias. This is not an obscure detail. It may be something you don't like or want to be there, but it should be in the main profile section, without attempts to bias it to your particular viewpoint. I've proposed a compromise for these three articles (Zartan, Zarana and Zandar). Whether you want to agree to it or not, is up to you. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an intent. I didn't remove the information. I put it where your referenced sources indicated it needed to be.
It is an obscure detail that is only explored in IDW comics. This is an objective fact.
You are making malicious reversions based on a biased agenda. I've no desire to edit war with you (as you clearly, clearly do based on the edit history of this article), but you are clearly abusing Wikipdia's intent with your treatment of this article. 172.223.12.31 (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be quite happy if the article could be reverted without argument to its original version before all of this began. I show no bias according to Wikipedia's editing standards. It is an important enough detail to warrant it remaining unaltered or mitigated in the main profile sections of the three respective articles. You wanted them in their own separate sections, they are there. I would see it in the main profile section, without the need for biased, redundant "clarification." Let's agree and go our separate ways. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Every claim I've made has been verified with references. You very obviously have an agenda here, telling me to "write fanfic". Stop. Stop your agenda regarding these three articles. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
your actual verified references are present. and placed accordingly. "agenda" seems to better describe you than me. is it not your agenda to ensure that your preferred canon of these characters exists in the general description when it's not actually present in most of the media? Sssscapegoat (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mudslinging on the part of either of us isn't going to help matters either. It's mentioned in enough places and over enough of a time period for it to be appropriate in the main profile sections of these characters as well as in individual sections. Stop edit warring, please. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
look i know you don't like this. you are attempting (and have been attempting) to round up support in order to further your agenda with these pages. every single fictional character page categorizes different canons. you're treating these pages differently because of your personal preference for a canon that was not established until 2017. you are retroactively attempting to apply it to media that existed over twenty years before this "twins" idea existed. the books you are attempting to cite are outside of the established continuity and were written without the direct involvement of hasbro.
the facts are the facts, and you can kick and scream all you want, but you're lying to wikipedia admins in an attempt to suit your agenda, and you're playing on their ignorance of the characters to substantiate your inaccurate facts.
please see your thread on a noted g.i. joe fansite attempting to round up support and send other editors to this page. you have created this edit war.
As long as conduct is in accordance with Wikipedia's rules, that conduct is what matters. You are a malicious editor and vandal, and I have attempted to reach consensus with you by offering a solution. A solution you ignore in exchange for mudslinging and attempting to discredit my edits. On-Wikipedia, you keep at a particular point, act as its gatekeeper yourself, and "kick and scream" about things like "canon" that do not belong here. I'm not mudslinging anymore about which of us does or doesn't have an agenda. You can follow suit if you'd like. Your reasons for editing are biased, you're accusatory, malicious, and now you're bringing in irrelevant information that has nothing to do with Wikipedia in an effort to, what, make me look bad? Defend your own behavior. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a compromise. The information and references to Zartan’s younger set of twin siblings be mentioned in specific sections, as you would see it, and also be mentioned in the Zartan article’s main profile section, as I would see it. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 16:06, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this isn't a compromise. this is an attempt to insert specific, continuity-based information into a general description for a completely different character (Zartan). Zartan's general information should not mention his siblings at all because they are not regularly present in the media while zartan, himself, is regardless of the prescense/existence of his siblings.
there is nothing malicious about this, and it is certainly not an example of vandalism. you are vandalizing this article maliciously to suit an agenda that you have made loud and clear. the posted link is hardly "irrelevant." it completely establishes your agenda and your attempt to turn what should have been a simple page cleanup into an edit war.
i could care less how you look, but i will continue to ensure the accuracy of these pages and the posted references. your edits lack accuracy and are not supported by the sources you post. you are manipulating the admin's ignorance of this property in order to establish your false accusations. Sssscapegoat (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All you cared about in the beginning was removing Zarana & Zandar as twins because they apparently weren't. Now you've found another way of accomplishing this. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreadnok Twins if your sources do not support your claims, and if your information is not organized, then the article needs to be cleaned up. you spent an entire day arguing with me, accusing me, and harassing me over this. deal with the admins and stop treating this page like it's your personal website. Sssscapegoat (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're acting as its personal gatekeeper. Things were okay for years before you showed up and began edit warring because you don't want Zarana & Zandar as twins in the general section, where it belongs. This edit war was begun by you. Dreadnok Twins (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
