Talk:Peter Petrelli/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

What was archived

• Don't add Elle - the need for citing plot points while, though clear to us, is speculative to add
• Semi-Protection - request for semi-protection of the page
• Chart - discussion of the cruft-attracting powers list
• Plot length - discussion of in- vs. out-universe article style
• Artwork of Peter Petrelli - discussion of PP's artwork as contributing to the article
• Enhanced memory? - again, discussion of including info deduced, not cited
• "Healing_factor" - how it heals an exploding man
• Memory of his mother - discussion about how PP recovered his memories
• How many categories are we going to add to this poor guy? - discussion as to capping the limit of powers PP uses through his passive ability of mimicry/absorption (and not empathy)
• Extra Boxes - more discussion of the the crufty nature of the benefactor cateogry
• Space/time manipulation exhibited in Collision - revisiting whether PP can time travel
• Is Wikipedia the appropriate place for topics based on a fictional universe - discussion over where fictional elements even need to be in Wikipedia

Power Resistance

"Powerless" shows a couple instances where Peter is unaffected by the powers of others that he has absorbed: first, Hiro's time-stop leaves Peter active, and second, he ignores and refutes Matt Parkman's mental suggestions. This is a pretty important aspect of the character's abilities, but at what point can it be included in the article? That he is unaffected is pretty clear on-screen and is vital to the plot, so that much should at least be mentioned. I'm okay with not detailing why until it's explained further, but the Character History and Powers sections should agree - either both explain why, or neither does. Slurms MacKenzie 19:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's as clear as you see. His being active while Hiro stops time is simply an aspect of the power itself, not a "resistance". He is active simply because he has the same power and can remove himself from the timeline like Hiro does. As far as resisting Matt is concerned I think he was, but only until he could incapacitate Matt. Angela resisted Matt too, up to a point. It's not like Matt had no effect on him, it's simply that he resisted until he was able to incapacitate Matt. Peter was visibly affected by Matt's suggestions, same as Angela was. He just resisted, same as Angela did. Padillah 19:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if resistance is the right word for it, as it would start to imply that he couldn't be hurt by someone elses power...I guess the only way we would ever know for certain without a comment from producers was if he was up against someone like Niki.

If Niki punched him, would he have resistance to her superstrength? Likely not. He would be able to fight on equal ground as her because they both have the same power, but he wouldn't have resistance to the power itself. That's how it could of gone down with Hiro and Matt.Rekija 20:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I highly doubt that Peter is resistant to the powers of others. He is probably immune to the shifts and manipulations of time like Hiro and Future Hiro are and since he is a telepath, can resist Matt's mind control and counter it. When Matt told Peter to let Hiro go, Peter did but started to say no when Matt tried to compel him to go after Adam. It was made pretty obvious that a telepath is a threat to another telepath. As for the resistance thing, in .07% and at the end of Parasite, Sylar was able to use his telekinesis to cut Peter's forehead and if Niki punched him, he would definitely feel it. Elemental5293 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add 'Other Heroes with this power' column to Powers table.

I noticed that the "Benefactor" column keeps being added to the Powers table, and subsequently being removed again. As I understand it, the benefactor is always speculative, and therefore should not be added as per the No Original Research policy. However, the fact that it keeps being added back in indicates that there is apparently a demand for this information in this section.
In a previous discussion there was a suggestion to add a 'Other people who possess this power' column instead. That would effectively have the same information, without contravening WP:OR. As a side benefit, the article would not have to be reverted quite so often.
This suggestion elicited some positive reactions back then, but as far as I can tell it was not included in the resolution of that discussion. Would it be out of order for me to put this back on the table? InfintyMinusOneMRV (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

