Talk:Sylar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

What he does with the brains

Sylar's original ability was to be able to "see how things worked". Basically, an accurate extrapolation of the functioning of any complex system. It's almost certain that once Sylar removes a brain, he is able to look at it (maybe analyze it) and "see" how the ability works and thus replicate it. (it has been noted in the series that the brain is the focal point of all these abilities). All the things about eating it or DNA merging etc... seem a little too weird. Eating it is just silly, and as for DNA merging, there would be no need to take DNA from the brain specifically, any old live cell from the victim would suffice as a DNA sample.

Sylar was never the original Exploding Man

I know future Hiro states that the CheerLeader had been killed, and as such Sylar surived long enough to explode. However, Hiro had been knocked into the past, he wasnt there to see who exploded, we KNOW, that it was Peter who finally exploded, both in the present and in the Alternate Future's Past. The Cheerleader was alive in both these alternate realities, the only reason New York didnt get blown up was because the Cheerleader was reunited with her Biological father, and convinced him to be present at kirby plaza. Had nathan not been there, to fly Peter into the sky, then things would have played out exactly like they did in the original alternative future. Things are still playing out along those lines to a degree. E.G. Candice has been killed by Sylar, therefore he could still kill Nathan, and take his persona. At the moment, the only thing I cant explain, would be how Sylar survives the explosion caused by Peter. Also, if you think about a ripple effect, Peter meeting Claire, and as such her meeting Nathan, would have altered other things too. She wouldnt have been interviewed by Parkman after the attack at the school, he wouldnt have noticed the inability of reading their minds caused by the Haitain, and Parkman would never have suspected Bennet of anything suspicious. Therefore, he would never have joined forces with him, and bumped into DL Hawlkins & Niki (Jessica), at kirby plaza, although not shown, it is likey Bennet and Parkman directed them both to Nathan, who then directed them to Linderman, which then lead to Lindermans Death. (Possibly DL's death too - Perhaps he died of the gunshot wound) The Ripple Effect is quite hard to follow at times, but if you think about it, Claire not finding Nathan, leads to Nathan not directing them to Linderman, which leads to not finding Micah, which would be how Micah died in the Mendez Painting, he would have been in the building as the bomb went off. I applogize if this sounds like a rant, but im surprized that no one has mentioned the ripple effect caused by Hiro Nakamura's time travel. The integral moment of the series, which seems to have saved New York, doesnt seem to be "Saving the Cheer-Leader" it seems to me, to be more along the lines of "Reuniting the Cheerleader with her father." Baaleos 12:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

And if this were a fan site we might give credence to this. But it's not. You might want to try the www.HerosWiki.com, they are a lot more fan-based over there. Padillah 12:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, things had already dramatically changed by that point. If Peter had exploded, the future would have been different, as Niki, Candice, Molly, Mohinder, Matt, Mr. Bennet, Candice, and Sylar would have died. Ophois 04:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

BoogeyMan

The article incorrectly states(in the cannibal bit) Molly was talking about Sylar when in fact she says he is someone else.

• The Boogeyman is Sylar. The Nightmare man is the one "worse" than the boogeyman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.174.130 (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The nightmare man Molly is scared of and is put into a coma by is the mind reading cop's father.

Another power

Though it wasn't clearly obvious, Sylar might have stolen a power (similar super-speed, flight, or quick teleportation). I notive this in "Homecoming", when Claire and Peter were climbing up the bleachers. When they reached the top Sylar was still at the bottom, yet seconds after Claire leaves you can hear a sort of "whooshing sound" and Sylar is suddenly at the top in front of Peter. He also seems to be much taller than Peter (more like he was floating instead of being naturally taller than Peter). Since this can't be confirmed however, I know it can't be included in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.167.229.159 (talk • contribs).

By using his telekinetic powers on himself, he could theoretically "levitate", right? Perhaps he did this to get to Peter, which would also explain the lack of footsteps while Peter is not looking. Bio 21:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

He seems to be able to levitate as when he kills Dale in Unexpected she says she couldn't hear footsteps and he responds by saying "Thats because there wasn't any."

Well Sylar is very advanced at his telekinisis so he probably used his telekinisis to make himself levitate or at least that's what my theory on this matter has been since Homecoming. Knight Whitefire 02:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC) i think he got the levitation from james walker

Sylar's revival

Mr. Bennet said that Sylar altered his own DNA to acquire powers. Sylar seemingly "died", then came back to life. I think those are related. This is speculation, but I think Sylar has the biological manipulation Ability - that would let him alter his own DNA, and control his body to fake his death. What do others think? --Stabbey 04:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Biokinesis. Unless they state that directly, we've got nothing. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 21:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Biokinesis is a neologism. Therefore it's never going to get stated directly.Jacobshaven3 11:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sylar seemingly died, sometime after an insect crawled across his cell bed. It looked like a cockroach, could he have stolen DNA from a cockroach? cockraoches can slow their heartbeats, live without food for long periods of time, are highly resistant to radiation and can stop breathing for long periods of time. 64.231.11.223 03:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree he can take abilities from others why not a coackrach- Red Spider Man 3/1

I also agree, I think this interpretation is intended. Unfortunately, it is impossible to confirm as of now. If it remains permanantly unanswered, then it might be reasonable to eventually add this in as being "hinted at" or something. Hopefully it will eventually be confirmed, though. AllUltima 05:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

We can take this into consideration (This is quite a good theory) but we also have to remember that Sylar also has a power that makes him super resistant to damage and death (As seen in what I believe was the graphic novel Road Kill). Knight Whitefire 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The cockroch theory was once again confirmed in "How Do You Stop and Exploding Man?," when Sylar crawls into the sewer after being stabbed and a cockroch is shown crawling on the sewer grate. The cockroach's power to fake death is definitely an implied power of Sylar; whether it should be put in the actual article is questionable, however. Billchu13 18:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)6-5-07

This has been answered in Season 2 as Candice Wilmer, dragging his body into the sewers.

I like the idea of him taking Cockroach dna, but surely, he has only ever been seen taking "Special peoples" dna/brains. Does this mean, he would have had to find a "special" cockroach? Cockroaches also evolve fast, maybe thats part of his dna stealing mechanism? Baaleos 12:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alternate Future

Shouldn't the Alternate Future Section come before The Hard Part? Seeing as how the rest of the page is formatted this way shouldn't this be changed as well? Lyle A. Ruggles 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. In order for the article to be comprehensive and easily understandable, the events in a character's biography should be written in the order they occur in the person's life. It would be confusing to describe recent events (Genesis and following episodes), then past events (Six Months Ago), then recent events (Fallout and following episodes), then possible future events (Five Years Gone), then revert to the present again (The Hard Part). If you were reading a biography of Elizabeth I, you wouldn't want to read about her coronation, her death, then the problems she faced with the church immediately following her coronation. When reading about Sylar, you want to read about the past, present, and future in that order. Arwen undomiel 03:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

All I am saying is that since Sylar is on a TV show and how the alternate future bases everything on what has happened up to that point it should be before The Hard Part. Also the fact that the section focuses on an ALTERNATE future it should be noted that that was the branching off point.Lyle A. Ruggles 05:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Character biographies should follow in universe chronology as far as I'm aware. In fact, the alternate future probably should be in a seperate section entirely, just like the alternate versions of comic book and other tv characters. (examples include Emma Frost and T'Pol. Jacobshaven3 09:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

How the Heroes would always have an advantage over Sylar:

Hiro Nakamura can teleport/time travel on a whim, and so Sylar will never be able to get his ability, since he eats brains and stuff :) Oh yeah, now he's dead too. (Or his he?)

Not that this has much to do with the article, but on the flip side keep in mind that Sylar has absorbed and probably will absorb powers that the others don't have. To date Peter has only apparently gained Sylar's telekinetic ability from their encounter, so it's not clear that he would be able to mimic all of Sylar's powers. For example, in their alternate future encounter during the series, it was clear that Sylar had illusionary powers that Peter did not. Likewise Peter never demonstrated Sylar's superhearing or freezing abilities. Dugwiki 17:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Adjusted the language about cannibalism

After reading the actual references provided in the article, and the discussion above, I modified the language in the section on Sylar's powers to make clear that literal cannibalism is speculation at this point. I included the actual quote from the executive producer on the subject within the article, and noted that the interview with Fuller mentioned that cannibalism was the original concept (but not necessarily the concept they are actually currently going with.)

Regardless of whether or not the cannibalism is actual, there is at a minimum metaphorical cannibalism taking place. For example Molly's quote and Sylar's "sink his teeth" quote are, at the very least, metaphorical. Of course, it's quite possible they are literally accurate, but we won't absolutely know for sure until at least season 2.

So for now I strongly recommend that the article not speculate on whether or not Sylar is a cannibal. Rather, leave it to the article to point out that the series intentionally leaves vague what exactly Sylar does, but that cannibalism is a popular and possible method for his power assimilation. Dugwiki 21:48, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

In Five Years Gone, How does anyone know if Sylar was PHASING through the wall or LIQUIFYING its MOLECULAR structure...?

Seriously, who knows? The wall did kinda of bubble oddly when his arm came through it... I'm not even sure which one it was. Chozen1 11:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He phased through it. If he had liquified the wall it would be a puddle on the floor. Plus the special effect they used was identical to the special effect that they used for both D.L and Peter. Note that Peter presumably doesn't have the liquifying ability since he never met the guy who could do it. He did, though, meet D.L. Also note that it's less likely (though possible) that Nikki would have romantically hooked up with Peter in the five-years future if D.L. were still alive. Dugwiki 16:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the effect is different than DL's phasing. It is much more like the molecular manipulation. My first thought when watching it is that he had mastered the molecular manipulation, much as he masters all his powers given time and practice; thus he would control if it liquifies into a puddle. As for DL being dead, it is far more implied that he died from the explosion than Sylar.

Sylar phased cause peter said "my brother cant walk through walls.who are you?" Chucky88

Well, DL was given to Parkman by Bennet, o I'd say that conclusively covers him surviving the Bomb, and since there has so far been no instance of liquification working like that, but we have seen phasing work like that, I'd think that was most likely the ability. Since Candice was also given over to Parkman, and she must have died, it seems logical the same came of DL (and thus Molly too probably), since DL would be impossible to imprison otherwise. Jacobshaven3 08:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The man in Episode 3 (One Giant Leap) who tried to kidnap Molly was not Sylar

I think that the man in Episode 3 (One Giant Leap) who tried to kidnap Molly was not Sylar: 1.- He was shot and didn't die (Sylar has not got that power). 2.- He could find Molly (he could be "the worse than the boogeyman" villain Molly talked about in Episode 23). 3.- Although he is in the shadows we can see he doesn't look like Sylar (Zachary Quinto).

As far as I'm aware, it was Sylar. Sylar has stopped bullets before using his telekinesis and we don't know what powers he may have, he has more than he's already shown at least. Plus, it wouldn't be tough to follow the FBI to find her. The actor used was the same actor that played Sylar up until Zachary Quinto was revealed as Sylar. There is no indication that the unnamed person scarier than Sylar wants to chase Molly. Theres no proof she looked for him until after this happened. Sylar killed Molly's dad, so must have sensed Molly in the least, so I'd say it almost definite that it was Sylar. Jacobshaven3 14:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It was an uncredited actor I believe, not Quinto, but it was clearly Sylar (JamesTwisleton 22:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)) In addition to the above points, remember that the man in that episode telekinetically slammed the FBI agent into a wall and started to force her finger to pull the trigger. In addition the method in which he killed the agent in the interrogation room (ie slamming the agent and his chair into the ceiling so hard they stuck there) is consistent with telekinesis. So his powers are clearly consistent with Sylar's telekinesis. Dugwiki 20:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC

That man has the power of telekinesis, but that does not proof he was Sylar, maybe there is another hero with that power. Instead he was shot but didn't die (we cannot see he stopped the bullets with telekinesis) and he disappeared by flying or getting invisble, and Sylar does not have those abilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.19.168.202 (talk • contribs)

I would like to point out that we see Matt shoot Sylar about eight times and we see Sylar fall down. True we don't see Sylar telekinetically stop the bullets, but when he rises, we hear the clink of several bullets falling to the ground; this is similar to what happened when Sylar stopped other bullets. Arwen Undomiel ^talk 22:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I want to point out bsides the show of telekinesis one FBI was shonw to be completly frozen, another power Sylar had at the time of that episode. Sylar has also been shot several time during the run of the show and survived namely when Bennet shot at him --Addude 02:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The most likely explanation for surviving gun shots is that he is telekinetically stopping or significantly blunting the impact from the bullets. He's done it explicitly a few times, apparently without all that much effort. And every time he's been shot he was aware of the person about to shoot him, so he's always had a chance to "psyche up" before the shots are fired. If I had to guess I'd say that the only way to successfully shoot Sylar is to catch him from behind or unaware. Dugwiki 16:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

James Walker and the cryokinesis

Could it be possible that James Walker was the person with cryokinesis? Sylar could have tested his new ability on him
AFTER James was killed. The edge where he cut James head is frozen all around, which means the head was cut first.
And ye, english isn't my first language.
213.112.109.3 21:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It's possible James Walker had the cryokinesis ability that Sylar has stolen from someone, but obviously that's just speculation. It's also possible he got it from one of the other people that were mentioned to have been killed by Sylar but never shown on television. Dugwiki 21:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

james walker had the power of levitation? by:Chucky88

If you look at the scene, James' hand is lifting the utensil to his mouth, meaning that Sylar froze him while he was eating and before cutting open his head. Ophois 21:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A theory proposed by User Ophois on the James Walker talk page that I agree with is that he had the ability that Sylar now uses to make quick escapes, so Sylar had to freeze him in order to be able to kill him. (Slick023 18:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

Once again, this is all theory is speculation, which are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Furthermore, the talk page is not a forum for discussing theories about how/why/when Sylar used his abilities. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 19:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Changes to paragraph on Charlie in Texas

I noticed a speculative statement in the paragraph that said that Sylar learned Charlie had a special ability by watching her from the shadows in the diner. However it's equally as likely that Charlie was on Dr. Saresh's list and map that Sylar had been using to track down people. In fact, it seems pretty likely that the entire reason he was in that diner in the first place was because he knew about Charlie beforehand from the list. I therefore removed any implication one way or another as to how he had originally discovered she had a special ability.

