Talk:Punisher/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

The Angelic Punisher

Well, here's an odd question, and I'm sure I'll get flamed for it - has anyone thought of adding the weird storyline where Frank Castle kills himself and is turned into an agent of God to the Wikipedia entry? He gets imbued with mystical powers and his origin is tied to that of a demon, or somesuch. It's definitely not a very good story... and obviously not canon, but was likely planned as a revamp of the character (which was pretty much unacceptable). If not, I can dig up some of the issues I got which mention that, and add an entry. Kitsune Sniper / David Silva 06:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there might be room for that, as I actually came to the Punisher entry looking for a bit of info about that series. I'd definitely like to see at least some kind of mention of it. --Thenedain 05:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not canon? I remember angel-powered punisher fighting alongside Wolverine in a crossover.

I came here looking for information on the Angelic Agent, not Punisher, actually. I knew very little information about the character (Angelic Agent) except that he is a verion of the Punisher and that he can create or summon any weapon. -- Trakx 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The Wolverine/Angel Punisher crossover was called "Revelations". It had pretty neat manga-style art. I believe the entire Angelic Punisher stuff is now non-canon. It was briefly mentioned in the article. Brunbb 20:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's canon, it is part of the character's history and should be detailed, partially since it is so absurd. --Chris Griswold 00:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's canon - it's referenced in the first Ennis series --Charlesknight 22:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The Russian's image upload

sup people, i just created a character profile for the russian but im having trouble in regards to uploading his image i have a punisher comic book and i scanned the image of the russian but i dont know whats the error of my upload

i hope someone can correct this licensure thingy, thanks

Rewrite?

Does anyone else think this article could use a re-write? It doesn't mention much before Ennis took over. It doesn't even mention Microchip or any big Punisher stories (Suicide Run, The Final Days, etc.). It seems as if someone just read the Marvel Knights/MAX and decided to write it. It needs to be more in-depth. Brunbb 20:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Much of it does need rewriting to bring up to encyclopedic standards. I've made a pass at it, but it still needs work to excise POV speculations and conclusions, redundancy, and level of minutiae. -- Tenebrae 21:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

couldnt you make it any simple?

i started the "definition of justice" section but people keep on detailing the already simple definition of justice with too much explanations

i mean, whether in cartoons or films, the punisher's brand of justice is quite simple...an eye for an eye! just like that

now stop making things more complicated!

Please sign your posts. Also, note that your opinions are opinions, which you're entitled to, but not fact. -- Tenebrae 21:08, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

i know an opinion is a personal belief, but what i stated as the punisher definition of brand of justice as "eye for an eye" IS A FACT. I have a comic book of punisher wherein a fan wrote a letter to the then writer, chuck dixon asking what's castle's definition of justice and its clearly stated, "an eye for an eye", if you want i can scan that issue, btw, are you the one who deleted that section in the article? frbarba

That's good, but do you have anything in which it is stated in an actual story that defines the Punisher's belief? A thought balloon or caption box, etc. That would make it perfect. --Chris Griswold 00:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

you mean a comic book panel wherein the punisher himself stating his own brand of justice? nope, none im aware of but its the punisher staff in 1990s who clearly stated it, and i dont find a necessity for it frbarba 07:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Nothing recent? Garth Ennis' Punisher casts some doubt on eye-for-an-eye. --Chris Griswold 12:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

