Talk:Secret Invasion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skrull infiltrators clear-up[edit]

According to Marvel Spotlight: Secret Invasion, the Skrull of The Command was Conquistador, not Siege. Was there another source that named Siege as the infiltrator? I know it doesn't help matters that the one panel in Initiative #19 featuring The Command shows neither Siege nor Conquistador, and whoever the others are fighting looks more like Devil Dinosaur than anything. Also, Initiative #20 page 2 shows some of the returned abductees in a readjustment session, but there are a couple I don't recognize from the list, namely the purple and blue character between Mockingbird and Thor Girl, and the masked one between Jarvis and Razorback. I'm not sure about the one in the hat on the other side of Jarvis either - Revolutionary? Are these characters that should be added to the list?--207.47.231.27 (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Opinions?[edit]

Please advise if anyone would like the list of Skrull infiltrators on a separate page, similar to team membership. Thanks. Asgardian (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Yes please. I think its information people would look for. May clarify who and who wasn't a Skrull for others. Savre (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

recent IP edits.[edit]

I looked at the recent edit warring here, and I think the IP version is better, and have restored it, but not the other contentious edits. the way it seems to have been written before, it implies, as the edit summary suggests, that everything in Secret Invasion occurred within the pages thereof. Since Secret Invasion described events in the MU's past, wording that makes that clear is preferable. ThuranX (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Asgardian seems to prefer an edit war: The actions of replacement occurred in the contextual past relative even to the 'permapresent' usually used in writing about fiction, therefore "Replaced" is appropriate. The phrase "From Company Marvel Comics is stilted and unnaturally formal. Either the story ran through November, or through December, do not pin down the outer boundaries, but encompass the publication dates, and that looks like 'through December', meaning the last issues were released IN December, or with December dates. The phrase "by long-time Marvel aliens" Is also a bizarre way to state that the Skrulls are a long established fictional alien race within the Marvel Universe. His version says 'replaced' but does not explain 'with what?' whereas the version presented by the IP, which I also agree with, does establish. In every manner I read, that version is stronger. As such ,and lacking any replies in talk to defend his version, I'm reverting again. ThuranX (talk) 02:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No silly accusations please. A reversion implies that, with no changes. Not so here. I have split the difference and retained those parts that work, but pulled three words and one term as they were repeated twice. By the by, all the leads now state "comic books published by Marvel Comics. I have kept the phrase "the premise" as from an out of universe perspective that is how to express it. The Skrulls also need a mention that they've been around since almost as long as Marvel (FF#2, to be precise). Asgardian (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant. The word 'established' doesn't mean anything where you used it. Are they 'established on earth'? 'established to be aliens'? 'established for a business'? It's a vague word in that context, at best. It reads to me as the use of a nice big word there. We link to the Skrull article, that's enough, because in this context, it's frankly irrelevant whether they are a new threat or an old one, given the nature of their actions. Again, I have to explain that actions already fully completed in the fiction work's past at the start of a fictional story can be referred to in the past tense. At the start of SI, they had already replaced most of the characters, and that's the point. The uncovering of the double agents. To suggest in the lead that they are being replaced and discovered simultaneously is to thoroughly misrepresent the story. As to claims that the version I support doesn't approach from a real world context, I remind you that the phrase "The story..." is as clear an identifier that what is being discussed is a STORY, whereas 'premise' refers to the basis of MANY things, including legal court arguments and scientific experiments, government policy proposals, and so on. 'Premise' is akin to 'theme', whereas 'Story' is a noun specifically menaing the relations of a series of events. Which a comic book crossover story is. ThuranX (talk) 13:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following my most recent reversion, i stand by my comments above. ThuranX (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's where you fell down. Reverting. My own changes were improvements, not reversions. Please study the changes and consider from the layman's POV. Asgardian (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