I also removed the line that said he took her brain "despite there being a blood clot in it." First, it's not at all clear that Charlie's aneurysm (not really a clot) was something that would have influenced Sylar one way or another. There was no reason to think Sylar had any way of knowing Charlie was dying at the time, so there's no reason to mention it in the same sentence. (As an analogy, the situation would be different if Sylar knew about the aneurysm. If that were the case, and he killed her anyway, then it might be worth mentioning in the article because it would demonstrate an additional lack of compassion on his part, if that's even possible.) Dugwiki 20:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He learned her ability by watching her. The list doesn't give abilities, so he didn't know what she could do until he overheard her conversations. Ophois 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not even clear from the episode. All we can say for sure is that he was watching her in the diner and then killed her. It's never been mentioned or implied that he knew precisely what her power was when he killed her, or that if he did know what her power was that he didn't know about it prior to coming to the diner. For all we know he had trailed her prior to the diner scene, for example, or that he killed her knowing she had a power but not yet knowing precisely what it was. Dugwiki 22:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sylar always waits to kill them until after learning about their powers (if not, he could take some very bad power and may not even know what the power is). Though I do agree that he may have learned beforehand, though the episode suggests that he learned it in the diner. Ophois 22:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The above statement isn't actually true. For example, Sylar killed Claire's friend because he mistakenly thought that she was the superpowered person he was looking for. That girl had no powers at all, but Sylar clearly was going through with the brain extraction anyway. Dugwiki 22:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think between the two of us we finally have good compromise wording in that paragraph. Dugwiki 22:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He went after Jackie because he was under the impression that she had regenerative abilities or at least a resistance to injury, since she wasn't injured in the fire. Ophois 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That and don't forget that Claire was on the master list Sylar was using. Mr. Bennet said a few times early on in the series that one of his main concerns was that Sylar found out about Claire from the list. So it's likely he knew that Claire probably had abilities even before he arrived in Texas, but didn't know specifically what they were until later. Dugwiki 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Has Sylar ever said he waits to find out what the power was? Do we have definitive proof he does? If not it's OR and if there are peope that disagree its also POV. The article should be neutral. Jacobshaven3 03:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's never been firmly established that Sylar always waits to see what power someone has before he kills them. However, with the possible exception of Claire's friend Jackie, he does seem to have a little bit of patience and curiosity, chatting up or observing most of his victims before moving in for the kill. So while it's speculation and shouldn't appear in the article, it would be a reasonable guess to say he likes to satisfy his own curiosity on how a power works before killing someone. (That and after the incident with Claire in Texas it would make sense if he's a bit more careful to make sure he's killing the person he actually wants to kill.) Dugwiki 15:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Eden remove Claire's name from the list, before Sylar got to it? Ophois 18:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I think Eden removed Claire's name from the list that young Saresh was using, but she didn't remove it from the original list and map Sylar had been using originally (the one they found in Sylar's abandoned apartment). It was after Sylar lost access to that original map and list that he became interested in getting a new list from the younger Saresh. Dugwiki 20:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

After Chandra Suresh contacted Noah Bennet, he sent Eden to remove Claire's name from the list. Eden would have been thorough. Ophois 19:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

But Chandra Suresh didn't contact Bennet until after Sylar already had a copy of the same list. Eden didn't know about Sylar's copy or his whereabouts until they found his abandoned apartment. Dugwiki 19:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sylar found Brian Davis' name on a post-it note, if that's what you're referring to. Bennet sends Eden to erase Claire's name before Chandra agrees to team up with Sylar, though I don't recall Sylar ever being given his own list. Ophois 21:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about Sylar's old apartment that Mohinder and Eden discovered in the episode One Giant Leap (Heroes). In that episode they found Sylar's old apartment with a secret room which included a very detailed map and other information presumably copied from Chandra's original map and list. (Keep in mind that Sylar was Chandra's first case study, and they had supposedly worked together quite a while.) Note that this was the first time Eden had been to the apartment - she would not have been able to remove Claire's name from Sylar's map assuming his map was generated from Chandra's original map and list. Later, when they come back with police officers, the apartment has been cleaned out and vacated, meaning that either Sylar or Eden or both took or destroyed the map and the evidence prior to that second visit.

So the apparent timeline is that, first, Sylar contacts and starts working with Chandra to "help him find other special people". Sylar in the process secretly makes his own copy of Chandra's notes and list and map that he keeps in his apartment. Chandra eventually stops working with Sylar, probably because he is suspicious of Sylar's activities. At some point around this time Eden moves into the next door apartment to keep an eye on Chandra and remove Claire's name from Chandra's list (but not yet knowing Sylar's location or about Sylar's copy.) She might have destroyed Sylar's map, but only after he had already been using it a long time and presumably already knew about a number of the people on it, very likely including Claire. Dugwiki 22:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

She was assigned to erase Claire from the list as Sylar first gained TK. For all we know, she erased Claire's name from the list the next day (with her power, she'd just have to order him to remove it and forget her orders afterward). Also, we don't know when Sylar got the full list. For all we know, he could have been taking names one at a time (like with Brian Davis). Besides, Sylar never had the full list, since the Company still needed Mohinder's help after taking everything from Sylar's apartment and capturing him. Ophois 23:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a bit of speculation. Keep in mind that Eden never actually met Sylar until their encounter in Texas, but that Sylar had been working with Chandra for at least a little while before Chandra was killed. That means that it's fairly likely that Eden didn't actually meet Chandra until after Chandra had stopped working with Sylar. But by that time Sylar already had constructed his own copy of Chandra's map and started to add more information to it. Also, note that Sylar already knew Claire's name when he talked to Noah Bennet in his cell. The most likely way he would have known Claire's name is that he already had it from the list; he simply didn't know exactly what she looked like or her home address (until he stole Noah's wallet). Dugwiki 15:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yours is full of speculation, too. Besides, in "Fallout", Sylar comments that he knew Eden from before. Also, the newspaper article would have had Jackie's name in it, so he wouldn't have confused her with Claire. Ophois 00:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't assume he's actually read the paper. All we saw is that he looked at the picture. Unless it shows up that he actually read the article, we shouldn't assume that he did. Also, Sylar comments that he recognized Eden from before. Doesn't mean that Sylar had known her or she had known him. As far as we know, he could have just seen her living next door to Chandra, but didn't know she was anything more than a neighbor. PureSoldier 03:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that Sylar personally knew Eden. I was merely pointing out that Eden was Chandra's neighbor before he and Sylar split. Also, even if Sylar didn't read the newspaper, there was a huge sign saying, "JACKIE, YOU'RE OUR HERO" in the case. Ophois 07:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I seem to remember Bennet telling the Haitian to erase Sylar's memories of Claire, though I can't find it in any episode now. Does anyone recall this, or am I remembering wrong? Because that may be how Sylar knows Claire's name. Ophois 07:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember Bennet telling the Haitian to erase Sylar's memories of Claire. Either way, I'm not sure where we're going with this whole thread at this point. I don't think anything we're talking about one way or another will go into the article. Probably best to simply say we don't know for sure one way or another how Sylar initially heard or knew about Claire. Maybe she was on his map and list, maybe he stumbled across her from the news report, or maybe he heard about it another way. None of that should go in the article one way or another. Dugwiki 15:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It may have been in a preview or something, because I remember there being discussion somewhere about how he remembered Claire. IIRC, that was also was Sylar asking "How's Claire?" was so dramatic, because he was supposed to have forgotten. Ophois 16:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Found it. It was in a preview for "Godsend" (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pihUBs3Z1Ls). Though it appears they removed it from the episode. Ophois 18:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Sylar did not get Charlie's ability. That Hiro's journey to the past had saved her from that fate, but not from her medical condition. Otherwise, wouldn't Charlie have recognized Hiro when he returned to the diner as the one who gave her the phrase book? Also the whole "crime scene" atmosphere within the diner is gone, being replaced with a memorial that looks to have been in place for awhile. Em I mistaken? SlowLX 00:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are mistaken. Ophois 18:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Mind filling me in on what I missed, so that I can "see" it. Thanks SlowLX 00:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever force that guides Hiro's power stopped Hiro from saving Charlie. Sylar still kills her and takes her power, and he demonstrates the ability in one of the graphic novels. Ophois 00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I had not gotten around to the Novels yet. I was just comming back from a quick search which revealed the same example SlowLX 00:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sylar's Death

I think when sylar gets stab in "how to stop a exploding man" he fakes his death because A. Earlier in the show when sylar's painting you see his eyes show clips an then stop with him and Peter in Kirby Plaza, when he was on the ground his eyes so clips and then stop on him dieing and goes white either he is really deid or that Issac's power dong it and B. How would move Sylar's body into a storm drain not the cops, no one would help or hide him (possibly), so it would be Sylar him self hide down a storm Drain.- RREDD13 21:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that Zachary Quinto's been signed on as a regular for Season 2. Cherries Jubilee 12:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"it is unknown how Sylar survived"? Hiro's stab looked like it penetrated Sylar's stomach, which is not necesserily a fatal wound^DAVID _CAT

It is speculation to say that Sylar survived Hiro's attack merely because he is in Season 2. According to interviews, Sylar has been helped by the person sending the cockroaches. Because we don't know the nature of the cockroach power, we don't know the situation of Sylar's missing body. Ophois 18:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that sylar can 'figure out how things work.' It would make sense that it goes for more then other people with powers. We all know how hard it is to kill a cockroach. They can live for days with out there heads even. So the what if situation here is, he consumed the cockroaches power to be ability to survive. anonymous 8:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Article relies too heavily on plot synopsis. Needs some more real-world analysis

I notice that this article relies a bit too heavily on detailed plot synopsis. Virtually the entire thing is a detailed point by point description of every scene involving the character. The article could really use some real world context, such as some information about what the producers or fans or Zachary Quinto think about Sylar. I would bet there are some decent interviews where they talk about Sylar in more of a real-world behind the scenes fashion.

So my advice would be to trim some of the excess plot detail and add a couple of paragraphs that explain in broader tones why Sylar is such an important character for the series, how he is perceived and handled by fans, actors and producers, and any out-of-show real world impact he might have if any. Dugwiki 15:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

personality

It's been strongly established that Sylar is a Narcissist in the extreme, believing that it is his destiny to be more than a Watchmaker's son. Also, he states that he kills other Heroes because it is only "natural selection" to him and that killing the innocent who hold no value for him is not what he wants to do. This is shown in both The Hard Part and Six Months Ago. This, in my opinion, must be added to the article because it is what makes Sylar tick. I'm just not sure how to do it. Any opinions would be appreciated. dposse 19:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree Dragon queen4ever 19:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Tragic villain

References 2. and 8. ascertain that Sylar is a tragic villain. I included this in the article but it was deleted by someone who based his decision on personal opinion rather than consensus.

I feel for you, what you have to do is to report the person who deleted it, state that it was done based purely on his/her own opinion or COI. If you continue to shout loudly enough about it they should lose their position on Wiki with any luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.121.70 (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you had signed your post I could have gone back in the history and see what was said and why it was removed. But, as it stands I'd just have to step back through and find it by happenstance, and I don't have the kind of time. If you want help, tell us where you want help, don't make it hard on us. Padillah 13:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Eden's Power

The article currently states that Eden took her own life to prevent Sylar from acquiring her power of persuasion. This, as far as I can tell, is untrue. Sylar has used the "Eden voice" on multiple occasions after killing her, and even used it to compel Suresh to show him the list of superpowered humans in "Parasite" (I may have the wrong episode). I interpreted Eden's death as Sylar telekinetically moving her hand to point the gun at her head, and then her trigger finger to have her shoot herself. He seemed to attempt the same thing on Audrey Hanson during "One Giant Leap", so it doesn't seem too much of a stretch. Thoughts? Do we need to revise the sections in all Heroes-related articles on Eden's death?

If Sylar forced her to kill herself, then why would he scream "No!"? He doesn't have her power. This has been stated by the writers/producers, who explain the "voice" that Sylar uses as just sound effects to be cool. Ophois 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we know anything about whether or not Sylar can take powers from a damaged brain like Eden's? FreemDeem 23:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that they've stated whether or not, but since he doesn't have her power, it implies that he can't. Ophois 00:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The producers have stated on several occassions that Eden killing herself ensured Sylar didn't acquire The Voice. And the webcomic has Bennett and the Haitian coming in shortly after her death to tranquilize him so he wouldn't have had time to eat her brain or whatever anyway. Aexia 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So how come he has used the voice? I'm sure I heard him use it on Ando when he went to kill Sylar StephenBuxton 11:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

As explained four lines up, it's just a sound effect the producers thought would sound cool. Ophois 12:02, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that Peter also does a funky voice effect when he confronts Isaac over his jealousy between him and that chick... whats her name.... Simmone Baaleos 12:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Syar's survival/resurrection

It has been confirmed that Zachary Quinto will return for the second season. This means that he is alive. Calling on a 17th-century samurai to magically revive him is extreme speculation. The most logical thing is that the wound was not fatal and he simply survived. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Logic doesn't matter. I completely understand what you're saying and agree that he probably did survive, but it is speculation to say that Sylar survived Hiro's attack merely because he is in Season 2. According to interviews, Sylar has been helped by the person sending the cockroaches. Because we don't know the nature of the cockroach power, we don't know the situation of Sylar's missing body. Ophois 18:18, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How was he helped? Was was barely alive and nursed back to full health? Was he resurrected? We don't know. Which is the greater speculation: that he wasn't mortally wounded, or that he was somehow brought back to life? The simplest answer is the former. Trying to piece together what might have happened from various interviews is a original research and unverifiable. If you can provide a source that explicitly states he died as was resurrected, then add it. Until we have to stick with the default position: that he simply didn't die in the first place. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 18:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be contrary but the reason I put "How (or if)..." in the first place is we have not seen Sylar since then and do not know (in terms of the series) that he is not, in fact, dead. If you remember correctly there were rumors that Mrs. Petrelli had some power or another but that has yet to be revealed. I feel the same about Sylar. Until he actually shows up in the second season we, as viewers, are left to believe he 'may' be dead. I know we use interviews to clarify canon when needed but this is something that I feel the show expounds on sufficiently, there is no need to clarify this point. It was left intentionally vague and should remain so. Padillah 12:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not that I watch heroes (I don't) or that I care (I don't), but the correct answer is to completely remove the "it is unknown...." sentence out. Either version that you were reverting over, the if or how, is still original research and synthesis.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:11, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Generations

Wouldn't mention of Generations belong on Quinto's page? Or it needs a stronger link to Sylar (as opposed to Quinto the actor). Padillah 12:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

In popular culture

Is it worth mentioning that Sylar's nickname comes from the face of a watch and that - similarly - the film [Zodiac|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac_%28film%29] implies the Zodiac killer took his nom de plume for the same reason? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.119.239 (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking it might be a good idea to include a mention of the fact that Sylar's father apparently left his mother. He says so in the ep where he kills her. Given the show's emphasis on family, the absence of Sylar's father would appear to be indisputably important and perhaps worth a line.

Maya in the kill list?

I find it odd that we have Maya Herrera in Sylar's list of kills, if we don't have Peter Petrelli there. If Maya's on the list even after coming back to life, shouldn't Peter be there too? Sylar telepathically lifted glass and killed Peter with it. He came back, but, Maya did too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.72.77 (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Peter should be on the list.Ophois (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing Cryokinesis

Yes, it may be that we don't know when he killed someone or even whom he killed but he did, indeed, kill someone for the power and it should be in the list of murders. The list is not supposed to be chronological and even if it was we can know that whomever it was was killed before Mr. Walker and after Brian Davis. I think the need for the list to remain complete outweighs the need for it to be presented in chronological order. Padillah 17:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It currently lists "The Hard Part" as the episode for the power. However, that's just an example of when he uses his power. He doesn't acquire it in any of the episodes or graphic novels (so far).Ophois 19:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting the intro to the list: "People whose deaths have been linked to Sylar and their powers (if any) are listed in chronological order below."