While reading over this article, this section caught my attention: [The way writers have approached the Punisher's response to the criminal justice system has changed many times over the years, as the audience of the character has adapted and matured. When originally conceived, his approach was hard-edged, and frowned upon by more heroic characters, such as Spider-Man. In the 1980's, particularly in response to the Death Wish and Rambo films and to America's reemerging sense of its role as a world power in the years after losing the Vietnam War, the Punisher came to represent a particularly American "might is right" viewpoint, and his actions were presented as significantly more heroic, depite the fact he was still committing sometimes quite appalling acts of murder, sometimes on an almost genocidal scale.]I noticed some word choices (bolded) might not be up to the non-POV standards, and possible author interpretations and ideas seeping into the work. Agreed that the Punisher is himself an anti-hero engaging in callous acts, but in my years reading the comic books I do not recall him ever committing genocide. Also, in reference the "might makes right" comment, to base the mentality of the American populace on the actions of a character in a comic book seems out of place for an encyclopedia grade article. Also, this author seems to overlook thet many other superheroes such as Batman, Superman, Spiderman and DareDevil (the latter two titles from the same company as Punisher, Marvel) abhor killing and do their best to try and avoid it. Also, in response to Frank Castle's brand of justice, The Punisher is an exploration of man's darker side, into the depths of the human soul. It is the investigation of what could make a man, who was once a law abiding citizen, in some story arcs an actual member of law enforcement, and turn him to a life of crime with little or no faith in the American Justice department and addresses the very real concerns and feelings of the public about corruption, crime, justice, disenfranchisement and insignificance. This comic, over time, has become a much more realistic depiction of real life, where the good guys aren't always "good" and the bad guys aren't always black-as-night evil, rather much life the world it is trying to depict, things are rarely ever cut and dried or black and white. - Evan

Unless cited, that's POV and original research.--Chris Griswold 00:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Secret Defenders

Please don't remove this from SHB. Not sure why someone did. --Chris Griswold 09:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Hand to hand combat methods?

"Frank is well-versed in the arts of warfare and hand-to-hand combat, his styles of choice being MCMAP (Marine Corps Martial Arts Program) or the Marine Corps LINE combat system as well as unarmed combat training received in the military."

Where does this come from? Frank would have not learnt either MCMAP or LINE as the first was not introduced until 1980 and the second around 2001!

Do we have a source?

--Charlesknight 13:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Merging punisher with punisher Max makes no sens

Punisher is an article about character and Punisher: MAX is just a description of one of series. Why does anyone want to merge this specific series into this article? Makes no sense for me, on wiki all series have their own articles and it makes sense. Why do You want to remove this one and leave the others?

I think You should remove this whole merging concept

Jakilcz 20:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Are there any major differences between the MAX version and the regular version? If not, then MAX Punisher is just another of a dozen comics that has featured the character and shouldn't have an article of its own.- Wilfredo Martinez 16:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

there is a difference, the MAX in the bibliography article basically lists all the issue titles (for encylopedic reference) while the punisher article is the complete description of the character †Bloodpack† ^argh! 16:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think merging isn't a bad idea, but you'd have to note the differences between the two comics. Listing the chip etc. You could easily add this information into The Punisher without ruining any of the ongoing points by just having it catergorized correctly. It does seem like an intelligent idea.

moving the regular series, one-shots, limited series to the bibliography

i think there's no reason to place them here since we already got the whole list under the bibliography article, what do you guys think? Bloodpack ^argh! 12:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

the punisher archive

its starting to get annoying, off and on i see the punisher archive site added and yet deleted in the references, why is it always being removed? and who keeping it added? *sigh* †Bloodpack† ^argh! 15:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added it a couple of times, and I have no idea why its been deleted.

Psychopath

Whoa... I seen other comic book psychopaths, but strange, the article didnt mention he is a psychopath. Triple-Quadruple 03:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

no, he isnt a pychopath, there's more to his personality than being crazy, everything is detailed in his bio †Bloodpack† ^argh! 04:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you could find a good few reputable sources that call him a psychopath. He's more a sociopath than a psychopath. Yes, that's a POV. Anyway, my understanding is, nothing can be added to this article that does not come from a primary or secondary source. --Newt ΨΦ 04:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Then let's remove the category, "Fictional psychopaths."Triple-Quadruple 03:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If anything Ennis' run on the Punisher seems to imply that Frank is a sociopath to say the least. I found it fascinating that in the final issue of Born many people assumed that the person Frank made the deal with at the end was the Devil or Death. The simplest answer would be he had caveated to himself; the conversation merely a byproduct of his condition. Alsosprachmiyamoto 04:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

battle van section?

should that also be in his weapons/armory? like a merge? †Bloodpack† ^argh! 22:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Character History Rewrite?

