Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Galactus

Agreement[edit]

To clarify the previously agreed structure of what could reasonably work, I'm simply underlining that time and energy are very restrained, and I don't yet have access to my old reference image folder for the case, so this could take quite a while between responses. Basically the only way to handle this is to take each problem area separately and list the evidence for each side, then have the arbitrators decide on a neutral solution. Also User:Emperor and User:Cameron Scott have expressed an interest in reformatting the article and weeding it of irrelevance, each of whom are much more efficient at this than either TB or me, so I'm also interested in seeing what that ends up with, and then only have to focus on discussing the perceived errors that remain. There is a great amount of them to sift through at this point. Dave (talk) 09:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue #1: Galactus origin story[edit]

I'm here reposting the non-sidetracked or personal he-said she-said parts of our respective comments on this issue. If something is left, please feel free to remove it Dave (talk) 11:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some back-and-forth edit reversions, and before this escalates into a full-blown edit war, I'd like to suggest that User:David A and User:TheBalance come over here and talk over each of TheBalance's proposed changes. I don't know which of these editors is "right" or "wrong," but what I would wager is that one is correct on some of these, and the other is correct on others. We need to build a consensus.

I'll be happy to referee, if that helps. What I would suggest is that we start with the edits in the first paragraph here. Can we start with this one: DavidA says:

Galactus was created from Galan's incubation within the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe", to be reborn as "a galactic ravager". CITE: Super-Villain Classics #1 (May 1983). Although the 1980s updated Mark Gruenwald origin special displayed the two entities as separate after the transformation was completed, during Mark Waid's 2000s Fantastic Four the Invisible Man nonetheless described Galactus as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos". CITE: Fantastic Four #522 (March 2005)

TheBalance says:

Created by the union between the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe" and Galan, CITE: Super-Villain Classics #1 (May 1983)</ref> the Invisible Man has described Galactus as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" CITE: Fantastic Four #522 (March 2005) and story narrative has labeled him "the most awesome living entity in the cosmos." CITE: Thor #134 (Nov. 1966)

The one thing I would suggest offhand is getting rid of "the most awesome" quote, dudes. It's subjective and vague — how does one measure "awesomeness"? — whereas calling him "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" is concrete, within the fictional framework. So at least it sounds like that latter phrase is something both of you can agree on?

Now, both versions of the first sentence seem to be saying basically the same thing. Is there a way to phrase it, perhaps with less highly specific detail, to a way that says the essential thing you both agree on? (Also, there's a grammatical issue -- TheBalance's sentence is saying the Invisible Man was created by the union of etc.) -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've been aiming for matter-of-fact impartiality in that phrasing by simultaneously keeping all of them, and stating "which writer did what version when". "Most awesome" is typical narrative hyperbole yes, but if the context of early Marvel in the 1960s (before most other entities were introduced) is clarified it does not present a prooblem of blatant inaccuracy to my sensibilities. On the other hand I do have a major problem with Mark Gruenwald's updated origin being offhandedly included into a hype-up statement, despite contradicting the claim. Galan was incubated and transformed within the sentience, this part is clear and neutral. However, after the Big Bang the dormant Galactus is shown being sent out in his ship with the voice of the universe bidding him farewell from within the explosion. Boz agreed with me on this point after being shown the image in question, and you can readily see it yourself, as it is used within the profile itself. I have no trouble with keeping the statement from the Waid run, as it is not displayed in a misleading manner as long as the conflicting context of the Gruenwald story is also kept.

Speaking of the origin story it also clearly shows Galactus finally being awakened by a fully developed Watcher (Ecce?), i.e. his true age outside of stasis is counted long after these immortals and presumably the Elders of the Universe, were born. There was also a Kubik/Kosmos story that theorised that the Cellestials originated in the universes prior to his own and were what Galactus would evolve into after the next Big Bang, and there are plenty of extradimensional beings of indeterminate age. Hence "The oldest being in the universe is also misleading hyperbole", whereas "The only known surviving inhabitant of the previous universe" would be acceptable, but seemed misplaced in that particular sentence about his level of technology. Dave (talk) 23:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is that Galactus wasn't created by Galan incubating within the cosmic egg, he was created from the union of the Sentience of the Universe and Galan. There is a distinct difference here, and while it may seem like semantics to the outside observer it is a pivotal plot point in Galactus' origin. In fact, Galactus' "incubation" did not even occur within the cosmic egg, but rather in the present reality which makes Dave's version blatantly incorrect.

Here's the dialogue that lays it all out, the Sentience of the [previous] Universe is explaining the situation to Galan,

"Hear me, last son of Taa -- I am the Sentience of the Universe!"