Cryokinesis likely came from one of those people behind the frozen dead guy. To list it later and out of order is inaccurate. The power is listed in the powers/abilities section, where it should remain so long as no source for the power is given. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I think the list of powers and the list of murders are redundant. He can't get his power without murdering the person, and other killings are superfluous (killing a guy as he flipped over Ted's van isn't very plot significant). Besides the Powers and Abilities section mentions powers he's acquired scattered throughout prose, while the list of murders is much more accessible as a list of facts. I would imagine his powers are going to be looked up more than the people he killed and I see no reason why the two lists must be regarded as mutually exclusive. What info do we have that proves Chandra was killed after David but before the "Unnamed victim from Barstow"? With that in mind I see no reason to separate the lists or impose "fake" restrictions. Or take powers out of the "Murders" table and leave them to be explained in the Powers and Abilities prose. Listing some of them in both places, and leaving others out, is misleading (it misled me and I'm a contributing editor). Padillah 15:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The episode "The Second Coming" pretty much refutes the assertion that Sylar can't get powers without murdering the person outright, though the victim is pretty much left to die with an open skull. Why he removed the brain in previous instances is still unclear. Fredmdbud (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Surviving Maya

Sylar didn't demonstrate any better ability to resist Maya's disease than any other person. The police and her friend have all survived, after much longer and greater exposure, after being "saved" by Alejandro. Alejandro can't resucitate people, only keep them from dying in the first place. If they die he's useless. In an interview with the writers at http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12002 it says as much. In any case Sylar is not exceptional for having survived, others have survived much worse. Padillah 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What is this alluding to?

in abilities or w/e that section is. it's a little confusing as to what this means at the end of it

"among those displayed are Candice Wilmer's power of illusion, Nathan Petrelli's flight, Claire Bennet's regeneration (which he failed to obtain originally, but acquired during the episode), and D.L. Hawkins' power of phasing."

someone should clarify this in the article please 68.185.197.67 05:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like someone is trying to mention the future episodes as much as possible. This is a "powers recap" of the future episodes and what powers Sylar acquired in both alternate futures. I don't know how much more we can support the future episodes seeing as how they've been conclusively show to have been successfully avoided. Mention in passing should be fine, we don't need to keep track of what powers he might have had in two alternate futures that will never come to pass. That's a little much. Padillah 13:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sylars inability to use powers.

Just wondering everyones opinion on this but if Sylar couldn't use his powers before killing Candice Wilmar and then still couldn't use his abilities after, wouldn't that mean her ability was wasted? This all depends of course if him taking powers is a power itself, I mean it would have to be wouldn't it? if I killed someone and ate their brain i'm not going to gain their knowledge etc. So basically what I'm saying is if his power to take powers was not working wouldn't it mean he wouldn't have Candice's powers even if he was able to regain his preexisting ones? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.139.205 (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't really know what's wrong with his powers yet, or how his power-absorbing method works. It's possible he does still have all his powers including Candice's, he just can't get them to work right now. Wanderer32 17:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that he has the Virus, thus stopping his powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.233.50 (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Her head wasn't opened either. Therequiembellishere 23:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first off, I think Sylar is at least smart enough to know when he's successfully eaten someone's brain. He's stolen enough powers that I think he wouldn't forget how. If he tried and failed there's something wrong, not just that he forgot to open her head. The fact that he's less than affected with anything resembling the symptoms of the virus would suggest that he doesn't have the virus. He's not ill, he's not bed-ridden, nothing. So, as much as I know we hate saying this, we're going to have to wait and see what happened. We are in no hurry, we have no need to scoop anyone. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Well I said it was more than likely that Sylar had the Virus, and, guess what? HE HAD THE VIRUS! Damn! I hate being right all the time. Sorry Padillah, I'm sure you'll get something right eventually, just keep trying, :) .

So close, I didn't take the various strains into account. Ok, ok. :/ Padillah (talk) 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Minuteman Link

I added a Minuteman link to give background information on the "civilian border patrolmen" Sylar convinces Maya to kill and it was referred to as "an attempt to add link support to the Minuteman project." Are we not allowed to add links which will give background information on the show's elements if someone disagrees with them? I certainly dislike the Minutemen and view them as racist and repugnant, but thought that the link would add greater understanding to viewers who are unfamiliar with the border situation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.108.208.123 (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

sylars artwork

should we have a section on sylars artwork? i know there isnt much but is it notable enough for inclusion? i am just asking of course. he only did four

1. one of president in oval office
2. sylar seeing ted at kirby plaza
3. using his moms blood to make new york after explosion
4. his confrontation with peter in kirby plaza

what does everyone think?--Chrisisinchrist 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Powers and Death???

How did he survive getting impailed by Hiro? And how did he loose his powers?? 67.72.98.120 (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The Company helped Sylar recover. The wound rendered him unable to use his powers, though. This is covered in the article. Josh (talk | contribs) 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Just have to mention, does he really get cellular regeneration? None of the other characters that have been injected with blood from healable characters have shown the ability to perpetuate that (it might be a bit much for Noah to obtain his daughter's abilities). Furthermore, Sylar gets his powers through the brain, and blood is not it. And on a more scientific note, blood is not really an adequate medium to transfer enough DNA to be amplified (Red blood cells lack nuclei). -- Permafrost 14:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Not until we have a citable source. Just because som fan thinks it doesn't mean it's good enough for wiki. Padillah 14:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI guys, I sorted Sylar's powers into a chart list, similar to the one on Peter's page. Writing it out in paragraph format was just way way way too messy. TomUsedToBeRob (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sylar as exploding man

Is there anything that suggests that Hiro was right believing Sylar was the original exploding man? Did Peter saving Claire create a timeline in which he exploded or was it always him? The article states that the timeline was changed (68.43.199.150 (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 17:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

it's a little confusing with all the time traveling going on to understand what was going on. In "Five Years Gone", everyone believes that Sylar was the "Bomb", however, it is revealed that it was in fact Peter. But which version of the timeline are we going to analyse, I personally see 3 timelines.

1. Unaltered Timeline. (Hypothetical) Sylar kills Claire at the school in texas, gains cellular regeneration, thus immediately recovers from Hiro's attack, explodes, bye bye Manhatten.

2. Altered Time Line (Portrayed in "5 years gone") Sylar fails to kill Claire at school in Texas due to the intervention of "Future" Hiro from TimeLine 1, thus is almost mortally wounded by Hiro which disrupts his powers and so he doesn't explode, but Peter explodes instead due to the stress of the incident. When Hiro from timeline 1 travelled back 5 years to give Peter the message to "Save The Cheerleader" which ultimately resulted in Sylar failing to get Claire, he changed history, so when he travelled back to the present, he re-appeared in THIS time line, instead of the one he left (1), this is why he is unaware that Claire is still alive in "5 years gone" and asks himself and Ando if they did save her.

3. Re-altered Time Line (Portrayed in the show now) Happens more or less as does timeline 2, except Nathan, due to the actions of Hiro after he returned from Timeline 2, flies Peter miles into the sky before he explodes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.233.50 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That seems likely, but I don't think we have proof that the belief that it was Sylar in the original timeline was correct. He had enough control not to do it accidentally and it seems out of character to do it deliberately. We do know the timing of the explosion changed, and that in the original, Nikki wasn't present, but I don't think we can conclude anything from that 68.43.199.150 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The String Theory graphic novel (#30) portrays Sylar exploding in Hiro's presence in timeline #1. There's some wiggle room I suppose but when it was released, people thought it was unambiguous enough to be considered a spoiler for the finale. 209.180.36.94 (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I see four, although it's actually pointless. In the second episode when Hiro goes five weeks into the future, the bomb goes off without knowing who it is, I see three key differences I see is Ando lives, Hiro is in Issac's loft, missing for five weeks, and it happens during the daytime. And the rest are as stated above. Anyhow I'm deviating from the Sylar discussion and I appologize.Akuzio 10:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It is I suppose possible that it was never Sylar who exploded in any time line. Peter (presumably through a sense of guilt) led everyone to beleive it was Sylar, even Hiro, thus, Hiro is under the mistaken impression that saving Claire will fix the whole thing, which in a kind of indirect way, I suppose it did, but only after 2 timeline deviations had occured. You are right that Sylar appeared to have more control over the "Nuclear" power than Peter, but again, we could hypthesise that in timeline 1, Hiro's "stabbage" caused Sylar enough physical trauma before he healed to make him lose control of that ability, and cause him to explode. And Akuzio, there's no need to apologise for digressing from the topic slightly, the nature of the show and the intertwining story lines and arcs makes it almost impossible to discuss 1 subject without running into several others.

Can we lighten these pictures?

And, no, I don't mean is it possible. I mean are we allowed to or does it infringe on some type of copyright? I have PS so I can do the work, I just don't want to cause a problem. Padillah 15:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a problem personally, but I'm not a legal expert. The usage of those images does fall into the "fair use" bracket. Simply lightening them doesn't significantly change the person ot scene they depict. If however you drew Vulcan ears and a handlebar moustache on Sylar, then it might be an issue ;) . I think to be sure tho' you will need 100% legal verification on this, but i'm sure enhancement is not classed as alteration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.233.50 (talk) 00:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, "fair use" images are to be presented "as is", meaning without any type of modification. I can't find the proper information at the moment and im basing this just on what i remember reading when i was looking up copyright laws, and if i'm wrong someone please correct me.Akuzio (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I asked this question in Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions and was told it is OK to enhance an image. I think that's where the difference lays: enhancing the original image vs. changing the image to something else. Padillah (talk) 13:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sylar's plan

What was Sylar's plan in the final episode of Season. 1? Because I didn't understand it and the article doesn't explain what it is. It was something to do with the exploding man (whose identity seems to change like the seasons), killing Peter Petrelli and becoming president from what I can gather. 86.133.200.236 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While interesting, this question really is more appropriate for a fan site than this talk page. If you have a question about the article please, feel free to ask. Padillah (talk) 21:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think what this person meant was that the article doesn't say what his plan is. So it should be put in. Illustrious One _{(^{Recieve my Majesty})}

Oh, right. Good point. Padillah (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity what is his plan? --Illustrious One (talk) 18:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

To take power from... those that don't deserve it and... use that power to... I don't know. Maybe that's why his plan isn't in the main article, we don't have a good handle on what it is. Padillah (talk) 18:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there has been anything even hinted on the show as to Sylar's overall plan. Anything you insert into the main article on that subject would surely be uncited. 80.176.233.50 (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well presumably he wants to get all the powers so he can rule the world. I was wondering what his overall plan involving the exploding man was. First the thought of exploding himself and blowing up all of New York repulsed him but then he steals the brain of the exploding man and transfers the power to Peter Petrelli then tries to kill Peter, it all seems like a great deal of fuss for nothing. --Illustrious One (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Candice Wilmer

Okay people, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Candice say that she can create illusions? We see her demonstrate her power all throughout season 1, and then she even states what her ability is in season 2. So, why is this being deleted repeatedly? Grey Maiden ^talk 04:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Because Sylar didn't have his powers when he killed her, so it's unconfirmed whether he actually acquired her's. Ophois (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, although we assume Sylar has recovered all of his powers, that's not yet a safe assumption, all we know for definate at this point is that he has regained telekenesis.80.176.233.50 (talk) 16:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Eidetic memory

Sylar didn't acquire her powers, after Hiro went back in time and changed her cause of death.

She died of brain cancer instead. So essentially, Sylar never got to her after Hiro modified time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.189.93.101 (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the citation that supports this information? QuasiAbstract (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Hiro was prevented from changing the timeline. She was still killed by Sylar. He demonstrates her power in one of the graphic novels. Ophois (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of the story arc was not that charlie died. the point was, no matter what hiro did, charlie was going to die anyway. so, sylar did kill her. when hiro teleported back to modern times, history continued and sylar killed charlie. the only difference was charlie knew hiro, but she was still present at the diner to be killed. also, in graphic novel road trip, sylar uses his memory to learn how to drive a big rig. he mentions that he wants to use his new ability from charlie--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• This theory has already been debunked.--Ice Vision (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Series

What is wrong with the character info being brokern down into sereis sections. (Electrobe (talk) 08:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

It's more appropriate to have it in volumes, as each are separate storylines. Ophois (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then rename the sections volumes rather than just undoing my edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrobe (talk • contribs) 08:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Volume names are already listed. Ophois (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The only words i have deleated in that edit are the words character history. I also moved alternative future i cant have created mispellings if all i am doing is moving sections my copy ad pasting (Electrobe (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

The importance of "spinach"

I have noticed an unnatural obsession over the inclusion of 'spinach' as an adjective for the type of can Sylar demonstrated his regained TK on. I would like to put forth that this, while interesting to some fan speculation, is of little or no use to the article. I would like to determine a consensus and try to avert an edit war in the making. Please help me and vote. Padillah (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• weak delete - it is descriptive, but i think by adding it we my see a slippery slope start. Jmjanssen (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• remove - descriptive - yes, but something that enhances the article - no. We don't need to be adding "descriptions" that don't help the article in any way, except make an editor feel like they've done something. QuasiAbstract (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh* I've given up. So, no more spinach. Adding the word spinach hasn't made me feel like I've done anything... Please don't jump to conclusions when you're looking at others' actions. --Ice Vision (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think mentioning it was a can of spinach that Sylar tested his regained powers on is worth mentioning as a simple matter of fact, however I disagree that any "Popeye-esque" significance should be stated, no matter how blatently obvious it is, it's still not citable.80.176.233.50 (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

It can't be that blatantly obvious, I don't get it. What Popeye reference is everyone making? What are you guys talking about? Padillah (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the last entry was supposed to be helpful. QuasiAbstract (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Well you thought wrong then didn't you? Spinach is what gives Popeye his superhuman strength, often, in the Popeye cartoons he has to perform some elaborate proceedure to actually get to his can of spinach, and thus, gain his "powers". To me and a lot of others, the telekentic pull of the can to Sylar's hand after which he realises his powers have returned is very clever writing. But as I have already mentioned, nothing has been published to state this was the writer's intent and so has no place in the main article (which it indeed doesn't). I think using the word "Spinach" to describe the can is not a problem, after all, that's what it was. The difference in writing "an empty can" and "an empty can of spinach" is not exactly important or overly trivial is it? If however, at some time in the future, he makers of the show admit that they were doing a parody on Popeye, then it will become something that will need to be put in the article, and the word Spinach would definately have to be used. Using it now hardly makes any difference to anything, except to pedantics. And as for something that doesn't "enchance" the article. Well sorry, but I could go through the entire article and pull out several things that offer no "enchancement" why have you all picked on a simple word like spinach? 80.176.233.50 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems like someone is streching for that reference, but whatever. This was only brought on because after many reverts by many different editors, it was brought to the talk page for further discussion. It was then dropped by the original editor who wanted to add it. If you do see several things that offer no enhancement, then remove them. QuasiAbstract (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that the spinach reference is indeed important. Surely the authors of the scene knew the significance of using a can of spianch. I'll dig into this a little more on the Heroes website; this hardly seems coincidental. I'm betting that sooner or later a good reference will turn up. In the mean time, why not include it? It does little to harm the article, and adds a nuance that reflects the general pop culture context of the use of the can. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S., if anyone is wondering about just how much buzz that the Spinach/Sylar connection is generating, Google brings back over 4,000 hits [1], and Sylar + popeye and eye-popping 7000 [2]. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

And just for good humor, check out Sylar the Sailor, [3]--Pgagnon999 (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter/Sylar's Powers: Where does one end and the other begin?