It seems to me that this section could use a considerable rewrite. It's not that the information isn't pertinant; it's just that it reads more like a "character traits" section than a true summary of the Punishers history. There is no mention of the Tyger one shot, no mention of his Nam' activities. These are all formative experiences for the character and it seems curious that they would be ommitted in a character history section. Is anyone else in agreement on this? Alsosprachmiyamoto 03:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Expand?

Why not expand the article and actually provide that "minute detail?" What would really be so wrong with it? I, and thus it's likely that many others, like such details in something. This isn't an encyclopedia; it's a web-site. A web-site with encyclopedia-like content and aspirations which are notable and even, perhaps, commendable, to be sure, but still. Plus, there's the ability to write "simple" versions, so--why not make a "simple" version of this (and, for the record, other) pages, alongside a detailed version? The first example that springs to mind is the simplified CIA page. It's short, to the point, and allows for a more detailed version.

I say this not to be a schmuck or anything, honestly, but since there's the ability to have a "simplified" version of a page, why not, then, let the "main" page be detailed to all and sundry? Maybe even provide a link at the top, "For the simplified version, see here" or something. Often I'll be curious about something, only to find its article be "trimmed." I already know the basics about some things, but want to know those minute details (and I certainly can't do it; if I knew the minute details of, say, the Punisher, I wouldn't be looking them up).

Mainly curious, yet hopeful.

-- Last Thylacine 08:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be a wet blanket, but actually, no: This is an encyclopedia. That's the founders stated intent, and Wikipedia is designed for a general audience. Fannish details are best found on a fan site, and Wikipedia really isn't designed to be a free server space for that. There's more info about all this at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Hope this helps clarify. Happy Wiki-ing, -- Tenebrae 02:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

It's not about being a fan-site, per se. It's about actually having the detailed information that a web-site with encyclopedic aspirations should have. Without it, minimalistic entries are no better than catalogues, indexes for this or that subject. Since there is the ability to make a "simplified" version of a page, why not do that, and have the detailed entires for people really curious about a subject? Also, there's nothing in that second link, at all, that says there can't be a detailed entry alongside a simplified entry. As for the first link, it really doesn't change anything to have the ability to truly look for what one wants to look for. That would be of use to the most people, so that's about as general of an audience as it gets.

-- Last Thylacine 21:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing at WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information that says there can't be dual entries for the same article? There's also nothing that says there can't be a picture of an elephant on every article. I'm simply trying to point out that Wikipedia has overall parameters. If you want to make a major change that involves Wikipedia offering dual versions of an article, that's cool, but you'll need to take it up through the procedure that's been honed through the years and build a consensus. Start at WP:RULES, and work with an Admin to do it up right. (BTW, pls look at the [CIA article] again. First, it reads like it was written by a grade-school kid, but that's beside the point: It's from an entirely different Wiki encyclopedia. the "Simple English Wikipedia". Apples and oranges. Anyone else interested in this debate, please take a look at it and the only mainstream-Wiki Central Intelligence Agency article.)--Tenebrae 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It's still from Wikipedia.org, so it's not from a completely different Wiki. It's the same one, just a simplified version. So, it's not apples and oranges, but more like different types of apples. ;) That aside, it's not about changing major rules--it's about offering information. There seems to be some arbitrary decision-making, from normal, average-Joe users like myself, about what "should" and "shouldn't" be included. If all that's going to be offered is bare-bones information that anyone can dreg up with two minutes of using a search engine, then Wikipedia really can't call itself an encyclopedia. Really, if all that's going to be offered is the "basics," then that's fine--but it doesn't make for an encyclopedia.

-- Last Thylacine 04:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess it's relative; I wouldn't call the Punisher article currently here "bare bones", and I wouldn't say "the basics" are a bad thing — it's certainly appropriate for a general audience. In any case, I'm being serious: Having two versions of articles is a major policy change, and if you genuinely, in your gut, feel that this is an important change for Wikipedia, there's no reason not to follow your instincts. As for "should" and "shouldn't", dude, every organization in the world has got rules!