"Like yourself, I am dying. In mere moments as I mark time I shall have drawn all the matter in the cosmos into my bosom, and collapse beneath my own abysmal weight."

"But though we both must die, we need not die without an heir. Come, surrender yourself to my fiery embrace and let us become as one. Let our death throes serve as birth pangs for a new form of life!"

"In a time beyond time shall be born a new universe and into that universe shall be one entity like no other -- a living organism who possesses the matchless power and raging appetite of a galaxy."

"But he shall be more than a galaxy. He shall be a galactic ravanger... he shall be... Galactus!"

Galactus wasn't created by incubating within the Cosmic Egg, he wasn't created by his incubation in the current reality, Galactus was born the moment Galan and the Sentience of the Universe "became as one". The incubation period (that once again, occurred post Big Bang) was Galactus achieving maturity, not becoming Galactus.

In response to Dave, Galactus has been referred to as the oldest being in the universe in-continuity several times, including by Eternity himself. TheBalance (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You omitted the following part (Link):

"There is an eternity of seeming nothingness, then the cosmic egg of the universe explodes!" (Galan's ship is seen being ejected far away from the central explosion)

"Go, now--and let a universe a'borning beware!" (The voice of the dying universe calls out a farewell to to its child from inside the furnace)

"For eons the sturdy starship carrying the metamorphing being hurled through the interstellar void..."

So what does all the above text tell us?

1) There are several references to making children: "into my bosom", "we need not die without an heir", "my fiery embrace", "let us become as one", "birth pangs", "cosmic egg", the ship violently sent out from its mother's womb.

2) The previous universe disturbingly comes across as a petty asshole who wants to be remembered in the new creation by creating a "galactic ravager" that all the inhabitants should "beware"/taking revenge on its successor.

3) The sentience is clearly shown as a separate entity when calling farewell after the explosion, and as the "mother" of Galactus, not a previous incarnation.

4) "There is an eternity of seeming nothingness" means that there was a very significant period of incubation time between that of Galan entering the egg and the rest of the universal mass being drawn in, which would make absolutely no sense othervise, as it should take several billion years at the very least from the universe showing symtoms of collapse/the Taa'an scientists discovering what was happening, and most of it actually doing so, which is the reason for my interpretation of the most crucial metamophosis happening in the womb. However, there is also "In mere moments as I mark time" and "For eons the sturdy starship carrying the metamorphing being" before meeting the fully developed Watcher species, with a fully formed planet to land on (several billion years more described as "mere" eons) so the timescale is inherently completely topsy-turvy/writers apparently didn't have a clue what they were talking about.

Conclusion: The origin story makes a major point of depicting Galactus as the child of the previous universe with Galan gestating in its "womb", and explicitly shows them as separate entities, but does definitely not say that they are the same being. I have been fairminded in keeping the references you like that are accurately portrayed, i.e. Stan Lee's 1960's "most awesome" and Mark Waid's 2000's "metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos", but the 1980's origin story says a very different thing, and if you are interested in objective historical/more Wikipedia relevant portrayal you should show the same courtecy and objectivity by allowing the display of contrasting historical context. Different writers apparently have different takes, similar to how Stan Lee simply had Galan enter a star in the first Thor origin (which should possibly also be mentioned for this reason btw).

Regardless, you are correct in that the metamophosis continued afterwards, so we could change it to something like "incubation within the cosmic egg, and continued metamophosis for unspecified eons afterwards". It just seems kind of awkwardly long.

I don't remember Eternity calling Galactus the oldest being, but regardless the point still stands that there is a major difference between frozen stasis or time-travelling, and actual sentient lifespan. The Watcher race was apparently fully developed by the time Galactus was awakened, which means that he is far from the oldest in terms of personal experience. There is also the Kubik/Kosmos story that refers to the Celestials as possible survivors of the universes even further before, and assorted otherdimensional entities, or immortal time-travellers such as Size-Neg, that are likely also older. "The only known survivor of the previous universe" says the same thing you want in a neutral fashion by keeping those variables out of the equation. Dave (talk) 08:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really glad both of you are willing to try this route. Trust me: Collaborating works. There's an old improv saying: "Your idea plus my idea equal our idea." You couldn't do improv if people didn't collaborate and build a scene together.

Here's the thing: I've scanned the back-and-forth debates higher up on this page, and I can see that you both and User:Mobb_One each vigorously defend your points. Given the fictional, ever-changing, and decades-long narrative involved, there are going to be endless details that inconsistencies that can be debated.

What I'm suggesting is the opposite approach: That we seek a way to say something all three of you can live with.

So, rather continuing to defending your points point, which all three of you can do, and which isn't working, why don't we keep things simple, one step at a time, like bricklayers.