My apologies if this issue has already been covered in my absence, but a thought occurred to me. Peter's basic empathic power allows him to mimic the abilities of superpowered individuals, either through proximity or, after his training with Claude, recall. Sylar, on the other hand, physically 'steals' the powers of individuals by "eating their brains", as Molly Walker puts it. Peter has shown that he can mimic Sylar's supposed baseline power, telekinesis, (it was used against him during their confrontation in "Homecoming",) but a question comes to mind. Has it been confirmed that Peter can access a) any/all of Sylar's acquired abilities, or b) only those abilities that Sylar has used in proximity of Peter? Naturally there is going to be an overlap, but I think the question is valid. Radical AdZ (talk) 14:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• Joe Pokaski answered this at the Wizard World Q&A session in March. There's a brief summary of his response and I can't find a working video copy of the actual Q&A anymore, but he said that just being in Sylar's presence gives him the ability to mimic any of his powers, not just the ones Sylar has demonstrated. I don't know if that summary is detailed enough to be a valid reference for this, but if someone can find a working copy of the video from the Q&A session then if I recall the answer is detailed enough. --Centish (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

ticking sound

should there be a bit of information in the article regarding the out of sync ticking sound that appears in sylar's mind when he's going to kill someone, that has some relivance, doesn't it? - RVDDP2501 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just the background music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.84.52 (talk) 19:13, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

answering machine message

• Hiya. I know after Zach Quinto was cast as Sylar they had him rerecord the answering machine message Mohinder played earlier in the series. This rerecording can be heard on one of the flashback sequences at the beginning of a later episode (sorry, I forget which one). I don't have the DVD set, could someone who has it check back in that earlier episode and see if for the DVD set they altered the original episode to use the rerecorded one instead of Maurice LaMarche as well? --Centish (talk) 07:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Enhanced vs. Editic memory

Please look up eidetic memory and dispute how this is better than "enhanced" memory. Besides, "enhanced"memory is a little vague, what is enhanced about it? Eidetic memory is a superhuman ability that has never been achieved by a normal person. Padillah (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Primatechpaper.com disagrees. --Ice Vision (talk) 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Link doesn't help. I get nothing from it but a login screen I can't get past. But, if it's an official reference to the name of an ability then, by all means, use it. Don't forget to change Charlie's article too. I don't think Peter acquired it so we're OK there. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the last two numbers. Here: [4]. It looks like NBC decided to use "enhanced memory". --Ice Vision (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. "Enhanced Memory" it is then. PER Official site. Padillah (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Even there it says "Also known as eidetic memory.", so that name is still valid. Wanderer32 (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but they refer to it as "Enhanced Memory" and leave "eidetic" as an "also known" or secondary reference. I'd love to call it "Eidetic" because that's what the condition is actually called, but I'll give in to "Enhanced" since it looks to be the main reference on an Official Site. It's not worth the war. Padillah (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What is incorrect about the naming of "eidetic memory"? Just curious. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 14:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, like Wanderer32 pointed out, even the Primatech page has "also known as eidetic memory". In point of fact that's what the condition is actually called but it's not worth a war to me. Padillah (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. (And I see an edit war in progress) Wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to have the listing as the one that can be linked to another article? I mean, "enhanced" doesn't really describe anything other than that it's somewhat better than regular memory. Anyone could be described as having enhanced memory, compared to someone with a bad memory. Eidetic is somewhat more descriptive. But, if everyone thinks that "enhanced" is more encyclopedic and is a better descriptor, then let's have it as enhanced. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 13:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm wit'choo. The fact that "Enhanced memory" links to the article on "Eidetic Memory" makes me shake my head. But hey, if it's that important to them, let them have it. Padillah (talk) 14:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe Sylar has Enhanced Memory. Hiro changed the past and Charlene Andrews was dead before Sylar was there. electroniXtar (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2008 (+8) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.115.22.139 (talk)

Table of murders/powers

Dwlie's edit is a notable one. Wow! Stop removing it 143.235.215.6 (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The table was removed some time back after TTN did a cleanup of the article; it appeared to be a good-faith effort then, and as such I reverted the edit today, asking for discussion before it was restored. I still think discussion is merited; thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

It's unnecessary trivia that can be found within the plot summary here if its important enough, and the episode articles if people need to know it. It'd be like making tables for his aliases, attempted murders, wounds, and other trivial things that are covered where necessary. TTN (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why I restored the table. It seems to me that information can be more useful when it is organized in different ways. I'm a visual person and the chronological table that depicts Sylar's powers and who he acquired them from is not trivial. Sifting through the narrative can be tedious. I'm not going to get into a version fight over this--it defeats the community effort and spirit of why we're here (trying to "contribute" to the body of knowledge.) Is a dictionary trivial because all the words in it can be found in other books? No, because it contributes by providing the words in an organized form. --Dwylie (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tables Back I restored the table not only for ease of organizing but also because it better mimic's Peter Petrelli's page (which reads much "cleaner"). If you guys want to fight over formatting issues, you need to rethink the information sharing nature of wikipedia. We're here to display sourced information to the best our abilities and that includes presenting it in an easy to read manner. Fight over what should be included rather than how it's included. TomUsedToBeRob (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Please put the kilings he has done back on the list it is infromable and interstining- RREDD13 (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, Pick a name (for crying out loud)

Can we please have a discussion about how to format this person's name and alias? The two proposals on the table look like:

• Sylar/Gabriel Gray - This gives nod to the more common and arguably more character-embraced pseudonym.
• Gabriel Gray/Sylar - This gives precedence to the given name.

Please add comments regarding which is better worse or indifferent and we'll try to get this settled. Thanks for any input. Padillah (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Gabriel Gray/Sylar - Gabriel is his name, Sylar is his assumed name. Now, if he never uses the name Gabriel for the rest of the series (which is quite likely), then he should be named as Sylar, but he's used his real name very recently. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 15:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Sylar/Gabriel Gray - The NBC cast page credits the role as "Sylar". He may have used the name Gabriel recently but only as a means to hide. It's becoming increasing clear he regards himself as Sylar, and very few others in the series have referred to him as anything else (his mom, Maya, and Alejandro are all I can think of). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Padillah (talk • contribs) 15:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say "Sylar/Gabriel Gray" (to reflect the dominant usage). FYI, this seems to have come up mostly because of one IP who has been repeatedly removing GG (as well as removing Kenzei from references to Adam Monroe) despite requests to stop. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well that's not true at all: Super strength

Under his powers it states that he can use his telekinesis to enhance his strength. This is not true as, the instances in which he appears to have super strength he only uses his power to create the illusion that he has super strength, not to actually augment his strength. Second, there is no proof of this, we don't necessarily know all of the powers Silar has, for all we know he actually does have super strength. I'm removing this.Adroa (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneous regeneration?

This was probably brought up somewhere, but I don't remember, so I'll ask anyway - Sylar has been mortally wounded several times (shot multiple times in "One Giant Leap", fell off a roof in "Homecoming", shot in "Distractions"...) How could he survive all of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.73.226 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

He obviously doesn't have spontaneous regeneration, or he wouldn't have gone after Claire. I think the official word is that, while he can be wounded, he's using his telekinesis to hold himself together. Thanks to his eidetic memory, one look through a medical textbook is all he'd need to know how to treat and repair his injuries. Wanderer32 (talk) 01:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He did kill Peter Petrelli by telekinetically thrusting a shard of glass into his head (he came back to life when it was removed) so he could've absorbed Peter's regeneration (which he in turn had obtained from Claire) then. It's all speculation though. Digifiend (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

How could he have gotten it from Peter? He didn't remove his brain. Ophois (talk) 23:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Enhanced Durability and Death Mimicry

I tried to add these two to hi list of powers, but they were deleted, even though he has been seen to use them both during the series. What gives? Jack Sylar (talk) 23:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Enhanced durability can be explained by telekinesis, so it would be speculation to say that he has that ability. As for "death mimicry", it's kind of iffy, and should be discussed first. Ophois (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The writers confirmed that what seems to be invulnerability is actually telekinesis. Death mimicry has never been mentioned as a power. eb (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Freezing

Sylar killed molly walker's father (or mother?) for the ability of freezing. He has used it on several occasions, like just before he killed his mother (he frose water into snow and levitated it) or (i think) when facing off against future peter. Timebender13 (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Where did you see this? We know he killed the Walkers but we've never been able to prove he got the freezing power from Molly's father or mother or if he got it from some unnamed individual before he even got to the Walkers. If you've got some kind of citation let's see it so we can end this. That'd be great. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes He had the power BEFORE Mollys Father...and until you can cite it I am taking it off...even with the knowledge of Sept 22nds episodes, he had to know it before cutting off his head...where he got it from is unknown.HeroesAccuracySupport (talk) 06:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Writers Joe Pokaski and Aron Coleite confirmed that Sylar acquired the freezing power from James Walker. eb (talk) 11:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Already noted here: Talk:Sylar#Cold_Manipulation. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Eden's voice

Hi, I've started watching Heroes late, but one thing I noticed towards the end of season one was that before Sylar kills Isaac, he uses Eden McCain's voice to command him to do something (show him a particular picture, I think it was). The same sound effect that was placed on Eden's 'command' voice was used, but it's implied from Eden's final scene that she shot herself to deny Sylar her power.

So, what do we think? Is this just a continuity error, or was Sylar able to take Eden's voice regardless of the bullet wound?217.207.239.245 (talk) 11:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's neither, Tim Kring has said the voice effect was exactly that, a Dramatic Effect. He just did it because it sounded cool, nothing more. Sylar is not believed to have obtained Edens power (several people are casting aspersions about Peter, but Sylar has been ruled out). padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, IIRC, Issac does not follow the instruction that Sylar gives him. Srpnor (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Alternate future

Why exactly was the alernate future section removed a while ago? Other articles such as Peter Petrelli and Angela Petrelli have sections about the alternate timelines. Ophois (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm all for taking the bloody things out. Not that I removed it but it was the plot of one episode and has not been revisited for an entire season. Yes, there are indications that the future will be revisited this season but there is no indication that it will be the one that was left in season one. In fact the point of season one was that the future that was depicted will not come to pass now. So, between it's limited exposure and the fact that it has been rendered moot I don't see why we have sections devoted to it. I say get rid of it altogether, in all the articles. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

demonic voice

any one else notice that sometimes his voice takes on a distorted, alsmost demonic tone in some instances, like before he killed the car mehcanic for he super hearing she said "whats that sound?" and he said "murder!" in a warped tone, there have been other instances too, is this a power, or just dramatic effect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.127.90 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If you check the archives you will see everyone has noticed it. It has been described by Tim Kring as artistic license. I believe his direct quote was "It sounded cool". Should we make mention of this in the article if we're just going to get asked this over and over? padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not, unless you obtain a specific citation noting Kring's manipulation of the audio track. With other marketing tools, like a phantom ring and ARG, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there were a citation speaking to this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ithought there was an interview (way back when this happened) where he said he took artistic license and some other stuff about how it's not her power. Can't for the life of me remember when it was but it was on that writers blog... crap, I can't even remember the name of that now. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 14:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Absorbed isn't the word to use

I believe the word to use is acquire. Absorb is more for peter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramount X (talk • contribs) 03:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for Peter, either. Both learn or mimic, Sylar on a conscious level, Peter on a subconscious or instinctual level ... Fredmdbud (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

while this hinges dangerously close into OR, allow me to explain the difference. Absorption is a passive thing, and Peter doesn't mean to absorb the powers he receives, he just does, Sylar goes out to fetch them, cutting off gents and gems' skullcaps to poke an prod their brains - something of an active seeking, if I may say so. Peter absorbs the ability, not understanding them when he gets them (ergo, the whole "exploding man" thang). Sylar doesn't struggle with how the abilities he takes work - it is the process of acquiring them that he understand their form and function, and loses sight of his subsequent actions. Steal, appropriate, acquire - all apply to how Sylar gets his power, none apply to Peter's absorbing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. The way Sylar takes a persons power means that the brain is left intact. However Sylar's victims are found without a brain. Does he take them or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.133.135 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Alchemy Vs. Midas Touch Vs. Chrysopoeia

I believe the technical term for the ability listed as alchemy is Chrysopoeia. I will change the page to reflect this. This is the technical term for the ability more commonly known as the Midas Touch.
Additionally, although the creators referenced his power as alchemy, I see this as speculation on the characters further development, that was not realized due to the character's death. We can only confirm, based on the television series, that the ability is currently Midas Touch, or Chrysopoeia. Radicaledward101 (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Great. When you cite that reliably as the power, we can include it. Not one nanosecond before. We cannot include your connection of the dots. We cite only those connections which can be cited. Period. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

One question about your choice of the word "reliably:" what exactly does that mean? There are articles that list chrysopeia as the ability to change the base metals into gold. While that isn't the main article it does list the pages in the book that do speak on the subject. Kinsoto (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.65.48 (talk)

Sorry if I was unclear, anon. the notation of chrysopeia has to be occur in a reliable article about the television series, which "connects the dots" between the ability name, and the program. As your link doesn't do that, it is no more useful than a a statement about historical inaccuracies present in the films 300, Alexander or Braveheart backed up by citation from history books. It is you noting the connection, not someone else. As Wikipedia relies solely upon secondary sources (not us), we cannot use citations in this way.