When you're ready to discuss, and not pull the same bullying you pulled on Abomination and Thor before, then we will be able to talk. For now, it's revert time. This is an edit war you're starting, and it will be an edit war until you talk things out. Your holier than thou arrogance is incredibly difficult to deal with, as is your condescending non-reply above.
You continue to disregard my point about verb tense ,about the best way to convey the out-of-universe of it, and about the irrelevance of the Skrulls in the history of the Marvel Universe. It doesn't matter how 'established' they are, yet you would rather insist that your shuffling of deck chairs constitutes real problem solving. Either come here and listen to waht others say, or move on to other articles where you can bully others. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FURTHER - Removing the publication highlights for mthe lead makes it weaker. You removed those to source the claim that the Skrulls are the first aliens in Marvel comics to a Marvel comic, using 'in-universe' material as filtered through your personal judgment. Neither of those improves the lead. leave in the publication highlights. And leave out your continued insistence that we somehow elevate the Skrulls to a worshippable status. Whatever your opinion of them may be, it is irrelevant to this article's intro. it is sufficient that we link them, and that we explain their major power - shape-shifting - in relation to the basic idea of the story told in the Secret Invasion comics. ThuranX (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Study the latest changes, and please, stop making accusations. Asgardian (talk) 04:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This time, since it seems nothing else will work, I have gone through and explained the problems, each in it's own edit, since you can't be bothered to read back here. I get that you own this article, and that I'm trespassing, but really, I don't care. You've pushed me off enough article pages, and I'm not backing down any more. I have been clear and calm, and you have constantly disregarded my ideas and arguments, instead insisting that only your way is right. ThuranX (talk) 05:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And still you won't listen. I say it again: You cannot source the claim that the Skrulls are the 'first aliens' in the marvel universe to their first appearance in Fantastic Four #2. All that can support is their First Appearance. The First Appearance of Skrulls is NOT the same claim as The First Appearance of aliens within the Marvel Universe. ThuranX (talk) 05:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe not too clear and calm as there are accusations in there, and you may not have even read the message I left for you on your Talk page, which I thought was the decent thing to do. I've also given ground on some things, but so must you. Now, this:

"Secret Invasion" is a crossover storyline published in a self titled comic book limited series and several other titles by Marvel Comics from April through December 2008. The story involves a subversive, long-term invasion of Earth by the alien Skrulls.[1] Capable of shapeshifting, the Skrulls have secretly replaced many of Marvel's heroes with impostors over a period of years, prior to the overt invasion. Marvel's promotional tagline for the event was "Who do you trust?"

is NOT a reversion, something you keep accusing me of. It actually incorporates many of your suggestions, but just places the term 'comic book' in a more logical place; adds a nice note on how long the Skrulls have been around for the laymen (read what it actually says), and removed the lazy colloquial term "most of". Not worth setting the barn on fire for, yes? Asgardian (talk) 05:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's clear you want a fight tonight. Don't know why, don't care. All of these are essentially reversions. That you alter a word here and there so that you can slap a different summary and not call it a revert doesn't change the fact that you refuse to listen to edit reasons, discuss first on talk, or anything else. each of your series of edits is clearly intended to bring the entire lead back to the state you want it in, without really giving reasons, instead claiming 'minor corrections', 'one more change' and so on. You are not, have not, addresses the substantive reasoning I've given. You just keep going back to the thing you want, by any number of circuitous edits and disguising summaries. Nor did you do anything of such sort for the IP editor who started this, instead just wholly reverting those edits. I'm going to log now, and when I come back I expect substantive responses.ThuranX (talk) 05:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec - and I reserve the right to amend this once I've read through the intervening comments...)

Since I seem to wandered in to this... at least with the lead...

  1. It is more appropriate to say the story ran through a set of comics. The comics are what was published.
  2. The linked "comic book" is awkward in that sentence. Before "storyline" at least predicates the entire topic as "comic book" related.
  3. "most" and "several" - "most" was used since that was the impression Marvel's publication schedule left. "various other titles" may be a better choice.
  4. The note in the lead is fannish preening. It isn't needed since the linkage to the article on the Skrulls covers it.

Now... beyond that... Would those concerned care to hash out the problems on this page before touching the article again?

- J Greb (talk) 05:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per your suggestion, I've amended the mention to other titles as it was a sloppy phrase. The rest will be fine. Nice to have a more mature editor help out every so often. Asgardian (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA. I brought this to talk, you refused to come, and you take a shot at my maturity? You've got some nerve. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The Skrulls first appear in the Marvel Universe in Fantastic Four (Jan. 1962)

The Cabal[edit]

The Cabal were featured on the last page of the last issue and should be mentioned. Arguably, the group is more important than the Dark Avengers to the Dark Reign storyline. Hermiod (talk) 07:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Secret Invasion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Secret_Invasion&oldid=1201469949"