Just for example, then, I'd like to see what you and both think about this merger of your first sentences:

Galactus was created in an interaction with the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe". CITE: CITE: Super-Villain Classics #1 (May 1983) One member of the superhero team the Fantastic Four, whom Galactus has frequently encountered, described him as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" CITE: Fantastic Four #522 (March 2005)

See how I did that? Before we go any further, I'd like to get your responses to this — keeping those responses brief, please, and keeping in mind the idea that we're striving for a common, general way to phrase things, that won't be subject, as they have been so far, to differing views and interpretations. We can find things you both agree on. But we have to want to do that. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that I already tried to fairly take into account the ever-changing, and decades-long narrative involved and finding a balanced solution everyone could live with by mentioning the different/conflicting preferences/takes of different writers, and keeping the accurate references that suit the tastes of committed fans of the character such as TB and Mobb. As well as making the wording as neutral as I could manage regarding the interaction. The character was clearly shown to be transformed and incubate within the egg, hence that was stated. However TB has a valid point in that the metamorphosis continued afterwards, so the sentences I used previously (displayed below) could be adapted to reflect this:

P&A text: "Galactus was created from Galan's incubation within the "Sentience of the [previous] Universe", to be reborn as "a galactic ravager".^[1] Although the 1980s updated Mark Gruenwald origin special displayed the two entities as separate after the transformation was completed, during Mark Waid's 2000s Fantastic Four the Invisible Man nonetheless described Galactus as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos".^[2]"

"Image text: "Galan of Taa is transformed into Galactus during incubation within the Sentience of the previous Universe"

I suppose that "interaction" is technically fine, but I personally think the vomb and birth context should be referred to (in a non vulgar manner), hence the "incubation" choice. However, it would be a very unfair representation to strictly mention the Waid take and not the explicit Gruenwald contradiction. That said, I have no illusions about always finding the appropriate wording, but the historical context of contradiction should be maintained, and possibly expanded to Lee's original 1960's Thor origin. Dave (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction is much too vague a term, IMHO. "Union" or "merging" is very much in line with the story's dialogue, and supports later plots involving Galactus' nature and origin.

Also, clarifying that it was the Invisible Man (herald of Galactus) that described Galactus should be retained, as this wasn't a normal version of Johnny Storm that made the observation. In the story, Johnny Storm had the Invisible Woman's powers, and furthermore was granted the Power Cosmic by Galactus in order to locate hidden worlds. This combination of power-sets granted him the unique ability to see behind the veil, to see the true nature of things. He was the first being shown in-continuity with the ability to perceive Galactus' "true form", and thus his statement about Galactus being "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" holds quite a bit of weight. TheBalance (talk) 16:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That latter point about Johnny Storm is important, and we can phrase that in a way that has context and still be understandable to non-comics, general-audience readers, to which Wikipedia policy says we write.

I'm more concerned, though, about your sticking with "union" when that appears to be a phrase that DavidA appears to feel is inaccurate. Neither of you -- and me, neither -- has a conduit to absolute truth, so we need to find a phrase you both can live with. "Interaction" -- or some other, similar term -- is intentionally vague-but-accurate. We're trying to find commonality here. The other way clearly isn't working. DavidA: Do you have a middle-ground word or phrase that addresses TheBalance's concerns along with your own?

As for Johnny Storm, how about:

One member of the superhero team the Fantastic Four, temporarily serving as Galactus' herald and thus imbued with a cosmically heightened perception of reality, described him as "the physical, metamorphosed embodiment of a cosmos" CITE: Fantastic Four #522 (March 2005)

I don't think it's necessary to say Invisible Man -- most people take that to mean the Robert Louis Stevenson character, and the pertinent point is "a member of the Fantastic Four serving as Galactus' herald." Who it is specifically doesn't matter.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

David may feel it is inaccurate, but it is what happened. Once again, here is the quote that nails it all down,

"But though we both must die, we need not die without an heir. Come, surrender yourself to my fiery embrace and **let us become as one**. Let our death throes serve as birth pangs for a new form of life!"

Furthermore, this aspect of Galactus' origin is pivotal in later interactions between Eternity and Death and emphasized his place in the universal order. Interaction is simply too ambiguous a term, especially when their "union" was spelled out clearly for us in print.

My other objection is that a majority consensus has already been achieved on this issue, Dave is a vocal minority here.