I hope that helps. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

In other words, we don't doubt that the ability you are describing is called Chrysopoeia nor that Chrysopoeia is the ability toturn stuff into gold, we need someone to say that is the power Bob has. And it really should be as blatant as that - "Bob has Chrysopoeia" (as said by the director or some writer). This is because that fact that you want to put in the article isn't about Chrysopoeia, it's about Bob. So we need some citation that says Bob has Chrysopoeia. Padillah (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you then also require someone to provide a similar citation stating that Bob's power was Alchemic Transmutation? MattG987 (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

You mean something like.... the creators of the show explicitly calling it Alchemy? :) 124.148.55.232 (talk) 10:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, that and the writers have referred to his ability as more than just gold. If you look around you can find one writer that tells a story about having Bob turn a wood door to steel to slow down Niki's rampage, but it looked horrible so they dropped it. We know it's supposed to be more than Chrysopoeia but we can't prove it. For those of you sharp enough to notice, yes, we are coming close to speculation, but we have just barely enough info to keep from being too far gone. Now the problem becomes if Sylar uses this power to do something other than gold is that enough to declare that Bob could have? Padillah (talk) 12:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we can safely bypass that situation by simply not mentioning it on Bob's page (which is easy to do, since it has nothing to do with him). Besides, Sylar has shown to have much greater control over his gained powers than his victims did (for example, Sylar could paint at will, which Isaac didn't have nearly as much control over), so I don't think we need to make much of a deal about it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no citation listed for that.MattG987 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The writers refer to Bob's power as alchemy.[5] EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That's you speculating as to what the writer meant. It doesn't explicitly state "Bob's power is alchemy," nor does it say "Bob has turned things into stuff other than gold."MattG987 (talk) 04:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, no I'm not. We very clearly have a writer saying "more alchemy" in reference to Bob's ability; that's certainly more than we have for Bob's ability being called "chrysopoeia". Compare 607 Google hits for "alchemy" and two Google hits for "chrysopoeia"; "alchemy" is quite obviously the acknowledged term for his power. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Cannot acquire abilities from the dead.

I removed the line "though he cannot acquire an ability from a dead person." for the following reasons:
A) There's no citation supporting this, and as far as I can tell it's speculation.
B) It's been stated on the show that he removes the brain of the victim (though he didn't appear to have to do this with Claire)...that would pretty much kill them, leaving him to examine a dead brain. Of course that assumes that he removed the brain before acquiring the new ability, and not after. All this too is speculation, but it's enough to prevent me from changing the statement to "though it is unclear as to whether or not he can acquire an ability from a dead person."

Point is, there's no reason to include "though he cannot acquire an ability from a dead person" at this juncture. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.12.177 (talk • contribs) EVR (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It is shown in the latest graphic novel that he can't. Ophois (talk) 05:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is indicated before that sentence. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 07:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

In the future, it might be splendidly helpful to actually ask if we see a fact that doesn't seem accurate - it saves a lot of time with all the reverting and whatnot. Asking before removing makes a person seem like something less of an ass. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And in the future, "EVR", please actually create an account, instead of masking your IP address with a fake name. It tends to erode a lot of good faith when you do such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Separate columns for acquisition and use

IMO we should use separate columns for power acquisition and power use. IIRC he hasn't used Bridget Bailey's psychometry power yet. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Has it been established that the current "Episode" column is for both, and not just acquisition? - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I thought the "Episode" column was for first use because there are times that Sylar has aquired powers both in a graphic novel and between episodes (i.e. Cryogenics). Padillah (talk) 17:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Base ability vs. acquired ability

I've removed the list box of abilities that Sylar has acquired through the use of his base ability. As adding them creates an opening for cruft, speculation (do we really need to revisit the cryokinesis issue to illustrate this?). As well, the list was fostering the overcategorization of abilities. Lastly I purged the cat addition of fictional US Presidents; while Sylar was in fact a president in one of the alternate futures presented, it wasn't as Sylar, he was masquerading as Nathan Petrelli. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is better served by just listing the powers (which is factual) and not their origins, which avoids a certain point of contention. Fredmdbud (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And if we could keep people to that we'd be fine but the problem is we can't (see cryokinesis refered to above). It doesn't add as much to the article as it takes away. Padillah (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the absence or the presence of the acquired powers list, as long as it ONLY lists acquired powers. In either case, we're going to having problems with people either adding the list if it's removed or adding speculative and trivial information if the list is there. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 15:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The article - no article in Wikipedia - is served by adding speculative information. Honestly, how many characters in Heroes have to lose , regain, add to or swap powers before we realize that the basic ability is all that we need concern ourselves with. Wikipedia is not a list of crufty information. We have a link to Heroeswiki. Let the fanbase seek the extent of the stolen abilities there.

But then you are effectively leaving out and undocumenting some significant information, namely what Sylar is capable of doing. As far as people people harping on stuff that is speculative, that's where vigilence comes in. And removing the box seems pretty unilateral, too, because I didn't see a consensus form before it was taken away.Fredmdbud (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

By that rationale, are we going to do the same to the article for Peter Petrelli? If you want things to be consistent ... Fredmdbud (talk) 16:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Absolutely. It only attracts cruft in the form of folk continually wanting to add the speculation as to where the acquired ability came from. This is exactly the same situation. Peter copies abilities, whereas Sylar steals them (or rather, acquires them, killing the target in the process). We should focus on the abilities, and refer to the acquired abilities in the body of the text in a general way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So how is that different from a list of acquired abilities that does not list their origins? If you don't list the origins, it doesn't invite people to add their two cents as to where they believe they got them.Fredmdbud (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Er, I agree that it should be removed. Let's focus on one article at a time. Once this bit of kerfuffle is complete, we'll fix Pete's page as well. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, I think the table in the Peter Petrelli article is desirable because it objectively lists the power and the episode it was first exhibited - facts which are decidedly not speculative. Not showing the capabilities is at the least casting them as trivial, and at the worst sticking one's head in the sand.Fredmdbud (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't really objective. Yes, we know that he got the radioactive ability from Ted, and Claire's healing ability from Claire. But there are so many other abilities that Syler (and Peter) display that we don't know the origins of (ie,, they are most assuredly speculative). As well, the time-shifting treats these abilities like a grand Etch-a-Sketch, and the two start from scratch with a whole new set of powers. By listing the base power, and leaving the rest of the fannish Bag o' Crazy™ accessible through the link to the HeroesWiki, we have done our encyclopedic duty whilst allowing for those acquired/ stolen/ appropriated via creative license to be noted.

We should note Sylar's acquired TK, though. He uses it enough that it has become something of a defacto power - the desire to control. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please re-read what I said regarding Peter Petrelli article, and how its table would serve in the Sylar article. The table lists 1. the power, and 2. what episode it was first demonstrated. Nothing about from whom he got it.Fredmdbud (talk) 00:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this. Sylar's acquired abilities are a large part of the series. So what if an anon occasionally adds Molly's father as the source for cryokinesis? That's what we editors are here for. Removing the powers just because someone adds speculation in once in a while is a bad move, and greatly detracts from the article IMO. Ophois (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I do think that this article is different from Peter's article, given that for eight of the nine powers he's shown, we have on-screen evidence (either by seeing him kill the person, or he flat out says it ["Look what your father used to be able to do"]). There's not the wide opening for speculation that there is for Peter, just the one ability. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

But that is not the point, EVula; the abilities that Sylar kills to obtain is - for the most part - superfluous to the plot. The main issue - that he kills to take them, and isn't at all bothered by that - is. As Sylar (and Peter, for that matter) tends to lose/gain x number of abilities each season, it becomes less about the abilities and more about what else is going on. They are only tools; let us focus on the folk using the tools instead. Its far more encyclopedic, and less likely to be mired in the endlessly fancrufty minutiae. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hold on... when have Peter or Sylar ever lost abilities? Other than future versions of the characters, which are covered in different sections, they have had a constant power base... Ophois (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There's no proof that either has. There's simply rumor that, because of the virus and since Sylar hasn't yet used several of the powers he gained in the past, he's lost them. It's speculation at best and most likely wrong. In any case the virus never infected Peter, it's just confusing which Peter we're talking about having what powers. The "other future Peter" never exhibited the illusion power that "this future Peter" one does. This future Peter has more than a couple of powers the other future Peter didn't exhibit, yet doesn't seem to have the pyrokinesis/red energy the other future Peter had... it quickly turns into a mess trying to keep up with which Peter had what power when. On top of which we've noted several times that there's nothing we can say until he exibits a power because we simply can't tell if he has any given power from the outside (i.e. Eden McCain's "Voice" logically we know he has it he simply has failed to realize this). I don't think we should do away with the list of powers, they are integral to the characters (the hunger for more power is being established as a major motivator for Sylar). But I don't think we need to keep track of which power what version of which future Peter has. that's too much and thus far none of the possible futures has been approached. Thus far they are plot devices for the heroes to fight against, nothing more. Padillah (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Clearly Sylar did not lose the procognitive painting and induced radioactivity powers. The last line of the power section and any other references to the Shanti Virus permanently deleting powers should be deleted. cruentus (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Nuking and painted were used in the future. No telling what he got ahold of after four years. So, it may not be Ted's and Isaac's, but someone else and the guy who Parkman was with. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 23:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

does sylar lose all his ability except those 2 ability?? well,, because in the future he still can use precognition and radiation manipulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N-K Person (talk • contribs) 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

He currently does not have any of the abilities from before the virus except his base ability and telekinesis. I think the writers have been fairly clear in their last interview regarding the fact that he kept telekinesis because he felt empathy for the man he killed. In the future he may have found other people to take the abilities from or empathised with the people he killed unlocking their power. Either are speculation, but what matters is that he does not currently have access to the abilities from before the virus. -- WORMMЯOW  12:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammar issues

Fredmdbud edits (1, 2):

"Sylar later manages to get inside the Company headquarters, kills Bob Bishop and acquires his power."

whereas I posit the following (1, 2):

"Sylar later manages to get inside the Company headquarters, killing Bob Bishop and acquiring his power"

I think my version is grammatically correct in both tense and meaning. Fred seems to think his version describes a series of events in (presumably) chronological order, whereas I think that summation is both more technically correct and streamlined, leading right into the next sentence. I recall something in MOS that talks about using the infinitive tense (as its more encyclopedic), but someone could check it out and prove me wrong, I guess. I thought I would bring it here, as Fred is absolutely sure he is correct. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The latter sentence is more "dynamic", in my opinion; while the first sentence is grammatically correct, it sounds really plain. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is an ordered list of events as they took place (first one, then the other, and finally the last). The second sentence is more of a recap of things that happened irrespective of chronology. Even without the order there's no reason to believe anyone would misunderstand either one. This is really a simple function of MOS. My two-cents? I like the second sentence. Padillah (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's try a similar construct and see if you think they are the same:

• She comes on the stage, sings a song, and dances a dance.
• She comes on the stage, singing a song, and dancing a dance.

On the one hand you have a sentence that is simple and unambiguous. On the other hand you have something that might sound more stylistic and pleasing, but can be interpreted two ways. Fredmdbud (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the superfluous comma in the first second sentence (after "song), I prefer the first; again, it's more dynamic than the rather dry "this happens then this happens then this happens". EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no hard consensus on the serial comma, but the elimination of the comma after "song" in the first sentence makes it sound like she did the two things at the same time. But you get the general idea of the example. Fredmdbud (talk) 04:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if interpretation is what you are worried about then it should be phrased like so:

• "Sylar later manages to get inside the Company headquarters. He then kills Bob Bishop and acquires his power."

There, no ambiguity. I guess I just don't feel that the ambiguity is loose enough to make this kind of impact and, in point of fact, is in line with how much we know (we never see him break in or kill Bob). At best someone could think Sylar broke into the Company by killing Bob or that he broke into the Company, found Bob then killed him. Either way we don't know enough to enforce a chronology so we can't reinforce the argument. Padillah (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the second option. We don't KNOW at what point the person dies as it is technically possible to remove part of the skull with a person remaining alive for a short period (or so I've been led to believe). Therefore chronological order is irrelevent as it is speculation. I admit it's LIKELY to be true... but not definite. --WORM | MЯOW 13:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Or the sentence could read:

• "Sylar later manages to get inside the Company headquarters. He then kills Bob Bishop, acquiring his power."; or
• "Sylar later manages to get inside the Company headquarters. He then acquires Bob Bishop's power, killing him."

Depends on which you want the emphasis. Fredmdbud (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if we want to get bent out of shape about the order of things, the second sentence is wrong, as Bob would be dead by the time Sylar acquires the power... :P
Another option on this ceaseless cavalcade of choices: "Sylar later manages to get inside the Company headquarters, acquiring Bob Bishop's ability after killing him." I'm not a fan of simple sentences; we're not the Simple English Wikipedia, I think our readers can stand to have a comma or two thrown at them. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

regeneration

Is there any explanation for the apparent regenerative powers he has in season 1? Surviving a volley of gunshots and getting back up and running away.. getting stabbed by that sword... etc. etc. 134.197.22.98 (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a mighty power indeed, my anonymous frind - that of Plot Device. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

On the unofficial Heroes wiki, the explanation for surviving the gunshots was that he used his telekinesis to slow the bullets somewhat. However, I have no clue what their source on that was. Getting stabbed by a sword he barely survived; that's why he'd had eight surgeries.
However, Arcayne put forth the best explanation. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be because Sylar had gained enhanced durability from an unknown source. Don't know which noob came up with the idea that Sylar gained enhanced durability and enhanced strength from telekinesis, since it wasn't even sourced.--210.24.206.28 (talk) 07:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hearing

It appears that Sylar can again LISTEN to things far away, the episode when Mr.bennet was telling the vortex dude to kill him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.84.42.116 (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Or he was intrigued by the confrontation his partner was having. There is nothing that indicates he could here vs. simply read the minds of those at the scene. Padillah (talk) 14:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering Sylar's primary ability (intuitive aptitude), I imagine that he can figure out a great many things, even from a distance and based on body language and personality alone. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 14:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

he's kept locked up in a cell most of the time, I think that would give him PLENTY of free time to learn how to lipread even without his ability because AFAIR at Claire and Vortex-man (forgot his name) were both facing his general direction but I could be wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.196.66.117 (talk) 01:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You see, I got the opposite from the scene, that he *couldn't* hear (otherwise, why would they change to silence from Sylar's POV), but that he was curious about what was going on and suspicious - and that he'd worked it out how things had played out. Totally my opinion - not verifiable - but that's how I thought it happened. --WORM | MЯOW 10:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with WORM. IIRC, when he used his hearing in Season 1, they'd have an effect and give the audio when focused on him. No such effect in this episode. Ophois (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree for exactly the same reason. Generally there's some sort of effect (visual or audio) when most powers are being used, and there was no such indication that he was using super-hearing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gained abilities by watching

There was a section under "Powers and Abilities" that said Sylar has been able to understand a power by watching the owner use the power. One this is ambiguous, does this mean he can tell what a power is, or does it mean that he can replicate a power by simply watching someone use it? And second, can someone help me out with why this is thought to be the case? I can re-watch the epi when I get home but I think someone thing like that would have stuck out more. How are we able to tell that Sylar can "understand the power"? Thanks for the help. Padillah (talk) 12:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

In "I Am Become Death", when Knox and Sylar are fighting, Sylar is able to understand how Knox's ability works. I'll rephrase it in the article, and you can revert it if you still have a problem with it. Ophois (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've had to remove it. While Sylar does figure out what the ability is, there is no indication how he does it. Is it part of his "ability"? Or is it just a case of putting two plus two together? --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't interpret it as "Sylar can access a power by observing it", merely that he understood what it was (to rephrase: "Hey, look, you get crazy strong when my kid freaks out" instead of "Hey, look, you get crazy strong when my kid freaks out, and now I can too"). He could just have easily read a file on Knox, though; I think removing it was a good call. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they'd be more specific if this was actually part of Sylar's power. I think it was more of a plot-tastic way to remind us what Knox's power was, as we hadn't been told that episode and he's still a fairly new character with a power that isn't intuitively obvious. -- WORMMЯOW  15:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Sylar effects

I remember in Heroes Unmasked they talked about the effects/elements used regarding Sylar, for example the ticking when he is about to do something 'evil' or the cockroach when he has left a scene. Now, I can cite these points - and a few more bits like his watch, but I'm wondering if it's information that's worth putting in? Any thoughts-- WORMMЯOW  11:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Cold Manipulation

This was technically his first known power, right? But we have no clues as to where it came from, right? Wrong. He killed Molly's father to get to Molly, but is it possible that he froze Molly's father AFTER taking HIS ice powers. If he came for Molly there is no reason he would have left. I thought Trevor was going to be the person with the ice powers, but instead he's got this gunfiring with no gun, which Sylar has never used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.93.242.200 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Telekinesis was his first ability. He cannot have gotten his cryokinesis from Molly Walker's father, seeing as he was killed after being frozen. He was frozen as he was about to take a bite of food. If he was frozen after being killed, his cut open head would not have been exposed. Ophois (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

That is, unless he was demented enough to teleketically position Walker to appear to be eating, then froze him...who knows?