You just have. Just don't add it to the article until we can come up with some consensus. the recent crazyness between Tabor, Pharm and some anon ass-clown reverting back and forth demonstrates (if naught else) the imperative of clear consensus and clearer lines of communication between us all. You've made a good suggestion, one worthy of consideration. Thoughts from others? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your points for it, however what I'm concerned with is lumping heroes together as having the same power. Do we really know the full extent of Nathan or West's powers? What if they evolve further however both seperately. Was Linderman able to heal himself? Was his ability a further developed version of Claire or Adams? These are the kind of OR questions that will get raised. The bottom line is that we don't have proof of who's power is identical to whos. Rekija (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would be a bad idea to add the column. No disrespect intended - it's just that it would be a magnet for speculation, theories, etc. Given the all-out war on television content these days, we're better off keeping articles clean so that we can defend their right to exist. Thoughts? --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect to InfinityMinus, I think that the article is about Peter Petrelli, and Peter Petrelli alone. there are other articles that list the other characters within the Heroes wikiproject and detail their abilities. I also agree with CKatz and Rekija that it creates more problems than it solves. i will admit that the idea as an alternative was the best so far suggested, so please don't feel discouraged. That was just one idea; I am sure you have tons of others rattling about. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will admit, when this was first proposed I thought it was a great idea and supported it 100%. Since then I've been introduced (through my efforts to learn the admin side of things) to "OR by synthesis". The column, by itself, wouldn't be OR - we're just stating who has a power and who doesn't - but what will happen is when people read the article and see the column they will think "Oh, West has flight, that must be where Peter got it"... it's kind of helping others do the OR. I appreciate the efforts in trying to stop all this back-and-forth (believe me, it's driving me nuts) the problem is they make it so difficult to meet them halfway. In the end it's simply not notable either. What difference does it make where Peter got flight? Heck we didn't officially know where he got the electricity for almost three episodes. If the writers want to give him a power all they have to do is say someone walking down the street had it and Peter picked it up, POOF, instant new power. Thanks for the effort, just knowing someone sees is a good sign. Padillah (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As regards the "OR by synthesis" argument, I'm not sure that holds, since there is only a single source involved (the show). And while the column would undoubtedly be suggestive, it would actually be less suggestive than the show itself regarding where Peter copied his powers from (which means we would not be, ehrm, originating anything). But the non-notable and will-create-more-problems-than-it-solves arguments seem convincing to me.

A final suggestion: probably some of the people that re-added the benefactor column did so because the relevant discussion was archived. So if and when the talk page is archived again, it might be a good idea to place a summary of the conclusions of the various third-column discussions on the new talk page. InfintyMinusOneMRV (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The WP:SYN argument is valid, since we are taking the source of the observable phenomena - the show - and extrapolating where Peter's powers are coming from. Did Peter pick up unaided flight from Nathan, and Radiation Manipulation from Ted? It seems pretty clear to anyone with a pulse that that's true. If we were writing a blog or in a fan forum, we could post that to our heart's delight. However, we edit in Wikipedia, and we aren't allowed to bring our own opinions in with us. We need to cite someone else who connects all the dots. That's the only way we can note that sort of stuff. It's the hardest part of Wikipedia to adapt to (after learning how not to pummel some felch-monkey in dire need of it); some never do. We cannot cross that line, though. Its a short walk from adding in a personal observation to this. Really, we're better off without it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I still don't think that 'OR-by-synthesis' is the right label. While your argument is valid, it merely indicates that extrapolation of the source of Peter's powers would be WP:OR. As the GGP states, adding a column for 'other heroes with this power' is not strictly speaking OR, but could be considered 'OR-by-suggestion'. But 'OR-by-synthesis' is not the right label for this type of thing. There is nothing in the WP:SYN definition that is applicable here. By definition (both common-language and WP:SYN), synthesis involves joining together two different sources. It seems to me that as long as there is only a single source involved, while you can have OR, it is flat-out impossible to have OR-by-synthesis. InfinityMinusOneMRV (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:SYN doesn't need to be two articles, it just needs to be two facts joined to create a third fact. Fact A (Nathan has flight) plus Fact B (Peter gained flight from someone) equals Fact C (Peter gained Flight from Natahn): That's WP:SYN. You synthesised Fact C from two different facts. Padillah (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The proposal is merely trying to list Fact A and Fact B. You seem to be the one synthesising those facts to create Fact C. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said it's helping the reader do the OR. Can you really believe that casual readers will make that distinction? As such I vote for not misleading the reader. Padillah (talk) 13:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. WP:SYN states 'Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position'. That clearly refers to multiple sources, not multiple facts. If a single source produces two facts without explicitly drawing a conclusion, and the article lists the two facts without explicitly drawing a conclusion, then WP:SYN is not applicable. And while it may be suggestive, the suggestiveness comes from the grouped-togetherness of the two facts, and the grouped-togetherness is itself already present in the source material and is therefore not something added by the article. InfinityMinusOneMRV (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You are allowed to have a different opinion; however, your example doesn't necessarily validate it. Using your example, listing two facts in the same article doesn't draw a conclusion. Okay, let's take that idea out for a spin:

Sexual predators also live in the same community.

You live in that same given community.

I don't need to paint a picture as to the proximal inference. Rather untidy and misleading, isn't it?

It doesn't matter whether the different information is from one source or twenty. If it doesn't specifically state the connection, then we do not close our eyes, add the info and wish for the best. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

What I believe Arcayne is getting at is this: inference is inference. Be it from 2 sources or twenty or one. To allow an inference to overshadow a fact is what we are trying to restrict. Anyone that has seen the show can tell you where Peter got each power, it's made pretty clear. The real question I have is Why do we care? What does it matter if he got his healing from Claire or Adam? What impact would this have on the plot? How would the show be different? Say he got flight from some guy on the street and not Nathan, would that make him not able to save Nathan when he exploded? What use is this information? Given the exposure to WP:SYN vs. the usefulness of the info, I gotta say, the WP:SYN wins. This is not important enough to risk the violation. When it's Sylar and taking the power means murdering the victim I'd say we can infer that a person with no top was killed by Sylar for their power. That is an inference (we didn't actually see Sylar kill James Walker ) but the fact that Sylar killed the Walkers trying to get to Molly is more important than trying to ignore the inference. It's a question of significance, is the fact you are trying to communicate more important than the possibility of misleading readers? In this case, I say "no, it's not" Padillah (talk) 16:58, 23 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) 13:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No apologies necessary. It's always good to ask. However, the questions you posed is outside the purview of this article and our mandate as editors, as any answer that could possibly be provided would be little more than speculation. We can only include reliably-cited, verifiable information here. Your question is best posed to a fan forum, where there are no prohibitions as to speculative discussions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just checking to see if there was indeed any official confirmation, but I think I will pose the question to some of the guys on Tim Sale's forum. ;) Radical AdZ (talk) 01:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Right before the end of season 1 there was an interview with King, it was posted on the Hero NBC site, he states that peter has all of Sylar's abilities, not counting any he many gain in season 2, I think Peter has only use telekinesis so far is that 1. He doesn't know about of any other of Sylar's powers and, thus, 2. Peter recalls other abilities by when he thinks of them and how they made him feel, so he would have to feel differently about Sylar on some things to use that power- RREDD13 (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You pretty much hit that on the head? But I still doubt that since, no one can find any genetic evidence that Sylar has any other ability besides telekinesis. None. Elemental5293 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is an indication: in the episode Matt found Molly Sylar killed her father by freezing him to death, also he has displayed many other powers. I agree that Peter probably absorbed all of Sylar's powers but so far has only accesed telekinesis since that's really the only one he knows about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.44.146.95 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for Addition to Powers and abilities Table

I propose the addition of Episode Number and Season Number to the column, "Episode first exhibited". It appears to be displayed in the right order but it would be nice to be specific and it doesn't appear that it would hurt. Antelope In Search Of Truth (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it isn't really necessary. More important than the grab bag of what powers Peter acquires is the actual story. Don't you think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

---

Empath vs absorption

Sigh, he is not an empath. He has the same empathic abilities that most humans (excluding psycho- and sociopaths) have, in that he can gauge the feelings of others. it is not his root ability. That is absorption. Comic and scifi folk, think Parasite, and not Deanna Troi. Empathy has nothing to do with absorption. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning makes sense, but there's a problem that's been dealt with time and time again in the discussions. In interviews that have been sourced, the creator refers to his ability as empathy, and in universe Claude calls him an empath. So...which should we go with? The sourced comments by the creator as to what his ability is, or YOUR ideas? Nezu Chiza (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

While I seem to have missed where Kring refers to the ability as empathy (the actual quote "based on his empathy and his ability to connect with people" - refers to his mundane - or rather, his normal - personality traits. It doesn't refer to the actual ability).

I recall the mentioning of the term by Claude, which has been repeatedly misinterpreted by editors. In the episode in question, PP was discussing how Claude's uncaring behavior was wrong, and Claude responded how Peter was empathic in how he chose to look at humanity. It was not a comment about his power.

So this confusion refers to a misunderstanding of the mundane usage of the word empathic and how folk, seeing a horse interpret that they have found a wingless pegasus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Urm, in The Fix, doens't Claude make a comment about Peter being a "nurse whose an empath", and saying as though it's ironic or similar. The way he said it to me meant he was empathic. If anything, since his power was originally controlled by thinking of how powered people made him feel (He thought of Claire and could heal, and thought about all the Heroes and felt all their powers etc...) then his power would be "Empathic Absorbtion" or similar, since its controlled by

Just found the quote on Heroe's Wiki:

A nurse who's an empath, very cute."
"Empath, what's that mean?"
"Means you're a pain in my ass, mate."

So I think the term "Empath" is, at least in universe, used to define his power rather than a state of mind. Jacobshaven3 (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are misinterpreting it, for the reasons I have mentioned above. Please, stop seeing zebras when presented with horses. Claude is tired of caring for people. Peter represents what he thinks is overly naive. That is why Peter's state of mind is a pain in his ass, and not because it represents a power.

Honestly, this is getting to be a bit too fan-crufty. I'll make it super easy for everybody. Find a citation that specifically says that Peter's ability is EMPATHY, and its in. If you cannot find it, it is out. I hope that simplifies matters enormously. And before some zebra visionary adds the old citation that talks about what fosters PP's ability, note that it doesn't SAY that that's his ability. All the difference in the world, my friends. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn Claude's pseudo-explanation! ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 00:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, damn them all. lol. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Its funny how cock-sure you are about this when you are the only one displaying this opinion. (not to mention that you are wrong.) Heroeswiki has the best answer... he is an Empath... his ability is "Empathic Mimicry". 172.132.228.188 (talk) 03:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

also, only twenty-six days later you said this (in a comment below):

"Padillah notes the salient points. We are not here to interpret the material, we are here to present it, collated, for the reader to make their own evaluations, We don't interpret or find context for that material." Well, its right there in the show that he is an EMPATH. Yet you have INTERPRETED that to mean that he is empathic in the same way as everyone is. (despite the context of the scene to point otherwise.) Also, in "How to Stop an Exploding Man" Charles mentions that it is Peter's unconditional LOVE that will save them all. Another reference to his "super"-empathy. Just sayin'... ----172.132.228.188 (talk) 03:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

So Peter's ability is to connect, intellectually, with other people? I don't think so. Just because they are writers doesn't give them the ability to redefine the English language. Peter doesn't have the ability to understand others powers (heck, he hardly understands his own). He also doesn't experience them vicariously, he experiences them quite literally. All due respect, but the writers were talking about empathy of feelings, or they are unable to speak English correctly. You pick. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, hello? "Cryokinesis"?! THAT is a word made up for comic book characters with the ability to freeze things... and it makes NO SENSE. Heroes doesnt use that term, but I brought it up to illustrate that when it comes to abilities, terms are made up from existing words/ prefixes/ suffixes ALL THE TIME. Hell, they arent even the first to use "Empath" like that. So do I think they don't know English? NO. Do I think they use a term that comicbook fans are familiar with? YES! --12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

On another note, you went to the dictionary for the term "empathy." But checking the VERY WEBSITE WE ARE CURRENTLY USING for the term empath brings up quite a different answer DOESN'T IT? --12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Peter has the ability to mimic other powers, which Tim Kring states to be "based on his empathy and his ability to connect with people."[4] - FROM THE ARTICLE WE ARE DISCUSSING. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, calm down. Writing in All Caps is seen as shouting, not emphasis, and the latter - using the more appropriate italicization - works a lot better.

Now, would you like to try framing your post(s) more politely, so we can respond to them? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to run under the assumption that you are not yelling and antagonistic but adding emphasis. First off, knowing the foibles present here I don't like using Wikipedia as source or reference. In fact it's pretty strongly discouraged. Also the use of neologisms is discouraged, which would include the use of a new definition of a word until such time as that definition can be substantiated by third-party sources. In any case you bring up the current empath article, fine - except for the misplaced reference to Peter (which I removed pending the current conversation) all references are to emotional empathy, not replication of powers. Cryokinesis at least has root words that are reasonable to represent the idea being communicated. "Cryo-" cold, "-kinesis" motion, the ability to transfer cold from one object to another. None of the parts of "Empath" mean "to replicate in ones self". Mimicry is what he is doing, replicating a power, not understanding the feelings behind the power. And yes, Kring said it was "based on his empathy and his ability to connect with people". Kring did not name Peters power, he provided a basis for Peters control of that power.

So it's use is discouraged as a neologism, as a miss-definition, and as a misunderstanding of syntax. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the caps are emphasis as most people don't begin yelling in the middle of sentences. (or just one word.) And caps has for many more years been used for emphasis (see any script/screenplay) and not yelling. Since the both of you seem to ignore new things (neologisms), clearly you cannot be angry at me for using all caps as it has always been used. (so thanks for that line of logic...) Anyway, the MECHANIC of his mimicry is his EMPATHY. And THAT is what makes him an EMPATH. Empathic mimicry.... neat! --172.132.228.188 (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that you give me credit for knowing your intentions and I'm glad I was correct. I can't say as I ever remember using caps in quite that way on the internet before but I've only been using it for 15 years and don't claim to have been everywhere. Most of the blogs and sites I've been to use italics (''two apostrophes'') and bold ('''three apostrophes''') for emphasis and caps for yelling, but I digress. The neologism argument is not mine (or Arcayne's), it's a guideline of WP:Avoid Neologisms. And while I can't assert that movie scripts have or have not used caps in this way, I can assert that we are not currently writing a movie so that context doesn't spring instantly to mind.

Now on to your statement; I'm still lost on two points, first - How do you know the mechanism for his mimicry? I thought Mr. Bennett said something about Peter altering his own DNA (or maybe that was Sylar), or, as Kring and others have argued, the mechanism for the powers lies in the brain (that's why Sylar needs to remove the brain of his powered victims). The second question would be - how does knowing how other people feel allow you to duplicate a superpower? Empathy, both the superpowered kind and the regular kind, is about detecting how others feel, not changing how you feel. I don't understand how psychically knowing that Claire is sad helps Peter heal. And this is where we start to rely on supposition. You don't know the mechanics of his powers any more than I know the gender of my next child, that's original research and that's what makes the tag inappropriate. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright... there's no way you can argue this... In SEVERAL episodes Peter relates the fact that he could "feel" different traumatic experiences happening to others. Particularly Nathan. He says hes always felt a connection with Nathan. When Nathan had his accident "300 miles away" (couldnt have really been that far, but still...) Peter FELT it. He knew it had happened. Same as when his father died. And Charles Deveaux dies and he has a dream about flying around the world with him at the same time. He is emotionally and mentally linking to these people. THAT is empathy. --172.132.228.188 (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, on that we agree. That is normal average everyday empathy for the suffering and well-being of others on this planet. When the kids drive my wife insane and I tell her "I know how you feel", that's empathy. Understanding how others feel and sympathizing with there hardships is empathy. I'm not sure why Nathan couldn't have been 300 miles away from his brother but there is nothing in that context that isn't explained with either the absorption of another persons power (some speculate Deveaux), or, and this one is really silly... the normal bond a brother shares with his sibling. Or maybe it's a power of it's own. You may have hit on the "power he got from Angela" the writers have spoken about. No one is arguing that empathy (psychically knowing how others feel) is not a power Peter possesses, we are arguing that Empath is not an appropriate name for his base power. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, i agree with Padillah here. What the anon might be missing is that we are trying very hard to avoid speculating how Peter's power works (and what it is called), because it simply has not been definitively noted as of yet. When it does, you can be sure that someone is going to add it with reliable, CFB sources. That way, it isn't us synthesizing our theories, its us adding the theories of someone notable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand why we have the discussion, so that we make sure everything in the article is encyclopedic and not speculated, so its all cool. I think in "Unexpected" and perhaps the episode before it, Peter pretty much says it HIMSELF. He tells Claude that forgetting the people he has connected with won't let him access their abilities... its remembering how they made him FEEL that will. Now as for replicating the ability in the first place, Peter (as we have all agreed) HAS empathy. Which means hes mentally connecting to those around him. We also know that abilities stem from THE BRAIN. Now if he is empathically connecting to others brains.... (much like Sylar PHYSICALLY connects to them...) All I'm saying is that it should at least be put into the article that Peter ALSO has Empathy. AT LEAST. and not in passing, but listed as a core power. (if we can't agree that the mimicry is an extension of it. But perhaps after my argument we can. Tell me what you think.) --12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and as for the "300 miles away" thing. Thats how far he described his brother being, but its impossible considering the amount of time between leaving Peter's apartment and the accident. Thats all.  ;) --12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I don't disagree that Peter has empathy, I have empathy. Everyone has empathy. If you've ever watched a car crash and felt the sting, you are experiencing empathy. I think noting that in the article would be akin to saying "Peter has feet", it's not that notable a talent. If you are referring to an enhanced psychic empathy, then I have to call that speculation. Deeana Troi has psychic empathy, and you can tell when she "feels" something and when she simply has normal intuitive reflexes. I think at this point attributing psychic empathy to Peter would be speculation or, at least, synthesis. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

You can feel someone in pain MILES AWAY? thats crazy! Of course he has "psychic empathy" like Troi. It happens SEVERAL times in the show. thats not speculating. --172.162.7.60 (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Then you are going to have to provide unambiguous examples because I can't think of any time at which Peter knew the feelings of another person that couldn't be explained by simple dramatic license. He would have approached Nathan differently, he would have had a better idea of how to treat Sylar, he would have trusted Mohinder more... "I feel your pain" is a dramatic phrase meant to convey sympathy, not a declaration of superpowers. Unless you can find a concrete example of Peter feeling something he had no business knowing, and being correct, I can't accept the notion that he is psychically empathic. This is not a given, it's an assumption you are making. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please reread this quote: Peter has the ability to mimic other powers, which Tim Kring states to be "based on his empathy and his ability to connect with people."[4] (from the article) Does this mean that you or i can mimic the abilities of others? Since we all have empathy and feet?  :) I just wanna use your line of logic... Wikipedians are strangely closed-minded. Not all, but many. --172.162.7.60 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please take note of the fact that I am the only editor here that is humoring you. This discussion has been had before and I could simply deny your argument and send you off to the archives to read. But I'm trying to treat you with civility. If you wish to insult me that civility can end rather abruptly.

As for your argument I will simply reiterate, we are not naming what Peter's power is based on. There is no amount of basing Peter's power that will make it be something else. OK, let's try this: Wolverine can regenerate, based on his being a mutant. Does that mean his power is "being a mutant"? No, his power is one thing, it is based on a different thing. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for humoring me... :) As for a definitive example of Pete's empathy... Look no further than the episode "Six Months Ago". Peter dreams Nathan is in a car accident. He says he can feel it. Moments later he gets a call that Nathan WAS in an accident. Before being told about it, Peter asks Nathan who the guy that hit him was. Nathan is astounded by this because he hadn't told anyone that someone was trying to run them off of the road. He asks how Peter could know this, and Peter says he saw it happen. Thats pretty definitive.

As for the closed-minded comment, I'm sorry. But it sure does seem rather stubborn to not call his ability what it is called in-universe. Claude, an agent of the Company (the most knowledgable group on abilities on the show) refers to him as an "Empath". Now according to you, he might has well have said, "A nurse who has feet, very cute." But come on, you know he didn't mean Peter was an empath like everyone else is. There would be no reason for it, and they wouldnt have bothered having Peter say, "An Empath? Whats that mean?" It is strange to call it anything other than what it is called in-universe. Thats like calling "the Force" in Star Wars "telekinesis." It's essentially the same thing (or at least one aspect), but that isnt what its known as in the movies. Same goes here. He does mimic people's abilities (thats one aspect of it), but its called Empath. Forget neologisms (at what point does a neologism stop being "neo" anyway? Empath certainly isn't a new term, even in this context.), that is the term for it in the show. Mohinder describes him as a sponge, but clearly that isn't his ability, its a metaphor, and you don't see me arguing for that. So I'm not just arguing for any old thing that was said in passing on the show. Claude's whole plotline was to shed light on Peter's abilities. And he did just that. Choosing to ignore it seems... well... ignorant. But trust me, I realized comming into this that it probably wouldn't change the article, seeing that it has been semi-protected (probably over this or something similar) but at least those visiting the page may look to the discussion and see these points and realize the mistake in the article. Tell me what you think. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for the link to the Wolverine article... where his ability (which in our world we would just call regeneration, as you did, or some such) is referred to as a "healing factor". The Marvel-Universe term for the power.  :) -12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

See, what you call psychic empathy others call "Precognitive dreams" (it was something he dreamt, that's how he saw the guy in the truck). And there-in lay our problem. If Claude had replied "An empath, that's what you do when you're near people. You reflect their powers as your own" that would be different. Unfortunately the writers left it vague so we could argue over something while waiting for the next season to start. In Star Wars they blatantly call it "The Force" and it's explained in detail at some length. This is a vague made in passing, not quite the same level. As far as Mohinder's reference to Peters power goes, what are we using to distinguish between the comment the geneticist Mohinder made (which we obviously don't use) and the off-hand comment made by some field agent (which must be seen as definitive)? Do you see the logic in demanding we take the word of a dubiously educated field agent over that of an acclaimed geneticist? But, both of us agree that the name of Peter's power is not "sponge". So you are picking and choosing the stuff you want to be more important. That adds your opinion into the mix and makes the assertion WP:OR. As for when a neologism stops being neo? When it gets a definition in a reliable source. Not an article that uses the term but one that defines and expounds on the term itself. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Empath vs absorption - arbitrary break 1

HI. I saw my contribution was reverted. Is it not okay to list that he has both empathy and power mimicry? I was under the impression that each hero had one power because Mr. Bennet said as much to Sylar in one episode, so i guess thats why its wrong to list both? Could there be a note about his empathic dreams? Thanks mates Action figure (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(←dent) No, because it has been rather clearly and exhaustively explained that empathy is not a super-power, but a normal function of the human psyche. His actual ability is power "absorbtion" - he doesn't mimic powers, he gains them. His dream ability might not be of his doing, but of someone else. Remember that Parkman's father and Suresh's sister had the ability to manipulate dreams, so it isn't really at all clear if this is even an ability he possesses, or who even who might possess it. Claude's statement - as noted above and in the archives was not a naming of an ability, but a pointing out that caring about and understanding other people (empathy) was to be discarded, as it didn't serve Peter's survival. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Empathy isn't a superpower? You should tell the comicbook writers. [[1]] He certainly does mimic abilities (splitting hairs aside), as there is no effect to the person he gains them from. They don't lose their power. (Which is what absorption would imply) He is able to do them too. (Because of his ability to connect to others minds.) Parkman's dad's ability is telepathy, he doesnt exactly control dreams. And no one knows what Shanti's ability was. You are confusing that character for the dream manipulator Sanjog Iyer. (which really leaves your ability to explain Claude's comments questionable at best. Certainly though, your version of things is speculative, though you state them like they aren't. It's at least NOTABLE that Claude calls Peter an Empath. There can't be a note of it?) As for padillaH, I guess then, according to what the article on use of neologisms on wikipedia, the article Empath should be deleted. Though, it would be hard to find a truly good secondary source as this is a term for a superpower.. and thus... not real... i dunno --172.162.7.60 (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, this is a lot of speculation that is not really inclusive here. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

check this link. [2] Jesse Alexander (Heroes producer) has something to say about Peter's Empathy. (scroll up a bit) --172.162.7.60 (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have, and this link provides a number of issues for me. To being with, how do we know that this is the same Jesse Alexander from the show? I cannot tell you how many times I've met someone online with the handle 'Bruce Willis' without the bona fides to verify that claim. Secondly, there is no specific information from that source that says 'yep - Peter's power is empathy'.