Finally, trust me: Having written a ton of articles, there's not a single one that's taken "two minutes" (and I know that's hyperbole) of using a search engine. Unless one believes everything one reads, facts have to be cross-checked and confirmed, then organized, and text written in a non-POV, wikistyled way, and much more. There's not one full-length comics-creator bio that took less than two hours. And if you think Mystic (comics) or even Millie the Model took just a few minutes, hell, check the history time-stamps! :-) But passion's good. Don't lose that. Channel it. --Tenebrae 04:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, every place has rules--but are those rules dictated, created, by "average" people? That's my point. It seems like everyday, average-Joe users--not the head-people at Wikipedia--are saying what "should" and "shouldn't" be allowed into an article. That's what I don't understand. I don't feel that it's an "important change," I feel it's a logical progression. If this web-site is going to proclaim it has encyclopedic content, then it should have encyclopedic content. If they are going to profess to be for the general user, then I believe they should be for the general user. Making things as complex or as simplistic as could be wanted is about as general as it gets.

And yes, you're right, that other comment was hyperbole. :)

Thing is, there really is little I can do, because I'm not going to troll the 'net for days looking up information for a Wikipedia article. Mainly because I just don't have that sort of attention span. :) As such, while I do appreciate the work put into an article, if it's no more than what can be found with just a bit of surfing--I.E., lacking those minute details--then I really can't appreciate the article itself. It isn't easy to create a lengthy page of information, whether or not for a Wiki. Anyone who creates and maintains articles has my respect (and sympathy, heh)--but if all that's in an article is what is in most web-pages around--it really seems like a waste of time.

Also, no, this isn't passion. I could only categorize it as "mild concern." I just believe that if something is going to be claimed, then that claim should be lived up to. If not, well--it happens. All this is to me is a bunch of glowing words on a screen. :)

-- Last Thylacine 07:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits to the trivia section

Ok Fellas - what seems to be the problem? And how can we move forward?

--Charlesknight 21:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

thanks =] actually, its about the trivia section of the article. I have a copy of the Punisher 1987 series #98. At the back of the issue is the fanmail section wherein a fan can write to the editor/writer about the book. A fan asked Don Daley 3 questions: 1) Who created the punisher. 2) About his costume. 3) Whats the punisher definition of justice. Since questions 1 & 2 are well known to every punisher fan, i added Don's answer to question #3. I added it in the trivia section and wrote it as exactly as whats printed in the comicbook and that is The Punisher's version of justice is clasically based as an eye for an eye. Now what tenebrae did is he added additional infos which are not written or found in the source (The Punisher #98) like the code of hamurrabi, etc. etc. So my question is, is it right to add ideas to original statements? †Bloodpack† ^argh! 21:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok as a first remark - I have that issue in a longbox and should be able to dig it out tomorrow to confirm what you are saying (please don't take that to mean that I think you are making it up, it's just that two editors who have read the same thing make a better case for inclusion!)

Tenebrae - could I ask you just to explain why you think that the code of Hamurrabi should be included and if there are any sources that mention this code in regards to the punisher?

--Charlesknight 22:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If Don Daley had said, "The Punisher's take on things is the classically based 'a rose by any other name would smell as sweet'," wouldn't you agree that "classically based" sounds ignorant? It's Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, and to not state it sounds like a negligent omission. I was perefectly happy to compromise and use both "classically based" and the actual source of "an eye for an eye," but if compromise isn't acceptable to another party, I can't force it. I can only mount a case that this isn't trivia in the first place, but something that belongs in another section, "Views on the criminal justice system". --Tenebrae 01:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

wow, its not for us to determine whats going on inside the mind of don when he answered that letter. Its like saying, we have to know why david mustaine said his music has been commercialized Point is, we have a source of an item here, we add it exactly and precisely, no more no less. Putting that hamurabi thing is your own opinion. You believe don made a stupid reply to that fan thats why you beautified his sentence and decorated it with other infos such as hamurabi. My concern is the readers. Have you considered that there are people who use wikipedia as their source of reference? the next time a punisher fan read that portion, hell believe don was referring to hamurabi when he made that reply when in fact were not even sure if he (Don) even knows the code of hamurabi. this most probably would lead the readers astray. Regardless if don made a stupid comment, its up to the readers to judge that, not us. we only lay down the facts. you dont quote a person and then add wordings of your own. its dangerous. THIS ISNT ABOUT COMPROMISING, YOU SABOTAGED A TRIVIA SECTION, YET YOU WANT ME TO ACCEPT IT AS A COMPROMISE? YOU CANT AND SO YOU DELETED IT. I TRIED TO BE REASONABLE AND POLITE BUT IF DELETION IS YOUR SOLUTION THEN SO BE IT †Bloodpack† ^argh! 12:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