Like I said, if he was frozen after, then his cut-open head wouldn't have been exposed, it would have been frozen over. Ophois (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all speculation. It's possible for Sylar to be wrong about who has a power; he could just easily picked up cryokenisis from someone else and used it on Molly's dad thinking that he was the one with the power. Point is we don't know where he got the power from, so we can't say anything until we have a definitive source. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Update Source that Molly's dad is the source of the cryokenisis.[6] EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Surprising that they were so straightforward about it. Must have accidentally slipped out. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was shocked to see it stated so plainly as well. At any rate, I've added it as an inline ref to the article; the others are very obvious, and since that one isn't shown on-screen in any way, I think we should probably leave it (unless they do mention it on the show or in a comic, in which case we could probably remove it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Base ability

As it has been revealed that Sylar's power is actually empathic mimicry, that means that Intuitive Aptitude is not his base power, but rather an ability that he had absorbed. What are everyone else's thoughts on this? Ophois (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Arthur not explain to Sylar that his Intuitive Aptitude is his own unique form of the mimicry? The only difference in his understanding of Elle's power is that he didn't have to look at her brain, which suggests that he still uses Intuitive Aptitude because he took about 20 (guess) shocks from her before he could even begin to understand. At least that's the way i understood it. TheConez —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC).

Him being able to copy powers wouldn't allow him to understand everything. Ophois (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthur tells Sylar that he can acquire powers through empathy, and that he's always had this power in "It's Coming", and in this interview at comicbookresources, Joe Pokaski and Aron Coliete confirmed that there's no difference between Peter's power and Sylar using his power to understand powers through empathy. That doesn't prove they're the same power, it's also possible thet Peter's empathic mimicry is a narrower version of Sylar's power. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I started a talk subject about this over at the main article but the gist is, I think they are the same power, just different methods of using that power... like Angela and Isaac with Precognition. Padillah (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense that they'd be the same power, though. Why would being able to absorb a power allow someone to understand how a watch works? I asked a question about this on the Comic Book Resources Behind the Eclipse Q&A, but as usual they only gave a vague answer and said to wait until episode 19 to learn more about Sylar. Ophois (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Ability - Continuity Error?

I notice the article says that Sylar only regains telekinesis and intuitive aptitude at the start of Season 3. If this is the case, how come his future self causes a nuclear explosion in "I am Become Death" - a power he gained at the end of season 1? 86.165.77.58 (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

His future self gains it from someone else.Ophois (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Or finds a way to unlock lost powers -- WORMMЯOW  10:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, considering what they can do with a show such as this (time travel, plot devices, etc), unless they explicitly state that he in no way unlocked his lost powers or gained nuking from another source, it's not a continuity error. There's just a huge hole of time that we don't know what will happen. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 10:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, he's been established to have empathic mimicry, and is from a timeline in which the formula has made powers far more common. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Victims / sources

IMO the table should distinguish between Claire, Elle and Sylar's other victims, either in the table or in footnotes under the table. Most of the characters who Sylar acquired powers either died from the injuries inflicted in the process. Claire was also a victim of Sylar's traditional power acquisition method, she only survived due to her powers. Elle's power was acquired through empathic mimicry, and, although it looks like Sylar's about to kill her at the end of The Eclipse, Part 2, it's not to acquire her power, as he's had it since It's Coming. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How do we know that he's not acquiring her power? It's shown that he doesn't have full control of his electric powers due to it being through empathic mimicry, so for all we know, he could be acquiring her power the old way to understand how to use it.Ophois (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

But he already has her power, at most, he would merely be gaining a greater degree of control over it. Listing the acquisition of electricity manipulation from Elle in It's Coming without anything to distinguish it from other acquisitions (such as the current "through empathic mimicry" note) would imply that Sylar killed Elle for her power in It's Coming. The table only lists his confirmed successful power acquisitions, which is why Candice Wilmer is omitted, and why the possible power acquisition in Eris Quod Sum won't be listed in the table unless it's confirmed as such. IMO footnotes for Claire, Elle and anyone else he acquires powers from in a non-fatal manner would also be an acceptable option. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

James Walker

Sylar gets Cryokinesis from James Walker however in the episode Don't look back he has frozen James wlker's body then cut open his head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.24.251.240 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

See the above section about cold manipulation. EVula found this [7] which confirms Molly's dad was the source for Cryokinesis, and was then a test subject... You never know, maybe Sylar perversely put him into that position to confuse the police-- WORMMЯOW  14:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Suppressed" Abilties

I understand that this information came from the future part of the show, but Gabriel is shown using (I'm assuming) Ted's ability. Granted, we don't know that it is actually Ted's ability. It could very well be someone he's met over the next four years, but should we really separated his acquired abilities into before and after the virus? We don't know that he cannot access those abilities, all we know is that he hasn't demonstrated their use on camera since the virus. His base ability is being able to understand how things work. As long as he understands how those abilities work, then it shouldn't matter whether he gained the ability before or after the virus. He's able to do it with Knox without even cutting his head open. I just don't think we need to suggest with the separate lists that he doesn't have those abilities that he acquired before the virus. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 09:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing has even suggested that his powers are different or suppressed. His first use of a power is not his base power but TK suggesting that there is no loss of prior ability. This "Shanti virus reset his abilities" is pure speculation and it's gone. Padillah (talk) 12:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

He was also shown using Isaac Mendez's power; that's two of the "originals".
For what it's worth, though, I totally agree; he just hasn't been shown using any of those powers, but it doesn't mean that he doesn't still have them. (and until someone on-air states that he can't access them, we shouldn't say that he can't) After all, how often does he really need to use "liquification"? (I also took his instant recognizing of Peter's presence at the end of "I Am Become Death" to be a result of his superhuman hearing, but that's just speculation on my part). EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, on the other hand... I haven't had a chance to read it yet (I'm at work), but apparently that's the source for the "old powers are gone" speculation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I just read through it, and though it never says "Sylar has started the season off with only TK and Figuring Out How Powers Work by Scalping SuperHuman People (FOHPWSSH, coincidentally the sound that the brain makes when he removes it), it pretty much says that he started over. I'm just not sure which question that the response "Nope that’s right" goes to: "Has his slate of powers been ‘wiped clean’ and does he have to start all over again?" or "Does Sylar mean that he permanently lost all of his acquired powers except for telekinesis?" or "Or am I reading into things?”

I wonder how and if they'll explain why he kept the one ability, seems contradictory. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 15:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)That's the same thing I saw - they say, "He's starting with a clean slate" but he's obviously not. (unless he found someone with TK again). Padillah (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Tests on the show have shown that Sylar's TK appears to be permanent, so it makes sense for him to only regain those two. Now, if Present-Sylar starts using the old powers, then the writer is obviously wrong in the Q&A, but until then we are supposed to go on reliable sources. Ophois (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The second week Q&A touches on this, and implies that the telekinesis is special because it's his first acquired power. Ophois (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It's possible that Claire's blood has overwritten any lingering effects of the virus and that we just haven't seen present Sylar using his other abilities. --Maitias (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Ladies and gents, we are walking a pretty fine line between discussing improving the article and speculating. I've said it before, and I will say it again: we are not in a hurry. Encyclopedias move at a notoriously slow pace, and with good reason - fact-checking takes a while, and if there are no supporting facts, it doesn't go in. The only way WP differs from this is that we allow citations (not facts) to support our statements. We do not have to be first; We are not a newspaper, where a scoop makes the discovery of information time-critical. As it is, virtually all of our information comes from these sources, so we are necessarily going to be the last to know. And frankly, if anyone is not okay with that, then Wikipedia may not be the place for you (though WikiNews might be).

The information, in solid, citable form will arrive or it won't. Until then, it isn't our place to speculate about it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But...I don't wanna! Agreed (though I was walking that line as well). ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 23:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol! Yay, as I was about to release the +4 Hounds of Whupass on ya. (jk). I look forward to a time when it is all spelled out nice and clear. Has someone tought to look through the video commentary? I don't have the seasons on DVD, but with movies, you can often get a running commentary during the eps. If something juicy (and relevant) is found, it can be added, within considerations, using the CiteVideo template. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the interview does say "Sylar’s starting over." But that is contradicted by the fact that he's not, he still has TK. And it's a little too ambiguous to clear the question off the table. So, do we believe the show or the writer of the show? Padillah (talk) 13:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The final product, as always, which means not the program, but others' (meaing reliable, verifiable sources) interpretations of the programs. What the writer thinks is valuable, though, as they might know what the long-term goal of the season, series or (in the special case of 'Heroes, where each character has one or two writers) character is.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The fact is, he still has the abilities. We know he has some powers he just doesnt use often, like Melting and Chryokenesis, but he still has them, as shown in I Am Become Death, where he uses both radiation and Painting. Why would he keep those (and TK for that matter) and not others? If his powers were reset, the only thing left would be his original. Timebender13 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

As shown by the Q&A, he does not have them anymore. He kept TK because it is different than his other acquired abilities, and what makes TK special will be addressed in a later episode. Ophois (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I don't think the Q&A is as cut and dried as you say. The statement is "Nope that’s right. Sylar’s starting over. Getting a whole new slate of powers as he goes. You can count Jesse’s voice powers into the mix as well." Since the questioner asks two questions it's not real clear what the Nope/Yep is in response to. I guess we are stuck in the same situation we are most of the time with Sylar, waiting until we find out more (i.e. Has he lost all his acquired powers? Why does he have his TK and nothing else? Where does he get his future powers if he's lost them in the present?). Ah, the well, we'll get there. With that in mind what do we put in the article? Padillah (talk) 15:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, the second interview expands and confirms on the first Q&A. Ophois (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. On the one side you have the writers going NOPE LOL ALL HIS POWERZ IS GONE LOL WE'RE SO SMART LOL and then on the other side, you have the show. Which they wrote. Explicitly showing 2 powers he acquired BEFORE the virus (precognitive painting hour and Go-Go-Gadget-Nuking) being used quite effectively. I mean what, do they expect us to believe the Sylar-doing-exactly-what-Ted-almost-did-and-exactly-what-Peter-DID-do was just Gabe Gray farting off those vicious enchiladas? I accept the need for independant citation but I also accept the desire to make the articles match the show and ignore whatever the writers are saying (because this isn't the first time they've badgered it up) 124.148.55.232 (talk) 10:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, Nuking was using in the future. No telling what he got ahold of after four years, same with Painting. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 11:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

@Anon 124, you want logic, how about thinking that in four years Sylar would never come into contact with someone that had those same powers again. Talk about a stretch. Powers have been established to repeat - Wes and Nathan fly, Isaac and Usutu paint the future, Claire and Adam regenerate... it's established. Given Sylars current penchant for acquiring powers, I don't think it's gonna take him 4 years to get some of these back. as for the TK, we're gonna have to wait and see why that is special, but it's already been remarked at being different way back in season 1 (it was the only power the Company could detect externally). Padillah (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's nothing saying they're gone FOR GOOD (or did I miss it?), he's just not got them back at the moment...--WORM | MЯOW 15:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the line about not knowing where his powers came from. It's clearly obvious that he was using powers that he had once had. Speculation aside, it's clear that this was intended to be recognizable to viewers as previously seen abilities and to identify that Sylar still maintained his capabilities in the future. 20:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.241.93.190 (talk)

Actually, it's not cleary obvious. Seeing as we've already met another character who has the painting ability, it is very possible that Sylar could have gotten it from him. The writers have also said that four years would be plenty of time for him to gain the abilities from someone else. Ophois (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

When Sylar got the virus he lost all his powers but when he got them back he got back all of them. He didn't just get back two of his powers like the article says. All his powers returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.150.121 (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this confidence? One that is greater than the Q&A with one of the writers? ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 21:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

In Season 1, when Sylar was captured by the company after the Homecoming incident, lab tests were run on him, and one of the scientists said that he couldn't locate the source of any of his powers except for telekinesis. This suggests that TK was in his DNA, while the others weren't, which could be why it returned when they didn't. I also have a (totally unsubstantiated) theory about how he got his precognition and radiation powers back: since Peter had both of them as well, and Aurthur took Peter's powers, Sylar could have gotten them from Aurthur. Unsubstantiated, but possible. Christopher.R.Peterson (talk) 03:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no recollection of that - do you know what episode it was in? I'll have to have a look to double check, but it'd tie in with the fact he kept that power - which the writers have said was 'special' and it would be explained. As for your theory, yep, it's quite possible, but also more suited to the HeroesWiki as it is just a theory for now. -- WORMMЯOW  15:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I want to say as well that. While the writer in the interview said, "Nope that's right. Sylar's starting over again". It could be that Sylar is acquiring new abilities. It doesn't mean he lost his old ones. Right? He demonstrated precognitive painting and induced radioactivity in Angels and Monsters, and even Peter knew he stil had them. So its obvious the writers meant for Sylar to have retained all his abilities, not only telekinesis and his base power. All this misunderstanding could just be that the writer in that interview wasn't specific enough. It is the truth, and the writer could just be fooling around. One more fact is that Sylar didn't gain enhanced durability from his telekinesis. That's absurb!!! He could have gained it from an unknown source. And he could have even gained a lot more after telekinesis and before the start of season 1. Don't you all agree? Someone reply back please.--210.24.206.7 (talk) 07:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So, in no way, could Sylar have gained precog and radiation from another source? Keep in mind that that scene was set years in the future. We've already seen duplicates of a number of abilities, so it's quite possible he could have gained both from another source. And keep in mind that that future was a future of given abilties. There's no telling how many people had nuking and precog. All we know is that he had telekinesis and his base ability. There's nothing to suggest he kept any other abilities. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 14:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Peter has both those powers, and Sylar is established to have empathic mimicry in It's Coming. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. What I was trying to say was that Peter knew Sylar had those abilities. Which meant the writers could have wanted all along for Sylar to have retained all of his abilities. Not just his base power and telekinesis. It could be the claim at the interview just wasn't specific enough. Besides, it was NEVER mentioned on the show that Sylar only retained telekinesis and his base power. But clearly showed that Sylar could use Induced Radioactivity and Precognitive painting. I know there can be like dozens of people with the same ability, but it doesn't seem as though Sylar got those 3 from killing other victims or anyhting. And fyi, Sylar never had empathic mimicry, it was ALWAYS Inuptive Altitude, and he could have 'understood' Elle to have obtained her electrokinesis. --210.24.206.59 (talk) 07:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

