Talk:Man-Thing

Man-Thing received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Comics: Marvel Mid‑importance

	Comics portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Marvel Comics work group.

Fictional characters

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

Horror

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horror, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional horror in film, literature and other media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.HorrorWikipedia:WikiProject HorrorTemplate:WikiProject Horrorhorror
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

April 27 to May 3, 2014 (8th)

Duplicate Page?

It seems that this page should be removed or combined because it's a duplicate of a wiki article. The original is here Swamp_Thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devon Vice (talk • contribs) 01:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite funny, actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.201.110 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of WP:NOR, WP:ORIGINALSYN, and WP:V

Removal of this

In Iron Man 3, AIM is using a formula based on plant research to give people superpowers. In the comics, Man-Thing was originally a scientist who was doing top secret research on plants in the Everglades when his wife betrayed him to AIM. In desperation, he injected himself with his untested formula, only to discover it had seriously unexpected consequences. The female AIM agent (played by Stephanie Szostak) who battles Tony to the death midway through the film is named Ellen Brandt, who is Man-Thing's treacherous wife. The character even has the scar on her face she received fighting Man-Thing in the comics.

None of this appear to fail verifiability, looks to be original research through an original synthesis of information. The burden of proof is on others here. Systems Theorist (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Systems Theorist. As far as I can tell, there is no proof or citation that Marvel Studios is planning on making a Man-Thing film. The only link is Ellen Brandt, and it's a tenuous link at best.Richiekim (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The removed paragraph doesn't say anything about a planned Man-Thing film. It's just pointing out an indirect reference to Man-Thing in Iron-Man 3.Lortho21 (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would adding a citation be sufficient to address concerns? Lortho21 (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source for the content in question (one of many) - I'll restore the paragraph w/ this citation in one hour unless there are any objections: Harris, Scott. 'Iron Man 3': 7 Things You May Have Missed the First Time Around, nextmovie.com, May 6, 2013. Lortho21 (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Needs something that meets the criteria for reliable sources. Systems Theorist (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to meet it just as well as several other sources used in the article. Lortho21 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should not be included. All WP:OR and WP:SYNTH and source provided by Lortho21 is unreliable. Even so, it would seem the source is stating their opinions on conclusions they drew from the film, not actuality. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what makes the source unreliable. Also, where does this particular source state "opinions" in regards to the claims the paragraph in question is trying to make? It simply points out that AIM and Ellen Brandt originated in the Man-Thing comics. Lortho21 (talk) 23:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the correlation between character names has already been handled pretty well over at Ellen Brandt, without resorting to original research. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 22:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source over there simply identifies the character as "Brandt" no first name given nor connection to Man Thing established. It is probably WP:OR to link that character there as well. Systems Theorist (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well that does change things. I had assumed that both characters were named "Ellen Brandt," not just "Brandt". It's probably an astute observation that the two characters are in fact the same, but now it is far more clear that it would be original research to say so here. Such an assertion needs a citation to a reliable source. And who knows, maybe she's actually Lua Brandt. ;-) --GentlemanGhost (converse) 00:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, look, if that's the level of pedantic hard-lining you're going to insist upon for sourcing this one particular paragraph, then we need to take a serious look at what's going on in the rest of the article, because there's a *lot* of stuff in here that doesn't conform to that level of source quality. Take the line "Produced by the studio Lionsgate, it is based loosely on a Steve Gerber storyline involving the unscrupulous land developer F.A. Schist" in the Man-Thing film section - completely unsourced, with nothing more than a "citation needed" tag. Beyond that, over half the references in this article (30+!) are direct references to primary sources, the comic books themselves - where's the uproar over all that "original research"? We're seeing a serious double standard going on here. If this paragraph is kept out of the article for the reasons you're citing, than most of the rest of the article needs to be discarded as well if any semblance of editorial integrity is to be maintained.Lortho21 (talk) 23:50, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may not hurt to have a look at the rest of this article's content as you suggest. However, right now we are reviewing this one paragraph. 2601:D:9400:448:C952:3609:134C:D380 (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes little sense to make such a review, or any review, in a vacuum. Besides, this talk section is entitled "Failure of WP:NOR, WP:ORIGINALSYN, and WP:V," not "issues with the Iron Man 3 paragraph." If the former is truly the primary issue of concern, then the whole article should be open for conversation. Lortho21 (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is starting to sound like you are trying to deflect discussion of your preferred paragraph onto other supposed problem areas. If you agree that your paragraph is fine to be removed, then I agree we can move on to other things. 2601:D:9400:448:C952:3609:134C:D380 (talk) 12:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could just as easily say you're trying to ignore the greater point I've raised to hasten agreement on this particular passage's deletion. Let's not get into presuming motives. I have other issues with simply removing the paragraph because it isn't well sourced (if that's the practice, then what's even the point of having a 'citation needed' tag?), but first we need to agree on what standard for good sourcing is being applied here. Once that's agreed upon, we need to agree on what the best action to take is for each item in this article that doesn't meet that standard. Only once those two things are established can we agree on whether this particular passage should remain deleted or not.Lortho21 (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This item was the first thing brought up, so there is no good reason that it should be the last thing examined. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it should be the last thing examined, only that some clarity needs to be formed and agreed to on other things first so we can properly and consistently examine both it and the rest of the article.Lortho21 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm loath to join this conversation, but the character is named "Ellen Brandt" according to the characters page on the Iron Man 3 webpage. —Ost (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Forgetting the fact that she is/isn't named in the film, it is still WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to say she has any relation to Man-Thing or received her scars from Man-Thing. Or the comic storyline with Man-Thing and AIM is true, as none of this is gathered from the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 22:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I made no such suggestion. —Ost (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But this page isn't about Ellen Brandt, so why should that info be here? - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 17:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It belongs here because this is a discussion about the character and someone mentioned that she was not named Ellen. I don't care if the info goes in this article or any article; I was just providing information, responding to a claim that her first name was unnamed. I mentioned that I was loath to join this discussion and this needless back and forth is reinforcing that feeling. —Ost (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was not meaning your contribution here. I meant the info in this article. I appreciate you finding that source to state that. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 05:14, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for misunderstanding what you meant and going off a bit. —Ost (talk) 13:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. We both misinterpreted what each other was trying to do. But anyways, the crux of this discussion hasn't been touched in a few weeks. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 15:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems firmly established as existing in the Marvel Cinematic Universe...

He was mentioned by name in the last Agents of SHIELD, and his wife (and she IS his wife - same name, same affiliation, same scar, same plant-based research) appeared in Iron Man 3. Short of having him actually slog his way onto the screen, this is about as firmly as a non-appearing character can be established.

Should be added to the film and TV sections. 50.102.133.18 (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

This was being discussed already, two sections up. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While it's fine and dandy that he's established, he has yet to make a physical appearance in a film or television series, so there is no need for inclusion until such time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why is that? Should an article on Waiting For Godot never mention Godot, simply because he never physically appears in the play? Lortho21 (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a similar comparison, and should not be seen as such. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Adding every single media appearance would potentially create an exhaustive list, many of which (this time included) are insignificant or not notable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Main image

The main image is really not appropriate. Volume 4 is a direct tie-in to the 2005 movie and not "canon," and the character's appearance is based on the movie version, substantially different from how normally depicted. In the context of a Wikipedia article, it's misleading--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If people want a more contemporary image of Man-Thing, may I suggest this? https://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel/i/mg/6/60/5f282a4ba0958/clean.jpg --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]