The revised sentence regarding Johnny Storm/Invisible Man works for me. TheBalance (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Galactus did have an incubation period, but this occurred after the Big Bang (in the present reality) and not within the Cosmic egg (the previous reality), making David's interpretation erroneous. TheBalance (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Let us become as one" in this case interacts with the numerous references and allusions to "lovemaking"/"conceiving children" seen in my reponse above. You know, *ahem*. Most definitely not stated as "Let us become one entity as an escape plan so I can survive this", but as "I will die, but want children, embrace my bosom". On the other hand the two are explicitly shown as separate beings in the following frame, which should be mentioned.

Regarding the incubation period, that's from the omitted following "eternity of seeming nothingness" part in combination with the inherent nonsense assumption of the universe drawing every iota of mass into itself immediately after Galan entered the center, rather than taking at least as much time as it took to expand from the Big Bang before that, when the Taa scientists had just discovered the effect a few years earlier. So no, it is definitely not erroneous. It could however be followed by "and continued metamorphosis afterwards". Then again, after rechecking the page, the inherent contradiction problem here seems to be that the writers insert other much odder references such as "in mere moments as I mark time" (which of course would still mean millions of years) and the starship travelling "for eons" before meeting a fully developed Watcher on a fully formed green planet afterwards.

I have no problem with the "Invisible Man" story being mentioned rather than simply the Human Torch character, and (despite almost never being given the same balanced courtesy/npov approach by TB and Mobb) kept it as such.

To summarise from all of my latest responses: I already did attempt to create a middle-ground balanced solution by including several conflicting takes and wording phrases in a more neutral manner. (What is so offensive about "incubation" or "only known survivor"?) If I had attempted to give it a uniform slant I would (for example) have deleted the Mark Waid and "most awesome" mentions. Dave (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I think I gave this my best shot, But with all respect to both parties' knowledge and genuine caring, and your devoting admirable time and effort to try to write something useful and encyclopedic, I'm afraid that trying to reach common ground is doomed when you each refuse to budge from your positions, reject compromise phrasing (User:TheBalance), and seem unable to work with the concept of succinct responses and short replies (Dave) Unless each of you learns to collaborate -- which means to find reasonable compromise and commonality -- then my own efforts won't produce any good results.

One admin I've been in touch with has suggested banning you both from this article for a time, and presumably letting other editors write a plainer, more basic version of the disputed sections -- leaving out excessive detail to write plain-vanilla, inarguable facts ... which you two have not provided, since you're arguing with each other.

I said to him, "Wait and let me try this first." But I can see it's not going to work. I'm disappointed. I absolutely know you both are operating in the best of faith. But I, at least, can't help when there's such refusal to compromise -- which, frankly, I see more with David, who, despite good intent, is doing OR synthesis and analysis and continuing to defend his positions at excessive length.

I'm sure we'll work together on articles in the future. You both care and know your stuff. But this intransigence means you'll both keep reverting each other over and over again. That's not doing any of us, the article, or our community any good. -- Tenebrae (talk) 03:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfiltered stream-of-consciousness is the only way I can express myself, so I'd rather see you simply evaluate all of the above, and go from there. I don't have any problem with you or Boz coming up with compromises as long as I get to state what the current problem is. However, there are several more of them than I directly adjusted this time. The only crucial part I directly addressed was the one discussed above, since I had discussed it with Boz and had the impression that he agreed with me. For example, I was going to wait with the supposed "teleporting a galaxy" part until I found the time to upload and show Boz some scans from later Rom issues that directly contradict this in itself vague reference.

I've made continuous new versions that attempt to compromise and keep all parties happy by for example listing several versions of the origin, as opposed to applying censorship, and find it unfair that this effort has not been acknowledged.

Or as a more direct comparison, I personally reinserted the "Spider-Man and the Secret Wars" reference that TB wanted there because it sounds impressive, despite that the narrative is directly contradicting continuity on several points, whereas TB moved the Galacta mini, that has none of these continuity issues, to the "out of continuity" section.

Basically all that is needed to make a compromise with me is to actually listen to what I have to say, acknowledge my attempts to write different versions, and make an effort to make adjustments from that. Dave (talk) 06:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another modification attempt. How about something in the veibn of this suggestion: "In the original 1960s Stan Lee origin Galactus was created when Galan was transformed by a dying star. (Thor reference) In Mark Gruenwald's adjusted 1980s origin special he was rather stated as the child of the Sentience of the Previous Universe, created from Galan's incubation within the Cosmic egg and further metamorphosis afterwards. In Mark Waid's 2000s Fantastic Four run Galactus was rather described as the metamorphosized embodiment of a cosmos." That seems fair and accommodating enough. Dave (talk) 10:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally speaking I can live with if "interaction with" is inserted into some version of my last suggestion, although "child of" also seems explicitly self-evident from the issue in question. Dave (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1st issue in brief[edit]

Image from the 1982 version of the origin story: Link

Quoted text: