Talk:The Company (Heroes)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Victoria Pratt

Why is she listed as deceased? Unless I missed something, we haven't even seen her character yet. KC 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I rewatched the episdoe and can't find any remarks as to a 'Victoria Pratt' so I removed her from the listings137.73.22.142 17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, there is a scene in which Nathan and Bob are in Bob's office and Nathan notices several files. Nathan says something to the effect of "Deveaux, Linderman, Pratt. I know these names and they're all dead!" Unfortunately, I don't have time to rewatch the episode right now to confirm, but even if he does say that, that doesn't mean that Victoria Pratt is one of the group of 12 or even where the name "Victoria" comes from. It's probably true, but right now I think it's a case of speculation based on unverified spoilers unless Nathan said something more definitive than that. KC 19:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a reference to a Pratt. I have rewatched the episode twice and though it is brief Nathan remarks on the files Bob has in his office. KC was close: "I know these other families: Linderman, Nakamura, Pratt, Deveaux, everyone who's been killed, but I don't know this one." The name is mentioned as deceased.--Vg0131 22:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
So why is it gone again? Therequiembellishere 23:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm putting her back if no one says anything. Therequiembellishere 22:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read elsewhere that the name "Victoria Pratt" is used or mentioned in the Heroes Mobile game, which is part of the Heroes 360 experience. That plus the quote Vg0131 found (above) in the episode "Out of Time" might be good enough to meet Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. KC 14:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Pratt needs to be kept as unknown. The special edition tv guide that came out this weekend, that had the four different covers confirms that Joanna Cassidy will be joining the cast as Victoria Pratt. This goes against her being dead. Nathan never said which Pratt was dead. It could have been Mr. Pratt not Mrs. Pratt. We dont know...it is all speculation. Sure, Joanna Cassidy's character can only be seen in flashbacks or something like that, but we need to wait until the show airs to find out for sure. TV Guide confirms that Joanna Cassidy has joined the cast as victoria pratt. i dont know if they have posted the article on the web. I will look for it and link it, but until we have a definitive answer as to whether or not she is dead, we need to leave it as unknown. wikipedia is not a news sure. all of our facts need to be 100 percent verifible and this is not 100 percent. it will be 100 percent when joanna cassidy appears on the show. we need to wait until then. what is the rush. nathan didnt specifically say which pratt he was talking about. it is all speculation. agreed? i will revert the change.--Chrisisinchrist 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I also wanted to say that their really hasnt been any verifiable evidence to say victoria pratt is a part of the founders. greg grunberg said in the commentary on nbc for ep. the line, that bobs office has the files for all the known heroes all over the world. so, when nathan read pratt, it could have been just another hero, not a founder. also, when was it verified that pratts first name is victoria? i heard a casting call for victoria pratt months ago, but have we verified that this pratt is the same? what if the file said petrelli? would we assume peter or nathan? no, because thier are a lot of petrelli's. same with pratt. we need to change that because it has not be verified. if u feel it is verified, please place a refernece link. once again we are in a rush to post information without full facts.--Chrisisinchrist 21:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
In the latest episode there is a clear image of the founders with Victoria Pratt being listed as one of them. Furthermore it is revealed that she is the only one left alive. So the point is moot. ZoneGhost (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Er, your point is moot. Did you see the date this was done? WE should have archived this discussion. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HOODIE

Adam Monroe is the man that pushed Mr. Nakamura from the building thats how he got up and walked away he probably killed him himself as a form of revenge from Hiro stealing the princess

1 question though what are ur thoughts on adam being from the past is he immortal which would fit with the regeneration power or is he a power absorber and now has hiros power anyways we will find out for sure next monday but i was just wondering —Preceding unsigned comment added by Homeman892003 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a forum, but I think that Adam cannot absorb other people's powers (like Peter can), because if he could then the group of 12 probably could not have imprisoned him -- he would have just teleported away, because he would have had Hiro's teleportation/time travel abilities. KC 17:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


Was it not mentioned by Bob that Maury Parkman was the one committing the murders? Not Adam himself.--ZoneGhost 00:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

he said that he was the blunt object of the murders but i believe that adam still could kill after all but then maury could of made himself look like anything by perception filtering(as explained above in maury parkman)Spread The Word 02:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In one of the writers' blogs (Beeman, I think), it says that Anders was the one in the hoodie. Ophois 06:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This weekends tv guide says that hiro is going to travel back in time to the exact moment of the murder and we are going to get a clear perspective of the murder and who did it. lets wait until that happens and stop trying to rush and just post things up that arent verified. it is not clear if it is maury or adam so why are we speculating? this is becoming fandom. we are not a news site. this is an encyclopedia. everything needs to be sourced and verified. lets just wait until the actual episode airs. --Chrisisinchrist 21:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is more proper fro a fan forum and not Wikipedia, but we cannot cite it until it is shown.--Vg0131 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Founders Notes

The founder notes section on the chart is too detailed. I am going to change some of the information if no one opposes. if someone wants to know all the imformation in the notes section, they can simply refer to the individual character bios. but the page is certainly too detailed. this looks like heroes wiki, not wikipedia.--Chrisisinchrist 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Should I take out Simone? I'm not sure she's necessary anymore. Therequiembellishere 01:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes. Unless she shows up again with a power she should be out.--Vg0131 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. She's a pretty minor character. If someone is interested in Charles Deveaux, then they will read about Simone on his page, but we haven't seen anything connecting her to the group of 12 founders. KC 14:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Founding date

Should we point out that though it's stated in "Four Months Later" that the Company was founded thirty years ago, the official NBC logo for Primatech states "sine 1962", which would be forty-five years ago? Therequiembellishere 02:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Company and Primatech are not necessarily synonymous. It is possible that Primatech was a real paper company 45 years ago, but was bought by the Company later on. I recommend that for the Company's founding, we simply say "about 1977" or (circa 1977), and then reference what Bob said. KC 14:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who the hell is Bishop?

I know the answer, but many will not. Bishop has never been used on the show, so we should not use it as if the name is his common name. Same like we do with linderman...his name is daniel but we call him linderman. with bob, i know his last name is bishop, but it has not been revealed to the masses yet, since most people dont use heroes interactive on the web. so, we need to call him by his most common name. BOB!--75.28.97.238 19:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has, that's why it's referenced. Therequiembellishere 22:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the user above. Bishop looks find of stupid considering that most people wouldnt know who he was. the name has never been used on television. wikipedia policy states we need to use the most common name. i will find the link for the policy and post it. sorry user: Therequiembellishere but i dont support you on this one. using bishop is just tooo moticulus and too detailed.

--Chrisisinchrist 03:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC) I changed everything back to Bob since it originally said Bob and it was changed to Bishop without discussion. If anyone supports Bishop name change, please discuss it here before the change is made, since Bob is his common name.--Chrisisinchrist 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bob's full name will be revealed in Monday night's episode "Cautionary Tales" in a scene where Matt talks about "being normal" with Molly. The name is on a sticky on the picture of the group of 12 that Matt is working on. You can see a video preview of the scene at the following link: http://www.comicbookresources.com/news/newsitem.cgi?id=12399 If his full name is used in this chart, it should probably read Robert "Bob" Bishop, or most people won't know to whom it refers. KC (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned this in an edit summary, since we've already decided that Bob will be how he is designated and that we'll use the most common true name we have, it would be illogical to keep Robert on the chart. If we are to do that, we would have to change Matt Parkman to Matthew Parkman, Eden McCain to Sarah Ellis, Candice Wilmer to Betty Wilmer (with a mention of Michelle and Candace), Sylar to Gabriel Gray, Takezo Kensei to Adam Monroe (even in the past version), D.L. Hawkins to Daniel Hawkins, Ted Sprague to Theodore Sprague, Niki Sanders to Nicole Sanders and (assumingly) Claude R. to Claude Rains, or we could put all nicknames in quotation marks, which would include the above and making Arthur Petrelli to Arthur "Dallas" Petrelli and Daniel Linderman to Daniel "Austin" Linderman. Obviously, all of these seem rather silly, so why do them? Bob Bishop is so much better than an unknown Robert Bishop and is more aesthetically pleasing than Robert "Bob" Bishop, especially since he will be the only person on the page to have this distinction. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, user:thereguiembellishire, you are being jerk. Sorry for my language, but you are acting like a child. You are the only user who wants to keep BOB only and not robert, so you loose. If you keep changing it, then I am going to report you to an editor. For the encyclopedic integrity and continuity of the chart, the founders chart has FULL NAMES. All the founders on the chart have their full name. So, stp fighting it. Concensus has already won. Just because we dont call him Bishop in the article it doesnt change his name. We are only using Bob as a reference to his common name. just like linderman. his name on the chart is daniel but we use linderman. if you go to niki's and d.l. pages it will state their real name. you are being ignorant like a child. please stop reverting the change. no one on this forum has supported you in the change. u lost. get over it. you are aware that you are breaking wikipedia policy. the founders chart has full names. that is the intergrity of the chart. everything else has common names. Bob is the nickname for Robert, like Bill is the nickname to William. thank you. get over yourself and your ego--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

And bob has distinction on this page, because he is the only known founder to have a legal nick name. legally, bob is a nickname for robert. so naturally their will be distinction. in the u..s court system, bob is the legal name for robert, and will legally uphold in court. thank you.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Who is the one who fought so hard to use the more common name?! I've conceded that we should use that, which is why we aren't having another edit war over changing Bob to Bishop and visa-versa. Robert is not the common name and you don't seem to have taken any of my counterarguments into consideration. Full names?! Then you're saying that we should remove Ted, Eden, Candice, Matt, Niki, Sylar and the rest and give way to their full names, even though they are less used and keeping both their full names with their nicknames would undoubtedly clutter the page? Consensus hasn't even started! I don't know what you think consensus is, but we've barely begun the process; or course no one has supported me if I just put forth my formal argument an hour ago! Bob's page has his true name as well, in case you haven't looked. And I'm sure I know the policies better than you, I helped you with the the spellings policy, so don't try and pull that card on me. I think you have to get over your ego and address the points and stop trying the circle around them. If we must have Robert "Bob" Bishop, then you should add Arthur "Dallas" Petrelli and Daniel "Austin" Linderman, as those names are more widespread then Arthur and Daniel alone! And before you start accusing others of being childlike, learn your spelling, grammar and punctuation. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, calling me a jerk and a child is also against policy, thank you. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Legal? Since when have writers of a television series truly cared about the legal system when their show has nothing to do with it?! And does anything about the Company seem to be within the United States scope of legality? These people would be hunted down by them if they knew of the activities they've performed, Angela Petrelli says so! And I'm afraid no one really take legality into nicknames either, that's why a girl name Jessica can decide to have all her friends call her Marie, it's at her own discretion what she wants to be called, she won't be arrested for that. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? first off, when i am on the talk page, i dont use "proper" grammer. i just type real fast to get my thoughts down...but i do use proper grammer when i am editing an article. secondly, linderman's common name is mr. linderman, yet we call him daniel. he has never been called daniel on the show or in a graphic novel, yet on the founders chart, we use the name daniel linderman? can you explain that? dallas and austin were not nicknames, they are aliases for the united states government. so, that arguement is shot down. the founders chart is consistant, but using actual names. bob is the only one who has an official american nickname. and since heroes is an american show, then bobs nickname can be listed. until you get more support, you need to leave it as it is, as stated by the users above and the user comments on the history page. i am saying to keep the founders chart consistant with their names...i am not talking about the other sections of the article. if you dont want to keep it consistant, then lets call daniel linderman, linderman, since that is his common name.???? of course not. why would we do that? in the event of that someone writes daniel linderman, you know its linderman, but in the event someone writes robert bishop, they will not know who that is. that is why the legal american nickname for an american show is listed. and talk about my spelling and grammer? please, you spell organization with an S.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, no, you don't that's what half of my edits have been on this page, fixing your blunders. Yes, I can explain Daniel, it's on the official Evolutions site for the Yamagato Fellowship, but more people read the graphic novels than look through all the ins and outs of the extra websites, so they will associate Linderman with Austin and Petrelli as Dallas more readily than Daniel and Arthur, respectively, so that argument is not shut down, remember, we aren't thinking in legal terms, we're thinking with the poilcy that we should use the most common name for a character and even in real-life biographies (that's why it's Tony Blair, not Anthony Blair). Several other characters use nicknames, my examples being Sprague, Parkman, Sanders and Hawkins, so what do we do in those cases? The reason Daniel is listed at all is because we do have a forename for him, but why is he without his alias, which is more well known than his true name? The answer is because it clutters the page, that's why we have links to their own respective pages. If we name him as Bob Bishop, someone is bound to click and see that his full name if Robert, but we needn't clutter the page to include, in some cases (not on this page), their forename, their nicknames, their alias', their middle name and their surname. And just because your ignorant about other cultures around the world besides the United States, doesn't mean the rest of the world should be. Sorry to burst your bubble, but most of the Anglosphere spells the way I do, not you. Just because I can use both Commonwealth and American English with proper spelling, grammar and punctuation when editing a Commonwealth page or an American page, doesn't mean you have a right to criticise me, I had a little slip in policy and just wrote how I normally write without remembering that Heroes is an American programme, so excuse me for being human. So woe be to you when you spell yogurt on a Commonwealth page, and don't ask me how you should have spelled it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello. This discussion is getting way to hot! SPICY! But, I agree with the user named Chris. He makes a valid point about the chart having official names for the Founders, and by adding "Bob" you get a better understanding of who Robert Bishop is. To Therequiembellishere I think you have gone too far attacking peoples punctuation and spelling. Wikipedia is a site where people can post valid information. It is free to many users because wikipedia has a checks and balance system, so to speak, where people can make edits and other users can come behind them and add to it and help correct mistakes to make wikipedia a better place. It is our duty as editors and contributors to help people who make simple spelling and grammatical mistakes. We all do it from time to time. So, I don't think you should down Chris for making a few mistakes from time to time, as I know we all have. And, this is the discussion page, so it doesn't have to be all grammatically correct or have correct spelling. This is the one spot on Wikipedia, where people can just ramble their thoughts. I understand you have also made some mistake in the past too, as we all have. But, remember, Wikipedia just states verifiable facts. Information does not have to be all crazy detailed. This is a simple arguement. It has escaladed to a high level. If you desire to write and contribute in more detail, you should try the HeroesWiki site. They are really backed up and they take elements of the show to the very smallest minute detail. Also, you are wrong. Concensus has begun, it just hasn't ended. I noticed that you are not an editor, and neither am I, but you shouldn't think of yourself higher than any other regular contributor. By looking at the edit history, you have made numerous contributions to this page. Probably too many. I almost feel like you think this is your page and that you should control it. You should make your own heroes blogspot if you want to have power like that. This is a public internet encyclopedia where everyone can contribute. Once again, you seem like a great contributor, but you seem more suited for HeroesWiki. Their project page is backed up, and for someone as detailed as you and for someone who has as much passion for heroes as you do, should consider editing for them. Now, let's take this discussion to a much more peaceful manner.--76.168.220.243 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, we all make spelling, grammatical, and punctuation mistakes. I made a few in the above post, and you just made a couple of spelling and punctuation mistake in your recent post on this discussion page. It is a human mistake, not an American mistake. It happens, so what. That is why we are all here to back one another up and support one another and correct simple mistakes. Also, FYI, Heroes is an American Show and should be edited accordingly.--76.168.220.243 (talk) 05:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't know who the hell Dallas and Austin were until you mentioned it. I beleive in the war buddies graphic novel, it was revealed to be Linderman and Papa Petrelli, but I don't think that should be sited in the founders section. Those are secret identities, not nicknames. --76.168.220.243 (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this has gotten out of hand, but he has made far more than "making a few mistakes from time to time", and I have tried to help and we used to talk on our pages on how to fix problems on this page, but I usually end up having to put it in proper prose, so I'll just say be more careful about how you add things to the page Chris. I did say consensus had begun, thank you, read what I said. I'd rather not use the HeroesWiki, because they are much more shady in their references and, to be honest, much less accurate (most likely from their obscure references, mostly fan-based). No, I don't think I own this page, I've explained that the reason I have many edits on the page are fix-ups I see as I continue to look at it, because looking at one large clump of page and going through the entire page to find mistakes only leads me to edit it more, because I miss far more and the sandbox is constantly used in, to be nice about it, non-tests that I'd rather not look at and make it hard to edit through. Now that we have you in the mix, would you like to address some of my points and more on why you support Chris? Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and sorry for being so harsh and brisk on your talk page, and I did mention that I had a slip on policy and when Chris pointed out that the show was American, I woke up and re-Americanised the page.Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, well, I don't agree with Chris calling you a jerk. But, like it says on most talk pages, sometimes discussion get a little heated. We shouldn't knock him for that, but Chris, I do ask that you be a little more respectful on the talk page, because disrespect is punishable...for lack of a better term. Secondly, I support keeping Robert "Bob" Bishop because all the other founders on the founders chart have their complete names, why shouldn't he? Now, remember, I am talking about the Founders chart, not all the other charts on the page. The founders seem to be very significant to the Heroes Universe. Out of all the major characters, Bob is really the only one to have a recognizable nick name. If you tag Bishop all throughout the article, it would confuse users, because most users don't know who Bishop is. But, we know Bob. I am supporting the founders chart to have full names with a nickname in the middle. Bob is not an alias, it is really his name, like Niki is for Nicole and Chris is for Christopher. Aliases and secret identities are not real name. Austin and Dallas are not real names or nicknames; they are secret identities or aliases. I think in the case of Bob, we need to use the entire Robert "Bob" Bishop so that the character can be identified with respect to his real name like the other founders. He goes by Bob, but Robert is his name. It is not the same as Kensei and Monroe, because Kensei was an alias, not a nickname. Monroe is his real name. If you go to the character pages, it will tell you Niki is Nicole and D.L. is Daniel, but for continuality on the founders page, Bobs full name should be used, with respect and references to his common name. Just like Daniel Linderman. You know it is Mr. Linderman, because of the Linderman. With Robert Bishop, how do you know it is Bob? In defense of users making too many mistakes on spelling and punctuation and all that, I can not beleive that, because the article currently has some punctuality mistakes that have been overlooked. So, you are not policing the page as thoroughly as you think...no offense. The use of comma's on this page is out of control...lol...But, I support Chris, because the character or Bob is very distinct...(I hope I spelled that right...wierd word). It's not like we are saying Angela "Angie" Petrelli" or Arthur "Artie" Petrelli or Daniel "Danny" Linderman." Why not? Because those are not nicknames that the characters have taken on. Bob is different because he has a nickname. Okay people, I am done. I support keeping Robert "Bob" Bishop. Why? Because he has a nickname that is more distinctive than the other characters. He is a founder and the founders list has full names...and he will be more recognizable this way, because most people know Bob, but wouldn't recognize Bishop or Robert. If you write Nicole Sanders or Daniel Lawrence Hawkins, people can at least identify with one of the names (either the first name or the last name). With Robert Bishop, people can't identify with either name. So, why not stick Bob in their? Well, goodnight. This arguement is going to redundant after Monday's episode anyway, because they are going to reveal Bob's real name on the show...lol...Bye--76.168.220.243 (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I added a talk header for future references and to keep things "cooled down" on the talk page.--76.168.220.243 (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, Therequiembellishere, I noticed you went throughout Wikipedia and changed Bob to Bob Bishop (on the template and Character page is where I mostly noticed it). You should wait until this discussion is over before you make those changes. It is disrepectful for you to make those changes while it is still being discussed on the talk page. Please revert your changes until their has been a concensus. SMILES.--76.168.220.243 (talk) 06:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think Bob Bishop does constitute as his full name, I mean my name is Benjamin, but I don't go on documents as Benjamin "Ben" (last name), it's one or the other. SO I think what really need to be decided is do we use Bob or Robert? The rest of the page uses Bob, mind you, so that's why I support Bob. Also, if you click the Bob (Heroes) link, the first sentence tell you, "Robert Bishop, more commonly known as Bob, portrayed by Stephen Tobolowsky, is a fictional character featured in the television show Heroes", so it is telling you his full name. Oh, you apparently thought I was supporting the use of Robert Bishop (sorry, I'm making comments as I go through your own!). No, I'm not, and I wasn't saying I was perfect, I was just saying that someone added the front organisations as lists and I turned it into prose because it looked, well, awful. I'm sure most users know that Bob is a nickname for Robert but, again I don't support Robert Bishop, I support Bob Bishop. But even after they reveal his name, the argument will again become, "Do we use Robert or Bob", so we might as well fix it now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I know I am supposed to be sleep, but I wanted to say I hope I did not offend you by telling you to go to HeroesWiki. They just seem to speculate a lot and they, for lack of a better word, rush to post things before it has been verified. I just thought that might be a better fit for you. Also, I have to defend user Chris a little bit, because you were a little harsh with him (not saying he was either.) To Chris, calm down. I will just say that. I understand your points, but please communicate them better to the users. To Therequiembellishere I was going to say, that although Chris does not have the best spelling and punctuation (in your opinion), he has contributed a lot to this page. I mean, this page looks great! So, we can not knock him for that. You have also contributed a lot and I commend you for that. But just remember, we are a support system. Chris has set up a lot of foundation with the "Company History" section and the "Developments" section and "Organization and Operations" section. You may not have approved of his writting style, but like I said, we support each other. And, if he is a little rusty with spelling and grammatical errors, that is exactly why we have other users to help clean the articles up. But, lets not knock him for his contributions. I support you both as fellow contributors. I just do not think things need to get ugly or a name change.--76.168.220.243 (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just say, with respect to the article, I will support my original support of Robert "Bob" Bishop. But this discussion will probably be reopened and redebated on Monday, after Heroes airs, because his name will be revealed to the public, and THEN, maybe we can start calling him just Robert Bishop or Bob Bishop since the GENERAL PUBLIC will know his name. (Sorry for using caps. I dont feel like typing bolds. I am sleepy). But, like I said, you are rushing to post it, before it has been verified on television. Once Monday's episode airs, I will pull my support to Bob Bishop, because then it will be verified. But, I won't support it now, because we are just rushing to post stuff like this is a Fan site and we are posting news or something. I do not support that. Let's wait until Monday's airing. Also, you shouldn't post any parts of your real name. I know you are making an arguement here, but there have been incident in the past with users doing that. Goodnight Benny Boy! OUTTY 5,000!!--76.168.220.243 (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

exactly. why cant we just wait until monday when the general masses see it aired on tv. we are always in such a rush. its like we want to be the first ones to post something. the people that come to wikipedia for information (i am not talking about the editors or users or passionate heroes fans) but those who are into the show, but not crazy into it, wont know who robert bishop is until monday. adding bob makes more sense. and therequiembellishere i am not offended that you talked about my editing and spelling, but is kinda low. i mean, it happens. lighten up. its not your job to edit my mistakes. it not like if you dont do it, it wont get done. another user will come and fix it, so dont feel so obligated to fix my mistakes. i love this page as much as you, and you have been editing my HUGE contribs to this page which used to be crap. now it has great sections with great encyclopedic information. so, i guess it is whatever for now. i still stand by the other users and the users on the history page who have used the edit summaries to support this discussion. g2g--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow! This discussion has really grown overnite! I agree with the other users about Robert "Bob" Bishop, because you can understand it better. I think the one user who disagrees is making a big deal about something that isn't that important...but I respect your opinion on the matter. But, I don't think we need to judge what is aesthetically pleasing and what is not. That is silly. But, I will say that if we were to write Nicole Sanders or Theodore Sprague or Matthew Parkman must people would have a general idea of who that person is. If you write Robert Bishop, people would not have a clue who that is. It is less confusing this way. And Bob is his nickname. I say use it the way it is. I mean, we use Daniel Linderman, but his common name is Linderman. But, people know who Daniel Linderman is because of the Linderman. Robert Bishop alone doesn't have Bob anywhere in it. Like someone said above...it is a nickname not an alias or secret identity...Oh gosh, I don't know. I am going to have to support the majority on this one. By the way, I am not a new member, I just had to change my user name.--Twrighto2o (talk) 18:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed it has, even though I still think people would get Bob Bishop to be Stephen Tobolowsky, I believe it was agreed to keep it as Robert "Bob" Bishop for now and change it to Bob Bishop when "Cautionary Tales" airs on the 20th. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Linderman murdered?

It wasn't exactly murder, was it? He was killed by DL, who was defending Niki. I'm thinking he should just be listed as deceased. 209.162.223.254 03:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But then what is the manner of death? I consider someone killing someone else murder, no matter the circumstances; of course, legally Hawkins wouldn't go to jail. Therequiembellishere 15:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to get technical about it, it should probably be called "justifiable homicide" instead of "murder", because D.L. would have the legal defense of protecting another.
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1303&bold=||||
http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1089&bold=|||| KC (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elle Bishop too Speculative

I dont know if we should list Elle as Elle Bishop. That may or may not be true, as she may be an adoptive daughter of Bob. I saw the previews are comicbookresources.com and it only confirmed that elle is bob's daughter, but not that he last name is bishop. also, we dont know if elle is biological or not. we should wait until the ep airs and see if it can be verified. no rush, lets just wait until it is verified.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Way to speculative at this point. I heard rumor Elle and Claire might be related. We should wait until it is revealed on the show.--76.168.220.243 (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
As long as the episode does air. I wonder why people are so quick to strike these days? Americans, French, British, Germans, Malaysians, Myanma, Venezuelans, Pakistanis, Georgians, Spaniards, everyone it seems is either striking, protesting or demonstrating! Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the episode will air on Monday. There are 3 episodes left before the unexpected "Fall Finale." Cautionary Tales airs this Monday, next Monday is Truth and Consequences and after that is the "finale", (so to speak) which is called Powerless. Go to the Heroes Episode page for full airdates and descriptions. And although this is not a forum for idle discussion, I will say that the Writer's Strike sucks, but they deserve to get paid more.--76.168.220.243 (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death threats

I'm confused at this point, we mention Angela, Kaito and Bob and being threatened, but Maury also had a picture; was that a fake? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

we can only speculate at this point, because it hasnt been mentioned on the show. even though my opinion dont matter, i think maury may have gotten a death threat and then told adam that he would help him if he didnt kill him. just my POV. But, we know maury was adams tool, we just dont know the circumstance behind it. so, i dont know if it was a death threat. do you think we should add his name since that is more factual, since he did receive one. maybe we should just wait until the explanantion is revealed.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking, so I think he should be added. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Everything Maury showed Nathan and Matt was an illusion created by his power, including the picture of himself. This was illustrated when they found the real picture of Bob after Matt dispelled the nightmare worlds Maury created for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.163.11.22 (talk) 18:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manner of Death

Is this column really needed? Especially with the notes section we really don't need this column. Most of the 12 are unknown at this time, though Parkman states Pratt is the only one alive besides Angela. Therefore we have huge blanks with no info in it or likely to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vg0131 (talk • contribs) 03:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No, but before we remove it, somebody add Petrelli's suicide on his section in the list of characters in heroes. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Now all of their respective pages are filled out, can we bin this column? Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I undid your deletion of the manner of death, because it wasnt really discussed here on the talk page by any of the users. We can't just change it without an actual concensus. If one is not met, then it remains the same, i beleive that is the policy, but I am not sure. Anyway, I think it should stay. My reasoning is because in the cases of Harry Fletcher and Suzanne Ammaw, we dont have any character bios on them, so, when the show eventually does reveal how they did, users can not click on their names for more infomration, because they dont have pages or character bios. So i think we need to keep it. If Harry, Suzanne and Paula were murdered by Adam, that is important enough to stay on the page, and once again, how would new users know how they died since they dont have bio pages? We should at least wait until Generations ends on December 3, to see if any new imformation will be revealed about the group of 12. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
But they're how they died isn't really needed, it doesn't add anything to the page. But if you really want it, what if we incorporate it into the notes section. Like under Ammaw's not say: "Originally on the list of evolved humans by Chandra Suresh. It it unknown how she died." Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, thats a good idea. I am just saying, like with Linderman, we can just click his page and find out how he died...but with the newbies, we can't. So, we still need to list it. Man, go for it. A list of notes might be good if you can format it good. why dont you work on it since it was your idea and then we can discuss it when you are finished to make sure everything is accurate and all the info is their. yeah?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Better? Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

yeah, looks great.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture with the members of the company

I included a link to the picture a couple of edits ago, but it was removed. I thought it was very relevant. I included the link:

http://heroeswiki.com/images/3/34/Group_of_12_postitnotes.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by The monkeyhate (talk • contribs) 18:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WE can;t use it because it's from a wiki, apparently. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
What if we upload it to imageshack or something? --The monkeyhate (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If you can upload it into Commons, that'd be great (I don't know how), but it doesn't really matter. The cite episode is fine, it serves the same purpose. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Front organizations

I'm thinking of getting rid of the unnamed fronts (the facility in Alaska, the facility in Hartsdale, Isaac Mendez's loft, the nameless law firm) because none of them have had any impact on the series and they haven't really been seen since. I also wanted to add front employees to the individual sections, because they do work for the Company, but not in the full sense, some with full knowledge of its activities and some without. Ando and Kimiko and even Hiro technically work for the Company, but they don't follow te overall policy, so they only work for the front. And objections? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Known Fronts

Okay, I think the Known Fronts list is a little out of Control...We need to specify the actual buildings that have been fronted as ordinary buildings but are really a cover-up for company business. Some of these listed are not known fronts.

What are known fronts?

  1. Corinthian Casino-real company interaction has taken place here. The archives are here, the info on niki and d.l., isaacs paintings and more.
  2. Deveaux Building- lots of company interaction here, including the photo of the twelve and the handoff of Claire
  3. Facility in Alaska
  4. Facility in Hartsdale
  5. Issacs loft
  6. Kirby Plaza
  7. Primatech


What is NOT a front

  1. Yamagato- What Company interactions have taken place at Yamagoto?
  2. Petrelli law firm- nothing has happened here.
  3. Montecito Casino- What Company related interactions have taken place here?
  4. Pharmatech Industries- this was just a company that made the injections, but it never said the company owned it.
  5. the linderman group- this is not a physical business, but a company name. it doesnt have a building, so it can not be a front. a front organization is something to appears to be one thing, but is not.

I am going to reorganize the list. Please come and discuss it with me if you disagree with what i am doing. please disuss here.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Pharmatech I think is definetely a Company front, they make the injections and attack Ted when they realize he's an evolved human. Yamagato has the Heroes Evolutions connection, which includes massive information on "fictional" heroes (including Monroe) and Hana considers it akin to the Corinthian Casino's repository of information. The Petrelli firm can go, we don't have any information from here. The Montecito has the Sakamoto connection, who is clearly closer to Linderman than his other front employees, she even blackmails Nathan with the tape of him having sex with Niki; it is also part of the Linderman Group. The Linderman Group doesn't have a building, no, but I think it's a front because on the outside, it's just a business empire built on casinos, underneath is the election rigging and the mafia connections. Of course, there's a high chance that there is a Linderman Group headquarters and we just didn't get to see it, too. I think we should order the Linderman group as something like this:

[edit] Linderman Group

Corinthian Casino
Montecito Casino

Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, i just read the graphic novel about pharmatec, and they are clearly a supplier, but not a company business. they tell ted that they make injections to track wildlife, which the company obviously manipulated and is ordering the tracking devices and using them on humans. so that is cleared up. pharmatech should stay in the others section because it is connected to the company, but not directly. maybe we should change corinthian to the linderman group and just make mention of both hotels. lastly, hana was just speculating that nakamura was involved, but she hasnt presented proof in the heroes 360 experience. she just speculated that he may be involved. but hiro, ando and kimiko do not work for the company. they work for yamagato. it is just a company that kaito owns. until we have a verifiable source saying that kaito and yamagato are a front of the company, we cant put it. we dont know the truth yet. nakamura may have opened yamagato after he left the company. we dont know yet. too speculative. i will make the fixes.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

also, hartsdale is where bob is and all the interactions with bob take place at hartsdale. it is still important. Check out the edits i made and let me know what you think about it now.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's good, but what about the loft and the Alaskan facility? I don't think they're necessary. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

even though the loft and alaska are not in the current show, in order for this page to be encyclopedic, it has to be added. remember, wikipedia doesnt just post what is recent or what is happening now, but it is a collection of info based on the entire series. so alaska and the loft should stay.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 15:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

But they're so horribly minor. Wikipedia isn't a indiscriminate collection of information either, that's why I only added major people associated with Yamagato and Linderman, on the Heroes Wiki, they have Rufus the night watchman, who has no right being here because of his minority. I feel the same should apply to the loft and the Alaskan facility. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, especially in the case of the loft, if it was just a first season thing, I would say scrap it, but the fact that they put the loft in the second season shows that it has some significance to the continual plot. I beleive in the canadian preview for heroes, monday's episode will have some scenes in the loft...but i am not sure if i was looking at the loft or at the hartsdale facility. but, we should wait and see how that one plays out. as far as the alaskan facility, with all things considered, i say to keep that as well. it may not be currently important, but it is still plot significant in the characters of bennet and hana, who play a big role in the overall series. maybe we should get some more discussion on this from other users so we can hear another users perspective.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My recent undid changes

As said, some IP number removed all of the abilities and added Unknown. I've been trying to fix that.

See here. They were there before, and now there's a controversy against me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Company_%28Heroes%29&oldid=173874588

--GSK (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes! They were there before! Tbat doesn't make them good, so stop acting like the world is on your shoulders! The page's history will also say that Peter is one hot fuckin' dude that I had babies with, or something or other, that doesn't mean it's true! My God! Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
And I see you've identified the IP's edits as vandalism, and comment on Chris' page about him breaking policy, when you are the one in clear violation of policy! Since when have their powers been mentioned in any canonical, near-canonical or secondary source?! Never is the answer, my friend, believe me I check all of the sources, including spoilers and it has NEVER been stated. EVER. PERIOD. It was implied (or inferred, I'm not sure how to use those two) by Bob that one of them may have the power of weather manipulation, but as to which one is open! You putting them there and damning others for getting rid of them is, dare I say it, completely ridonkulous and disgustipating! (Please have a sense of humour!) I do see that you removed your comment from Chris' page, which is good, but if you didn't mean to say it, then either omit it from here or state that you were wrong. Well, you can't omit it now that I've answered, so if you think you were wrong, just reply with that comment. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
"so stop acting like the world is on your shoulders!"
Oh, God, just SHUT UP. Go crawl back in your hole. Yes, I realize I'm in the wrong, but your presentation of telling me that could've been a whole lot fuckin' better. --GSK (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It definetely could have, but you were crying to the world and needed to know. I'm pretty honest when it comes to things like this. Unfortunately, I see you don't have a sense of humour. D-: Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I do have a sense of humor, but if someone treats me like a jackass, I don't. --GSK (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Good Lord! It's over! Stop talking! Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two things

First off, it is clearly stated the they are at Primatech Research and Kaito says something akin to, "WE need to send this to our Primatech Facility in Texas" so they are clearly not the same thing. I didn't see if it actually gave it as Hartsdale, but Pratt's laboratory is exactly the same as where Bob and Mohinder has they're standoff and the rest is exactly the same. I figured that you guys would get this, but this is a precursor in case you didn't here the line. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Primatech Paper and Primatech Research are different. BUT, we dont know if Primatech Research and Hartsdale are the same yet. We need to wait until that is verified, because it the Hartsdale facility is primatech research, then why hadnt they called it that before? Also, why did the producers keep labeling it hartsdale new york facility instead of primatech research? we should speculate. just because they look the same doesnt mean they are.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
yes, I agree. We need it to be more verifiable. Not even heroeswiki.com is stating that they are the same and they are very speculative over at heroeswiki.com.--75.31.79.111 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, and more importantly, I'd like to know if we can simply remove all things in the notes section for the linked founders, leaving notes for Pratt, Ammaw, Fletcher, Gramble and Mendez. The link are there for a reason, and I or somebody else can incorporate them into the Company history if it must be there. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think removing the notes for the linked characters is a good idea. Only the characters who do not have a link should have notes, because their is really no other place to learn about them. Maybe in the fute, when we learn more, we can do quick one paragraph bios on all the minor founders.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Everything looks so great...especially the Company history. It is better organized. I love it. Good job you guys. --75.31.79.111 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually had three things. I think we should start an entirely new section devoted entirely to the Shanti virus. I'll need help erecting it, because there's a lot of information. I pend doing these until further comment. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I started the shanti section. it needs wikilinks and needs to be checked for spelling and grammer. I also chronologically ordered the company history, so it is more in universe style, rather than placed in the order the information was revealed. i think it is better. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Love the new Shanti virus section too!--75.31.79.111 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murders

Please keep in mind that the murders of the minor founders has not been revealed. we dont know if adam monroe killed them or if they died from other causes. maybe monroe will have a big confession on mondays episode.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree!--75.31.79.111 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Pratt said, "You killed Kaito, didn't you? And the others too!" and he sat there smiling slyly. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Thats still speculative. I mean, we cant interpret facial expression. I am sure monroe will have a huge confession on monday. no rush. tim kring already stated that everything will be resolved in the season finale. we will probably get a definite answer by then--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article rewrite

Hello. I am sorry...I was very confused as to the wikipedia policy on writting fiction. Can someone please explain this policy in its simpliest terms so that I can understand how to better write and edit this article...thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind...i just read the policy and I am clear. Now, lets all work together to improve this article so we can get that sucky tag taken off. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shanti Virus

Shanti Virus is a proper noun. Why do we keep lowercasing the virus part? If it were written Shanti virus, then that would imply that the virus is just called Shanti. It is a proper noun therefore, it has a proper name, which is Shanti Virus. I will make the changes it no one disagrees--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Shanti is a proper noun, not virus. Like Tourette syndrome-- Tourette is the discoverer and the disease is named arfter him, so the s is lowercase. Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Tourettes syndrome is correct because it can also be called tourettes. If this rule were to be applied to Shanti virus for example, could it also be called Shanti?

"I am searching for medical treatment for my uncle, who has been diagnosed with tourettes." VERSUS "Its okay Niki, I will find a cure for the Shanti" or "I am searching for medical treatment for my cousing...She was diagnosed with Shanti" JUST WONDERING --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am chaging Shanti virus back to Shanti Virus. Why? Because I found a third party source that confirms that Shanti Virus is a proper noun. YEAH!! Here is a third party link, from NBC.com Universal media heroes homepage. This is the site that releases official press releases to the public and to public newspapers and affiliates, for those who dont know...here is the link.... http://nbcumv.com/entertainment/storylines.nbc/heroes.html and here is an a copy and paste confirmation.

IT’S HERO VS. HERO AS THE SERIES’ “VOLUME II: GENERATIONS” COMES TO AN EXPLOSIVE, BLOODY FINISH -- Deep below Primatech Paper in Odessa, TX, Peter’s (Milo Ventimiglia) reunion with Nathan (Adrian Pasdar) turns violent when the brothers, Matt (Greg Grunberg) and Hiro (Masi Oka) all clash thanks to Adam (David Anders) and his pursuit of the deadly Shanti Virus. After watching his heroic cousin captured by a street gang, Micah (Noah Gray-Cabey) turns to the one person who can help him save Monica (Dana Davis) -- his mom (Ali Larter). Meanwhile, Maya (Dania Ramirez) tragically learns how much of a monster Sylar (Zachary Quinto) really is during his kidnapping of Molly (Adair Tishler) and Suresh (Sendhil Ramamurthy). Meanwhile, Elle (Kristen Bell) decides to play hero to get back into her father’s (Stephen Tobolowsky) good graces. Jack Coleman, James Kyson Lee and Hayden Panettiere also star.

Please check the link for yourself if you even care...lol Just click on the powerless link. thanks guys...i love wikipedia because you can discuss things and prove your case...lol--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But we can't possibly trust the media and stage industry to be correct about such matters. Half of American theatre that takes place in Europe call football soccer! See every virus on Wikipedia's title name and you'll see that virus is in lowercase. See: Category:Virus . Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
its not just the media...this is from nbc.com...if they want to officially call the shanti virus SHANTI VIRUS, then that is what is it. thats what i think.--Chrisisinchrist 16:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
They also misspelled Boul. Saint-Jacques as Boul. Saint-Jaque and said that Louisiana has counties instead of parishes. NBC is incorrect in this case, as proven by any virus, disease, syndrome, etc. I can look through the Physician's Desk Reference in my cabinet and copy the pages onto here if you'd like, but NBC is wrong. Therequiembellishere 04:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primatech Research

Is considered the same as the Hartsdale facility by the Heroes Wiki. [1] Therequiembellishere 16:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I dont think heroes wiki is a viable source. it still hasnt been confirmed on the show. Hopefully on monday we will see a scene in bobs office or something, and when the name pops up, it will clarify everything.--Chrisisinchrist 17:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Claude's death

I'm pretty sure Claude is dead as Sylar becomes invisible after getting the FBI to arrest Ted. (and he is interested in the ability in the loft with peter prior to that, so i think we can change rogue to dead in the table —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.169.17 (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing Sylar turning invisible, but even if he did, that doesn't necessarily mean that he got the ability from Claude. We have seen the same ability repeat in different people (flying in Nathan and West, and telepathy in Matt and Maury), so that doesn't necessarily mean that he got the ability from Claude. Tim Kring has also talked about wanting to have Christopher Eccleston back to play Claude, if Eccleston's schedule allows, so I don't think he's dead, yet. KC (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elle at Primatech Paper Company

I noticed on the History that two editors/contributors have been reverting changes about Elle working at Primatech as one of her front organizations. I have read and reread the graphic novel, Elle's first Assignment and have found no verifiable evidence to state that she was affiliated with that organization. There is some speculation based on a comment that Eden McCain makes in the graphic novel, however, things that are implied have not been proven to be true. This opens up to much speculation and to much OR (Original Research). I hope that the user who keeps reverting the change is aware of the 3 reverts rule at wikipedia and should come to the discussion board here to discuss their perspectus on the topic. Gracias.--75.28.155.201 (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It is directly stated that she worked under Eden as a trainee. Eden worked for Noah since she came to the Company and only in Primatech. Elle worked under her in Primatech. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Speculation. Eden could have trained her elsewhere. Ophois (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you...speculation. Eden wasnt even with the Company that long. She joined six months ago, in episode 6 months ago. and then she was killed by suicide. elle has been associated with the company for most of her life. you are just speculating. please dont readd primatech until it is verified.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 21:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
No, you said it, Eden has only been at the Company for six months. She has only worked in Primatech! It is ridiculous to think that she moved somewhere else to train Elle! Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
It's still speculation. Ophois (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Right, it's speculation. No matter what Therequiembellishere says, it's not going to turn it into a fact. What if she did move for a two or three months?--76.26.31.85 (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I think it's speculation to assume the Eden has moved in her short period of time as an agent. Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Either way it is speculation and OR if we add anything. So, in order for their not to be speculation on any front, we leave it blank and dont add it. Duh! lol--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Monroe was not in the Photo of the twelve

A user removed adam from the chart of the company founders in the group photo. I think that user was right. the sub-section of founders in group photo and the chart of the founders is in the sub subject of group photo. so adam doesnt belong on the chart. some info has been added on why monroe is not in the chart and not in the photo under the section of founders. i think this is a much more accurate way of doing things, rather than just adding monroe when he wasnt in the photo. he is still mention in the main section which is founders, but shouldnt be listed in the sub section which refers to the group photo. thanks.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

But then his power is never mentioned, we don't need a group of tweleve sub-section, the founders section was fine. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
The sections need to be divided because the article has to be written out of universe, not in universe. it is not a big deal that his powers arent mentioned and if you feel it needs to be mentioned, i will add it to the paragraph in the founders section on the company page, that way all sides will be satisfied. but their is out of universe information about the group photo in that section and monroe was not in the photo. remember, this is a notable encyclopedia, not a synopsis or a play by play. we need to make sure all articles with fiction have out of univerve information.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I realise that but the group of tweleve is nothing more than the assembled group of founders. I don't think it should be a section. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Has it been established on the show that Monroe is one of the founders of the Company? I remember them saying that he brought them all together, but in episode Cautionary Tales, when Peter and Monroe are in his home in Montreal, Monroe looks at the photo and says that they are the company founders. He doesnt say that he founded the company. i need to do some research, but if you have a verifiable reference that says Monroe was a founder of the company, please let me know so. otherwise, assuming would be OR and that violates wikipedia policy...--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I am just asking for a definitive source, not something suggested, or implied or any original research or assumptions. I am not challenging whether monroe was a founder i am just asking for a ref or a qoute.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the very fact that he brought them together is the biggest one. And though this is OR, I should think that Adam would lie to Peter and never tell him that he was a member of the Company. Like he never told him that he was going to kill the world, not save it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You are right. It is notable that he brought them all together and that is in the article. But, he is not in the group photo and he has not been identified as a founder. so, we cant speculate. The reason I did a sub section called group photo is because I found some great information on the photo in an out of universe interview with tim kring and I wanted to make sure it was posted and identifiable. monroe is convered in the founders section, which i think is a better fit because the article section is about the photo and how the groupo photo retrofits to the death photos.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do we know if there is a connection between Carlos Mendez and Isaac Mendez

I mena it is not like the original heroes did not have kids so it could be possible but i am wondering if there was a connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.137.237 (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there is, but we can't put in any OR. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Drucker

I have seen no evidence that richard drucker worked for or was associated with the Company. from what has been presented in the heroes 360 experience, he is simply another evolved human like hana gitelman, who is using his power, which is the same as hanas to unearth some of the secrets that the company has been hiding. from his info in the heroes 360 experience, it only states that the company has a tracking file on him and that he hates the founders for reasons which have not been stated. but, i have seen no evidence or anything to state that he was an company agent or used by the company. it is original research until it has been verified and should be removed from the page until verified source can be sited. the current source that is tagged to drucker does not state that he worked for the company. it just says he hates the founders and is helping hana dig up secrets. thats it. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 19:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

06 November 2007: "Richard Drucker is a name I have recently become familiar with, yet I've never met him. What I do know is that he was once connected to Linderman and "The Company". He could prove to be a valuable in our pursuit.

To find out more, click HERE.

To learn a bit more about him, check out his Primatech Assignment Tracker File here.

For Future reference, to enter Primatech's Assignment Tracker as Linderman:

Go to the About Us page:

Username: Linderman Password potpie

To access Drucker's File: A012

Username: Linderman Password: RDghx11a

HG"

07 November 2007: "Drucker has made contact. This could be the break we need to find out more about the founding fathers of "The Company." I have a hunch that Drucker may have known many of them personally. Let's hope he's willing to share more.