With the exception of watching him attempt to take Elle's ability, Peter hadn't seen Sylar until going into the future. He wouldn't have known that had the virus, so he would have expected Sylar to have those abilities. As for the interview not being specific enough, here is another one that confirms he lost them all. Ophois (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You should read the other discussions on this talk page and check the sources. The article already cites two sources ([8][9]) in which Aron Coliete and Joe Pokaski, two of the show's writers (and producers) confirm that Sylar did not retain his other powers, and in the second source confirms that the future version of Sylar got those powers again at some point during the past four years, but refuse to explain how he got the powers. In this article[10], Aron and Joe state that his retention of telekinesis is related to empathy and imply that his acquisition of electricity manipulation that night's episode (It's Coming) is also related, in the episode itself, Arthur tells Sylar that he can acquire powers with empathy and Sylar is shown to acquire electricity manipulation without examining Elle's brain, and in this article[11] Aron and Joe state that there is no difference between Peter's standard power acquisition method and the power acquisition method Sylar used in It's Coming. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is the same anonymous user, in case my IP changed by itself or sth. Anyway, I am trying to post a question on that intervies site thingy. But don't know how to, apparently there is some POTB code or sth. So I tried sending a direct e-mail using my hotmail to the writers. I don't know if the writers received it, but can someone post the link to the latest interview??? Thanks. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.24.206.28 (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I can understand Sylar having regained his induced radioactivity and precognitive painting from later victims, but I still see evidence suggesting he retained many of his "pre-virus" abilities. For example, the Bennet tries to force Stephen Canfield to destroy him with a vortex, Sylar appears to be hear their conversation, despite the distance (suggesting his retention of Dale Smither's enhanced hearing. He also appears to use Candice Wilmer's gift of illusion while stalking Claire in her Costa Verde house, and uses it again much later, in conjunction with his advanced hearing, to carry on a conversation with Danko from the top of a nearby building. (Though Candice Wilmer's illusions strike me as being far more useful than James Martin's shapeshifting, so who knows?) Anyway, the much-cited interviews seem all but useless for concrete answers, being heavily sarcastic.

           -gmpace  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmpace (talk • contribs) 21:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC) 

If Sylar was using enhanced hearing, then they would have had an effect to show it. Besides, it would have been obvious to Sylar as to what Bennet was trying to do. Also, Sylar never gained Candice's power. Ophois (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Demonstration of Teleportation

In the episode "Into Asylum", Sylar surprises Danko by unexpectedly showing up in the backseat of Danko's car after Danko gets in. I can understand the possibility that Sylar was hiding on the floor of the car (which still seems pretty silly for a serial killer) and Danko happened to not see him (also not likely) but then, when Danko quickly turns to shoot Sylar, only moments after Sylar's talking, Sylar is gone and is immediately shown standing on top of a nearby building. How is this not teleportation? Since Sylar lost his abilities after the Shanti virus, we only know about those he's been shown taking in the episodes and graphic novels. His only current ability that could explain his movement is telekinesis (and he has been shown using it to levitate before) except that the car was closed, i.e. there is no way for Sylar to have gotten out so quickly. We don't hear a door opening, breaking glass, etc. - no indication that he forced his way out. We also know that Sylar has been an active killer since the destruction of Primatech, killing Joe Macon while searching for his father. Since he's found his father, I don't see why he wouldn't start up his hunt again, implying he's obtained teleportation recently from some new victim. All in all, I'm just curious why we don't add this to the Abilities list, since there doesn't seem to be a good alternative explanation. Pagemaster146 (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This would be venturing into original research and speculation. Until everyone can definiately say "He used Teleportation", which was not implicitly shown on screen or in a graphic novel (that I read), then we should leave it out.

As for an alternative explanation, he and other characters have had special effects added to their voice, for dramatic effect. The sound of the door could have been simply left out for an effect of some sort. In any case, since assumption is getting you to your conclusion, again, we should leave it out. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 12:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

An alternative to your alternative could be that Sylar wasn't in the car at all he just used his Nensha ability to project his image and voice to Danko. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.172.139 (talk) 02:29, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

So far, that ability is confined to scripting, or handwriting, on a surface. To extend nensha (or thoughtography), in this case, to projecting visual and auditory illusions in 3-dimensional space is a big jump. Additionally, the text written using nensha is apparently permanent, as Macon used it to fill out his business forms. I don't know if it would be possible to "undo" or erase the text once written, and if it is possible to create realistic illusions, how would this permanency affect them? Needless to say, I'm still skeptical. The closest ability Sylar has to explain his rapid transportation is telekinesis (note that he has appeared and disappeared quickly before, like in the Season 1 finale at Kirby Plaza) but the closed environment of the car still leads me to suspect some form of teleportation. I guess we'll have to wait until the issue is raised again. Pagemaster146 (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think the Kirby Plaza incident was all but confirmed to be Candice (I think that's her, the one that can project illusions) using her ability to make him disappear (or they were distracted by Peter blowing up that they didn't notice Sylar crawling into a hole)

I believe Pagemaster146 was referring to Sylar mysteriously appearing behind Peter before the fight. Ophois (talk) 04:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

We have already seen that the writers are not above having things (even important things like acquiring a power) happen off-screen. With that in mind this is nothing that can't be discussed over at HeroesWiki. Thank you. Padillah (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Although the writers have hinted that it was an ability, they have confirmed that it was not teleportation. Ophois (talk) 03:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to cut-and-paste my theory from the above "supressed abilities" section: I can understand Sylar having regained his induced radioactivity and precognitive painting from later victims, but I still see evidence suggesting he retained many of his "pre-virus" abilities. For example, the Bennet tries to force Stephen Canfield to destroy him with a vortex, Sylar appears to be hear their conversation, despite the distance (suggesting his retention of Dale Smither's enhanced hearing. He also appears to use Candice Wilmer's gift of illusion while stalking Claire in her Costa Verde house, and uses it again much later, in conjunction with his advanced hearing, to carry on a conversation with Danko from the top of a nearby building. (Though Candice Wilmer's illusions strike me as being far more useful than James Martin's shapeshifting, so who knows?) Anyway, the much-cited interviews seem all but useless for concrete answers, being heavily sarcastic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.48.250 (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Taking the brain vs. opening the skullcap

There's been a bit of back and forth about Sylar's ability to acquire a power. Apparently a distinction is being made that there's a difference between taking a power without removing the brain and taking one without removing the skull cap. I argue that when he absorbed Elle's power he did so without having removed her brain or skullcap so this recent bit with the shapeshifter is nothing new. Sylar removed Elle's brain because he's a sick twist, not because he needed her power. Padillah (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The difference between acquisition methods (supposedly) is identical to the difference between using intuitive aptitude (brain analysis leading to superior control of the obtained ability) and empathic mimicry (less fine-tuned control, but the target/victim does not die). However, it is heavily implied in the final scene with James Martin that Sylar is going to forcibly take the ability and kill Martin in the process, just without opening the skull. Since Martin is later found with a metal shard in the back of his head, it's possible that all Sylar really has to do is examine that back part of the brain, kind of like he did with Clair. This small incision was than "accounted for" by the shard. This process is actually very similar to how Sylar originally killed Brian Davis and obtained telekinesis. If this is true, removing the skullcap is simply Sylar's trademark and nothing more. Either way, we won't know until more is revealed in later episodes, graphic novels, or by the writers. Pagemaster146 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Rampant speculation aside, how does this mean he ripped off Elle's skullcap? The statement is that James Martin is Sylar's first acquisition without removing a skullcap. Unless I miss my guess Sylar acquired Elle's power without killing her so wouldn't that be the first acquisition of a power without removing the skullcap? Mastery has nothing to do with it. Padillah (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's the first one shown through Intuitive Aptitude. Sylar acquired Elle's through Empathic Mimicry. Ophois (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

How do you know? He stared harder? How can you possibly know something like that? Padillah (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Which statement are you questioning? The use of intuitive aptitude or empathic mimicry? Empathic mimicry is applicable when the person with empathic mimicry has some emotional or personal connection to the target. Sylar obtained telekinesis from Davis due to his extreme guilt over Davis' murder. He obtained electric manipulation from Elle by forgiving her for her role in turning him into a serial killer (a pretty big step) and by getting her to forgive (1) himself for killing her father and (2) herself for indirectly causing her father's murder (by creating Sylar in the first place, etc.). In the case of James Martin, there was no emotion, no empathy. Sylar spends the whole episode analyzing Martin, his lifestyle, his insecurities, his dreams. He is effectively analyzing a set of facts and ideas (i.e. a complex system) like he did to the watches he used to fix. In effect, he is applying intuitive aptitude. He does not care about Martin, he does not feel bad for his death, and he does not care that he is being hunted by Danko. To Sylar, Martin is a target and that is all. Therefore, Sylar cannot use empathic mimicry in this case, and if he had a choice, most likely would not want to. Therefore he must have used intuitive aptitude. Now, if you bring up Peter being able to simply obtain powers by standing next to people, remember that Peter was always described as a natural empath; as a nurse/caregiver, he was naturally inclined to care about others and to feel happy, sad, angry, hopeful, etc. for and with them. Empathic mimicry comes easier to Peter, it just happens with him; Sylar has never been like that and therefore he must go through far more to become emotionally linked to the target. Again, this did not happen with Martin. (On a side note, Peter's ability change to one-power-at-a-time symbolically mimics how he's changed as a character, i.e. how he's grown from "warm-and-friendly" = lots of powers to "cold-and-distant" = only one power.) Pagemaster146 (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

And you have citations for that load of...statements? Again I'm forced to ask, fan forum aside, how can we know what the mechanism used was? And, in any case, it was not the first time he took a power without removing the skullcap. Unless we are now mincing powers and getting to a point where him using one type of invisible power is different than him using another type of invisible power. Without a citation what you've got is called speculation. Sylar could just as easily been said to sympathize with James Martin's quest for power and love of the chase. Why wouldn't Sylar sympathize with that? And how's saying he sympathized with Elle? Maybe he symply got her to use her power so much on him that he was able to analyze the catalyst and determine the forces at work. See, that's the problem with speculation, you see it one way and I see it a different way. Without a citation there's no way to tell which view the writers intended. Padillah (talk) 12:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree there is room for ambiguity concerning how Sylar obtained shapeshifting (though I think my argument is pretty sound). However, you are wrong concerning Elle. Take a look at Ref. 12, "Weekly Q&A with Heroes writers, week of 11-17-08". Joe Pokaski and Aron Coliete mention twice how Sylar (in reference to the next episode at the time, It's Coming) will be "doing something" (in reference to obtaining an ability) "a little different tonight". They also say this: "Kyle, we assume you mean telekenisis, and not telepathy and if so, you nailed it. Brian was Sylar’s first kill and his power is connected to emotional empathy. In fact, we’ll be exploring that very sentiment tonight [in It's Coming]. In chains. With electricity." The writer's are pretty explicit that Sylar used empathic mimicry, not intuitive aptitude, to obtain electric manipulation. He may have improved his use by killing Elle later, but that is unconfirmed. We'll just have to wait for confirmation concerning shapeshifting. Pagemaster146 (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Writers have confirmed it's empathic mimicry: here. Ophois (talk) 02:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, they most certainly did not say that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, they did. "Empathy is not necessarily exclusive from evil – it’s more about understanding. And understanding James Martin was what Sylar’s journey was all about this particular episode." Ophois (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

When I saw the episode where Sylar took martin's ability, I had assumed that he was somehow telekinetically probing or "feeling" Martin's brain, causing all the physical trauma of running his physical fingers over it, but without removing the skull cap. This would be much closer to his regular means of taking powers, and less like the empathic mimicry that enabled him to copy Elle's withoput harming her.131.216.48.250 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2009 (UTC)gmpace

I know that some people will object to this, but nevertheless: In a deleted scene on the season 2 DVD, Sylar acquires an ability from a character with Impenetrable Skin by examining the brain through the roof of the mouth. I got the impression that this method was used to acquire Shapeshifting. 93.96.10.23 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

What happened to the brains?