---

(the last is to what happen in the last issue of the Marvel Knights Punisher story "Army Of One"). is found under Character History. What is this supposed to mean? I don't even know what to edit it into. I trust one of you all knows what should go there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.83.123.247 (talk • contribs) .

video game section

since we already have a seperate article for the Punisher (game), do you think we need to trim this section a little bit (seems too broad to me especially with the character list appearing in playstation/xbox). if not, should we merge the punisher video game to this article? Bloodpack 03:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Source of DVD sales

I've a ref for the DVD sales, but is a brazilian website. The content is in portuguese, obviously, but confirms that it sold about 2 million copies soon after it was released.

In the lusophon wikipedia, we can use references in other languages, since most times they are in english, but i'm not so sure if this is possible here, since i've already seen non-english websites be removed from articles.

Any comments about if I should add it or not?

FlavioTerceiro 03:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge proposal - History of the Punisher

Proposed merge - History of the Punisher into Punisher. I know this has been briefly mentioned before, when discussing other merges, butWikiProject Comics editorial guidelines state that plot summaries "should not become so enlarged as to become separate articles" (as per WP:NOT) & "articles focused on describing storylines should be avoided unless significance is established through real world sources". I'm not convinced that this qualifies. --Mrph 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Merge and trim --Mrph 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and trim. I thought this had already been done. Doczilla 00:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and WAY trim -- The info in History of the Punisher seems more properly placed under "Fictional character biography", per WikiComics exemplar. Also per Project guidelines, its blow-by-blow plot synopses need to be WAYYYYY shorter. See Daredevil (Marvel Comics) for a good example. --Tenebrae 01:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and trim per Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/editorial guidelines#Brief summary --Newt_ΨΦ 12:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and trim. Redundancy is for mobsters. And Frank Castle Punishes mobsters. He just wouldn't approve. -- Nick Begovich 20:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and trimPhoenix741 18:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and trim FixerMX 20:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Most of the History article concentrates on Vietnam, and it's in more detail that the Wikipedia guidelines would suggest. Better to edit it down and add it here? --Mrph 00:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Reason for "does not drink" etc. deletion

This sentence:

In his current incarnation, he does not drink or consume any type of drugs, but he has been portrayed drinking in comics past ("Holiday Special #1", etc.).

could be said of virtually every single heroic character in the Marvel universe, few of whom outside Tony Stark and Wolverine have ever been seen with so much as a beer. Unless we're going to include this line in virtually every single character bio, it doesn't seem to make sense to include it here. -- Tenebrae 00:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Aside from that it breaks the perpetual present of fictional characters, and mistakes the Punisher for a real person with a continuous history. --Psyphics_ΨΦ 17:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In issue 11 he refuses a drink. I think he does it again in the next issue too. I know that CCA-era heroes don't really ever drink, but Punisher might be one of the few who actively refuses it.Freezing the mainstream

Cite a reference for me

could someone cite the quote in the trivia section from mustaine, i've already got the website http://megadeth.rockmetal.art.pl/interviews_guitarschool1993.html thanks, i just dont know how to do it properly

no prob buddy, btw, pls sign your post with 4 tildes †Bloodpack† 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Other version section

im just wondering with regard to the Ultimate Punisher under the "Other version" section of this article. Do we really need to place it here? i mean, its not only the "ultimate" version of the punisher we have, he also had other versions under his bibliography. Can we just redirect the section? or if not, can we also create a separate article for other punisher versions then place it here? (i.e A Man named Frank where the era is set in a western world), or should we also need to include the 2099 version of frank in this article? †Bloodpack† 03:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)