Here's what he sent:

Hana,

Does this video look familiar? We should talk, there's more to tell. I've been watching them too...for a long time.

-Drucker

Looks like Drucker was monitoring Linderman's plan to blow up NYC too. Wonder why? I sent him a reply.

Let's hope he gets back to us soon. I'm anxious to see if he has more to reveal. Until then, we wait...with bated breath...

HG"

Emboldening done by me. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is all great information, but what does it prove? It does prove that drucker worked for the company. it just proves that he has knowledge of the company, which may be due to his ability. parkman was abducted by the company, and is associated with the company because he was abducted and has a tracking file. that doesnt mean he worked for the company. also, just because he has knowledge of the company and its founders, doesnt mean he is working for them. claire and peter both have knowledge of the company and its founders. should they also be included in the article? if anything, it sounds like hana is speculating. she says I have a hunch that Drucker may have known many of them personally.' Hunch is a very very very speculative word. she is just speculating. him being knowledgable of the company doesnt prove he worked for them. you have to have a verified source to make that claim or wait until it is verified in the heroes 360 experience. just because he was connected to linderman and the company, once again doesnt mean he worked for them or was an employee. nathan was connected with the company and linderman. should he be added as an employee as well? i know it was a good faith edit, but since it has not been verified, i will remove it until a source can be claimed that is not speculative. --Chrisisinchrist (talk) 04:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What I do know is that he was once connected to Linderman and "The Company" is clearly 'not' speculative. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nathan was connected to Linderman and the Company. Did Nathan work for the Company? If the answer is yes, then add Drucker, if the answer is no, then it is speculative. Now, do you understand? Just because he is connected to Linderman and the Company, doesnt clearly state that he worked for the Company. Aaron Malsky was connected to Linderman and the Company. Matt Parkman was connected to Linderman and the Company. Ted Sprague was connected by Linderman and the Company. So what...doesnt prove anything. Drucker was abducted by the Company and given an assignment tracker file. but, that doesnt prove he was an employee or agent. Please find something more verifiable--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Sprague's case was entirely different, but Nathan's isn't. Nathan did work for the Company as an associate, just as Drucker did. I'm not saying Drucker or Nathan were agents, but the heading includes associates, and they were both definitely associates. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
No, I dont think so. In the case of Molly and Isaac, they knew that they were working for the company. Isaac with primatech and molly with kirby plaza. but nathan, he was under the impression that this was something that Linderman and Angela were orchestrating. He did not work for the company nor was he associated with it. i think that is a little far fetched. we also have to make sure that we are consistant with the nathan petrelli page, where they make no mention of him working with the company. i dont think nathan or drucker have been verified, unlike the rest of the agents and employees in the article. i say leave them out unless it is verified. if anything, nathan worked for linderman group since they funded the election. thats it. drucker, he seems like he wants to take the company down, but it has not been confirmed that he was an employee or associate.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

"The Last Shangri-La": After digging through the rubble of Daniel Linderman's private archives, Hana Gitelman is closer than ever to obtaining critical information about The Company. Answers to her questions lie with a mysterious man named "Drucker", a rogue associate of the Founders. A new Hero is introduced when Hana enlists the help of her allies, and a wanderer named "Trav" answers the call. And anyway, shouldn't we move all of the Linderman Group's list of employees down to the main list as the list is meant to include associates, and that's exactly what all of the people in the Group's list are (with the exception of Niki, an actual agent). Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, this looks like a verified source. I will add drucker to the associates section until we learn more about him. you can add your ref link when you have time. good job finding a source. that makes drucker verifiable.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I knew I'd seen it somewhere, it just took a while to remember where! Lol. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos

Since articles need some photo or some pics. Does anyone have any photos they can upload that dont violate wikipedia policy or copyright issues?--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hank & Lisa

When was it every hinted or stated that Hank had an ability? "Company protocol" was mentioned. Would someone elaborate on that?--Ice Vision (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

We're talking about Lisa and it's specifically stated that agents are paired by having one with an ability and one without. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
However, there is absolutely no proof that they were paired.--Ice Vision (talk) 18:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
No, the fact that they were paired as Claire's parents says that they were paired. Unless otherwise stated, they were paired and it is OR to assume that they weren't. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be OR to assume that hank or lisa had powers. We know hank didnt because when Sylar killed him, sylar did not take his brain. Lisa, we dont know, so we should place it as NONE until it has been verified. if we have some more sources, we could have written "unspecified" however, we dont, so we leave it as none until it is verified. but, we can not assume they were agents who were paired together because we dont know. bennet could have grabbed any two people. remember, bennet was secretly keeping claire from the company, so the company probably didnt know what he was doing. but, we dont have proof that they were paired as two agents on an assignment or if they were asked by bennet to do it. it really doesnt matter because hank and lisa arent that notable. lisa has been on heroes for like three minutes? who cares. leave it at none. dont speculate--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
This is far too speculative. It was never stated in the show that Hank and Lisa were partners. In fact, the only reason they were together is this: Hank is a male and Lisa is a female. They posed as Claire's biological parents (male and female), and nothing more. What if Hank's partner was a male? Would they pose as Claire's parents? No, that's ridiculous. Assuming anything else is, again, speculation.--Ice Vision (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with user Ice Vision...--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

You've established that. :-) Fine, consensus wins. Therequiembellishere (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I Don't Know Where To Put Her...

Hey all

I was rewatching Heroes Season one and in the episode "Seven Minutes to Midnight" while Mohinder is in India, Mira Shenoy mentions she has a new job for THE Company as a scientist of some sort. I would put her in but I don't know where. StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 01:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea who that is so I'll cheque on her. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
No, she's a geneticist at her own company. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Powered Founders

Adam brought together people like him, doesn't that either strongly indicates or flat out means that they all have powers, doesn't it? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, thats speculation. Even saying that gramble and fletcher having powers is speculation. suresh always says that the list is a group of people who have a special genetic marker that may indicate that they have a special ability. but it was never confirmed that everyone on the list has a power. do you have a third party ref link to verify that?
I don't know which episode, but a lot of the Monroe one's mention that he found "people like him". Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lidnerman Group

I do not support the linderman group employees being merged with the associates of the company section. why? because that is speculative. linderman was doing his own things with his employees and not neccesarily the business of the company. if we are going to add his employees, then we need to add all the employees of all the founders like peter petrelli, who worked for deveaux, hiro ando and kimiko who worked for nakamura, the maid that works at the petrelli mansion for angela and so on and so forth. aaron malsky collected money for linderman. it had nothing to do with the company. nikki was an assasin for linderman, not the company. she borrowed money from linderman and had to pay him back by working for him. she did not do that for the company. she didnt even know what the company was until season 2. nathans campaign was funded by linderman group, not the company. he didnt know about the companys plans until the end of the first season.--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] archive

[edit] Can someone archive this page...all the topics are closed.