I understand that the brains were missing, not just poked at and left but the statement "We don't know what happened to the brains other than Claire's" leads people to believe he did something else with them. Maybe we should try something along the lines of "Why most of the brains were missing is a retcon the writers never have cleared up." ... or... "The writers were left with a hole when they revealed with Claire that Sylar does not, in fact, eat the brains. They have never bothered to explain why the brains of others have gone missing." Something along those lines. This will also help the article stay out-universe. Padillah (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I just think it's important that there is still ambiguity regarding what he actually does with the brains. The scene with Claire really is a little ambiguous (almost intentionally so, I think) and can be interpreted in a couple different ways (a la the previous version of the article). That uncertainty is still an interesting part of the character. Pagemaster146 (talk) 14:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As a complete aside from the article: If you see ambiguity I can't help but feel it's borne from a desire to see the initial incarnation of the power implemented. The writers themselves have said they originally wanted him to eat the brains. But they've had to acquiesce to TVland pressures to make the character at least TV-14. As you note you can tell from the scene that the writers really didn't want to portray it this way but if you allow yourself you can see that they are pretty unambiguous about the fact that he doesn't eat the brains. Between that scene and the effort to change his method of acquisition and relegate the scull cutting to a simple MO for his killing they are doing due diligence in establishing that he does not eat the brains. That doesn't alleviate the fact that they never bothered to explain why they were missing then. If he just needs to look at them and understand why are they gone? But, we've noted that they have not addressed this discrepency and that's really the best we can do. Padillah (talk) 14:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be that Sylar just likes being thorough in his elimination of other people with abilities. By disposing of the brain, once he's done with it, he assures himself that no one else can ever gain that person's power (kind of like robbing an armored car, then setting it on fire to burn whatever cash you can't carry). So it could be that Sylar DOES occasionally "flush it down the toilet," as Hiro was accused of in the very first Heroes episode, at Mendez's apartment.131.216.48.250 (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)gmpace

Sigh. Could you fellows move this over to some fan forum somewhere? This isn't the place for musing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Flight?? Don't think so

There is no evidence to justify saying that Sylar took Nathan's ability for flight. I was particularly shocked by this'un because specifically, it was only the second time I'd ever see Sylar kill someone without taking their ability, the first being his Mommy, which doesn't count as [a] unintentional and [b] no power to take. If you would like to rewatch the season finale, I think you'll find Nathan's throat was slit, not his skull. I'll try to remove this, though I haven't diddled with a chart on wikipedia before, so I'll do so carefully. malenkylizards 74.10.227.130 (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sylar doesn't have to cut his skull open to get his power. He has taken on most of Nathan's memories, so he understands Nathan enough to absorb his power, which he displays during the fight. Ophois (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, conceded that he can take the powers empathically. But do *I* need to rewatch it? Did we see Sylar fly?? Did he do this before killing him? This could be embarrassing.  :-p malenkylizards 74.10.227.130 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sylar flies right before killing Nathan. Ophois (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You're gonna need more than that to put something like that in the article Ophois. Are you really gonna make me say the words? Padillah (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, for instance, could you convince me that it wasn't Sylar grabbing onto Nathan as he flew out the window? I'll rewatch the scene when I'm next at a computer that can handle the video :-p malenkylizards 74.10.227.130 (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

We know that Sylar's been able to levitate himself before (attacking Molly Walker and killing Dale Smithers). The first time the audience has explicitly seen Sylar do it was during his fight with Nathan (though he didn't look exactly graceful while in the air). Since Sylar can effectively fly via telekinesis, there is an alternative explanation to him taking Nathan's ability. He may have taken Flight from Nathan during the battle via empathy (he has studied Nathan's history via clairsentience) but until confirmation from the writers, claiming that he has definitively taken Flight is speculation. Pagemaster146 (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please rewatch the scene. The flight sound effect is clearly used as Sylar flies onto the balcony and lands. If it was telekinesis, then that sound effect would have been used, such as when he was copying Doyle's power on Claire. Ophois (talk) 18:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's Gabriel Sylar using TK (telekinesis) similar to Magneto using magnetic fields to levitate instead of flying. (JoeLoeb (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

And your evidence of this is...? Ophois (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a hunch which I believe. Sylar obviously loves his telekinesis, he uses it every damn time, why no levitate (flying for you). (JoeLoeb (talk) 22:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC))

As I pointed out, the flying sound effect is used. If he was merely using TK, then the TK effect would have been used. Ophois (talk) 23:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It could be a mistake. Although, Gabriel did take Elle's power though not killing her. Maybe you're right. (JoeLoeb (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC))

Ophois, I rewatched the scene and the evidence is in your favor; however, I still consider the evidence brief, and it honestly doesn't make a lot of sense chronologically or logistically. This encounter is all fighting, and a significant part of it goes on outside of the room, presumably in the air [though this is speculation]. Every other time that Sylar's taken somebody else's power, it's taken some time, some quiet, alone time, with this other person dead, dying or incapacitated. Not with this person flying through the air throwing punches, not in the three seconds Claire was watching through the crack in the door. Until we have further evidence, either from season 4 or confirmation from the writers or whatever, I move to keep flight off the list until then. Reasoning: Power-taking unseen, evidence of flight limited to a single sound effect, unlikely circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.174.169 (talk) 00:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Alone time like he had with Nathan before Claire showed up? He had already gone through all of Nathan's stuff and had a great understanding of him, so not much time is probably needed. Just because he didn't fly before their big fight doesn't mean he didn't already acquire it before that. Ophois (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly likely that Sylar obtained Flight (via empathy, resulting from understanding Nathan through clairsentience) and, moreso, if Sylar is supposed to believe he is actually Nathan, he needs to have Flight (since Nathan did) to mask the fact that he is not really Nathan. However, until it is confirmed, we should leave it off. Pagemaster146 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why it is being kept off. I can understand that it can be speculation that he got it from Nathan, but the flight sound effect confirms that he can fly. I don't see how there can be any argument against that. If nothing else, it should be listed that he can fly but given Unknown as the source of the power. Ophois (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right concerning his ability to fly (or levitate) regardless of the power source. I've added a blurb referencing him using telekinesis to sneak up on Dale Smither via levitation. That's the best we can do for now. However, regarding sound effects used on the show, it is known has been pointed time and again that sound effects are often used for the "coolness" factor (e.g. scary voices back in S1), so the usage of a specific sound is not irrefutable proof of Flight usage. Pagemaster146 (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

...so I totally just added flight without seeing this whole section. Crap. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the power can't be conclusively determined in the episode, refer to WP:RS please. Wait for a writer/actor to discuss this aspect of his power in an interview. --Madchester (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Pagemaster, what do you mean "time and again"? That happened once or twice in the first season only. I don't ever recall anything like that happening again. And there's a difference between having a sound effect when he's yelling and having the flight sound effect while the character is actually flying. The TK sound effect is used right before when Nathan is thrown into the room. If Sylar had been using TK, then that sound would have played, not the flying sound effect. Ophois (talk) 01:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There, I removed "time and again". The point still stands. (For another example of sound ambiguity, there was some debate back at the beginning of Fugitives as to whether Sylar used puppet mastery to make Luke and his mom stop talking when he was torturing Agent Simmons; the same hand movement and sounds were used, but that did not mean Sylar had obtained puppet mastery and we haven't added it to his power list). Given that, I actually agree with you that Sylar has probably taken Flight, simply because if he doesn't demonstrate it now that he's "Nathan", he'll know something's wrong. However, there is enough evidence right now to support either side of the debate and, until an authority decides one way or the other, any decision is speculation. Pagemaster146 (talk) 02:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

We don't really know the extent of Sylar's psychokinesis. In an earlier episode (I forget which one but it was in Season one when he attacked Molly Walker at FBI HQ) Sylar levitated. This may have been what he was showing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.81.61.173 (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Are sound effects now being used as reliable sources? ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 16:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Flight revisited

Spoiler pictures have been shown of him flying. Does this count as evidence - http://mrtheodi.iimmgg.com/image/4c6cb7be542d8e32a5951b39667bfe4a - Or do we just wait until the episode happens to update the Wiki entry? I'll be waiting with my finger poised over the "save page" button with the edit in place. :P Faijer (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What is the context of that picture? That could be Nathan, for all we know. Ophois (talk) 21:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Note two things. First, the date of the posting (on a site that is well-respected in the spoiler world, and only posts legitimate spoilers, or labels them as rumours if that is what they are) - http://heroesspoilers-odi.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-set-pics-nathan-and-peter-in-flight.html - and second, that the set they are on, in combination with the clothing they are wearing, has not been seen on an earlier episode. Deductively speaking it is reasonable to therefore conclude that either it was a cut scene, which can be confirmed presumably by DVD extras from prior seasons (although conceivably there could be cut scenes that didn't even make it onto such a reel), or is from an as-yet unaired episode. Given the date, and the context if it being in the midst of season 4 spoilers, I am willing to go with the latter. Faijer (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

1. It's someone's blog website, so hardly a reliable source for Wikipedia. 2. The person is speculating that it is Sylar. Given Hiro's current storyline, it could easily be the actual Nathan. Ophois (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

1. A blog is merely a format and should not be condemned by that virtue alone, and keep in mind that the blog in question is normally rife with interviews (and links to said interviews) and tidbits from sources on the inside. I'm sure the pictures could be obtained elsewhere if one looked hard enough, although I'm sure time will prove such things unnecessary. 2. Given other news, namely that Adrian Pasdar is leaving Heroes (http://watching-tv.ew.com/2009/11/03/adrian-pasdar-next-project/), that Nathan is being axed once and for all (http://www.popcrunch.com/adrian-pasdar-leaving-heroes-series-killing-off-nathan-petrelli/), and that evil Sylar will be returning to his body, it seems unlikely that it is in fact Nathan (also, the Hiro story-line we have just seen does not seem to have retcon fever, and it seems reasonable to assume that the timeline is intact, with the exception of Charlie's survival - her power would not likely have played any real part in Sylar's downfall in season 1, and his nerfing in season 2 rules it out for consideration in the later parts of the show). Faijer (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Judging by how the previous episode ended, there will be jumping around through time. Seeing as how Hiro's jump this time also showed what Noah was doing at that time, next week could show a time when Nathan was still alive. Ophois (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sylar's power is not, and never has been, empathic mimicry.

Empathic mimicry is a power separate to intuitive aptitude; saying otherwise is merely speculation as it was never stated in the show. The empathy is just another part of his main power i.e. understanding the other person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.107.201 (talk) 22:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It was actually stated by Arthur in the show. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 22:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it was stated by Arthur that Sylar could use his empathy; once again, this is different to the specific power of empathic mimicry. Peter Petrelli is able to acquire powers without concious thought as demonstrated throughout the show so far. Sylar had to actively concentrate to do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.107.201 (talk) 23:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Arthur stated "You can take all the ablities you want without killing." "By accessing your empathy, that part of your heart I know is there. You've had this power all along." We have to go off of that. You're speculating that empathic mimicry is only part of his powers. You're also speculating that he had to actively concentrate to use empathy. He could have absorbed it, but had trouble using it.

If you're one of the writers and know this for certain, then get an interview and we can source it off of that, but else, it's speculation unless said in the show. Arthur stated that Sylar had the same ability that Peter did. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 00:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I am speculating, sorry. However if I am, you certainly are as well; Arthur never states that Sylar has the same power as Peter, merely that he has had empathy in his heart all along. No one in the show has exhibited more than one natural power, so I really don't think it should be listed as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.107.201 (talk) 01:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

In this Q&A session with Joe Pokaski and Aron Coliete, it is stated that there is no difference between Sylar "using his ability to ‘understand how things work’ through empathy" and Peter's method of power acquisiton. IMO that should be good enough unless it's contradicted by a better source. Maybe their powers aren't identical, but they don't need to be. I haven't seen anyone arguing that we shouldn't call Flint's power pyrokinesis because we already use that term to describe Meredith's power and Flint's flames are blue rather than orange. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody exhibited more than one power? Not the Haitian? And also possibly Matt Parkman and Aurthur Patrelli? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.90.25 (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

In "I Am Sylar", when Danko asks Sylar who did he kill for his ability to understand how things work, Sylar says that this power is the only which was "always truly mine". Taking this in consideration, his empathic acquisition of abilities appears to be an aspect of his understanding power, not empathic mimicry, he doesn't get powers just by standing near people, he needs to put some effort in it, unlike Peter's original ability. 189.60.194.58 (talk) 01:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The comic book resources article has confirmed that the method Sylar used to acquire Elle Bishop's power in The Eclipse, Part 1 is identical or nearly identical to the method of power acquisition used by Peter Petrelli in the first two seasons. "Always truly mine" has several plausible interpretations, it could refer to how Sylar didn't discover his empathic mimicry until long after he discovered his intuitive aptitude ability, to Sylar not being comfortable with his empathic mimicry, or it could indicate that Sylar considers mimicry a facet of his intuitive aptitude. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You almost made my point for me, Sylar did use an empathy to get Elle's ability, but it certainly not empathic mimicry. Empathic mimicry as shown before by Peter allows the user to absorb abilities by merely standing next to the person, Sylar had to go through a very emotional moment in order to understand Elle, understand being the key word. His ability is to understand how things work, he usually understands how the brain works to get an ability, with Elle, he just understood her from another perspective. If Sylar had empathic mimicry he'd have her ability since she stopped him from killing himself. His understand Elle is merely another facet of his ability to understand how things work, another application of it. His empathy is not and has never been the same as Peter's, the only similarity between them is that emotions allow them to acquire other's abilities, and that's it. I'd say it's almost an homologous process, but still distinct processes and distinct abilities. 189.4.242.42 (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Just because I'm not a registered user it doesn't mean I don't like being ignored, I have yet to see someone put forward a good counterargument for what I said above, a couple months seems enough to come up with one. 189.4.233.126 (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO we should either handle his powers in the infobox like we do for Matt Parkman (with separate entries for each major application of his base power or powers), or like we do for Hiro Nakamura (listing each major application of his base power as a bullet point under his base power). -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Sylar used empathetic mimicry to take James Martin's power of shape shifting. Thats why there was no mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.193.229 (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, he used empathy, not empathic mimicry. The name "empathic mimicry" is extraordinarily misleading, as there is no empathy actually involved, you simply have to be around the person. Sylar has to actually understand the person he's taking the power from, he understood Elle's parent issues and James Martin's desire to be someone else. Also. it's more speculative to say that he has empathic mimicry then to say he uses a power similar to it, as this would imply that he and Peter use the same power, something that has not been explicitly confirmed.--PJDEP (talk) 21:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Empathy is involved. That is why Sylar and Peter's powers differed. Sylar has little empathy, so he had to struggle to use empathic mimicry, and could only use it with Elle and Martin (people he understood and thus empathized with). Peter was very empathic at the beginning of the series, which is why he just needed to be around people. I can't remember where, but in one of the Behind the Eclipses the writers said that Peter's new mimicking power is only through touch because Peter has become less empathic throughout the series. Ωphois 21:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter copied pyrokinesis from Flint, but I doubt he was feeling like a dumb rapist at the time. The same goes for Ted, Elle, and D.L., he had zero interactions with any of them. Although Peter has been described as empathic, he rarely seems to connect with those he takes powers from. --PJDEP (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Peter being a very empathetic person allowed his ability to do that, even if he didn't personally empathize with Flint. Sylar, however, is not very empathetic. Thus, he needs to personally empathize with someone to obtain their ability. Ωphois 00:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Puppeteering

In Season 3 final episode "An Invisible Thread" it is clearly shown how Sylar manipulates Clair Bennets movements. While this could be argued to be only another facet of his TK I find it hard to believe he'd have Eric Doyle in his grasp and not take his power (Cold snap). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.247.51.55 (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The sound effects for the scene show that it is merely telekinesis. Ophois (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Not only that, but there are several characters that have met Sylar and not had their powers stolen (Micah, Luke, and Sylar's dad being the most obvious examples). He doesn't kill absolutely everyone he comes across. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

After the training with Elle, Sylar know how to acquire powers without killing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia isn't supposed to host original speculation. Listing puppetry or flight after it's confirmed in a reliable source such as an interview, a commentary track or a statement by a character on the show would be okay. Mentioning speculation by established authorities in the field (such as television critics) may be okay as long as it is described as an interpretation rather than an established fact. Mentioning speculation by fans might also be acceptable if that speculation if it's adequately sourced and described as fan speculation, as is the case for the discredited fan thories mentioned in the Lost article. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What about Ali Larter appearing at the end? Every artical on here states that it is Tracy Strauss but it could just as easily be her sister Barbarra. Using your own arguement, that is speculation. I think it is Mr Doyles ability as it makes more sense conisdering the puppet power controlls every limb with ease and it would take a lot of skill in telekenesis to control each individual limb.Wild_ste (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.189.20 (talk)

I think the episode credits should be presumed to be trustworthy. Is she listed as playing Tracy Strauss in the credits? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In season 1 Sylar uses TK to control the FBI agent's hand, causing her to draw her own gun and hold it to her temple while she is otherwise frozen. This does not seem overly different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.53.78.141 (talk) 15:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)