Barring that, all we have to go by is the broadcasts and official web media themselves, and there is nothing in them that notes empathy as his super power. And pointing to the list of super-powers isn't a very convincing argument, as I am pretty sure that we are going to swiftly arrive at a point of critical mass wherein connecting them is going to create one mother of a synthesis issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What does SYN have to do with it? You said empathy isnt a superpower... i proved you wrong with a ridiculous amount of characters whose superpower is empathy. And its definately the real J. Alexander. Hes one of the ones that runs the 9th Wonders site. Its the "Official Unofficial Heroes site" --172.162.7.60 (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, what do you think of Peter's ability to absorb talents like Isaac's painting? He paints in the exact same style as Isaac, even though we know that before spending time w/ Isaac Peter's drawing ability was limited to stick figures. (he draws himself and Nathan on the roof in one episode.) --172.162.7.60 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Er, you didn't prove me wrong, Anon172 - the link was to a blog and had someone calling themselves by a name of one of the producers saying something that vaguely resembles an allusion to empathy as a superpower. Not the strongest of citations. I mean, where is the source from NBC itself that says, 'hey, this guy's superpower is empathy'? You would think, with something that earth-shatteringly important to the article, someone (maybe even J. Alexander himself) would have found even one reliable quote from NBC saying just that. ::Yet we don't. Nor do we have a citation that says Peter is painting "exactly" like Isaac; it is your observation that he is (and that might even be true), but the very first line of our verifiability policy is: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"(bold theirs). Sorry. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I proved you wrong on the fact that empathy IS a superpower. Did you click the links to the MANY wikipedia articles of comicbook characters with that very ability? There are a LOT. Also, its funny that when i corrected you on your mistake about Maury and Shanti you just write it off as original research, even though it is blatant and in the show. SANJOG IYER, not SHANTI had dream manipulation. And of course Peter is painting exactly like Isaac, Tim Sale is the person who does most of the art on Heroes (except for Sylar's paintings) and he paints both Isaac and Peter's paintings. Well documented, I think if you are a fan of the show (which im not really sure of with as many mistakes youve made so far) you know who Tim Sale is. And as for J. Alexander, again, he, along with Aron Coleite and Joe Pokaski and others.. RUN THE SITE. check the main page of 9thwonders.com to see for yourself. Also, why would NBC be a definitive resource on this? They are just the network, they know about as much as you do, and make mistakes at least as often. Hardly a reliable resource... --172.162.7.60 (talk) 02:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, try to focus your attention on the edits, and not the editor. I can pretty much guarantee that poking isn't the way to convince me of your arguments. In fact, that sort of behavior tends to harden resolve against the idea. Make it easy for people to agree with you, instead of determined to oppose you. Not saying that I am unwilling to listen, but you are being snippy, and that is counterproductive.

That aside, you you mean all of the wiki articles that link to the same list article of superpowers? To begin with, that was what I considered to be bordering on OR - that connection without specific citation between the two. However, that can wait for now. While we know that Sale is painting the images, we do not have any citation that says Peter paints with precisely the same level of skill as Isaac. That is you making that connection, and we aren't allowed to do that.

I would ask you to provide some confirmation that J. Alexander is indeed the same as the producer of the show. Since the internet is largely anonymous, this sort of confirmation is just common sense. Frankly, I think a lot of your argument is going to hinge upon that confirmation, since we cannot simply accept their musings as notable otherwise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, clearly you did not click all the links, every word was a link to a different character with the SUPERPOWER empathy. Im not sure how J. Alexander being one of the ones who runs that site isn't enough for you, but I'll try and find something "more concrete". I dont mean to sound "snippy", but I don't think I sound any snippier than you, who started off this section of the discusion with "Sigh, he is not an empath." as if all of us who think (know) he is are idiots... ill be back ---12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As someone that shares the pain I can attest to the fact that Arcayne's sigh at the beginning of this section was not out of disdain for the ignorant but rather out of resignation for having to engage in an argument that, frankly, is tiring to both of us. This is something you might have deduced had you read the archives as we've invited you to.(I did, and you made the same WRONG arguments then) To not understand that an Internet claim is hardly even the beginning of truth is the pinnacle of naiveté. I could easily claim to be Tim Kring, or any number of other famous people. (But you refuse to take into account that J. Alexander and others from the show run this site and its owned by NBC...) Unless the source is an interview that has checked real-world credentials there is little way of backing up an Internet claim of identity. As for why we would except NBC's word for it, I'm gonna go with "they own the show". (This is ridiculous) Also, I don't think Archyne is arguing that Empathy is not a super-power, (he did say JUST that) a quick check of his contributions will clue you into the fact that he edits quite a few sci-fi articles and has, more than likely, run upon this particular power.(And probably did it wrong then too)His argument, and mine, is that the power demonstrated by Peter Pertelli in the show should not be given a concrete name since we cannot find suitable, in-universe, reliable sources to establish the in-universe colloquial for his power.(Claude did JUST that) If you feel the need to refer to his power as "empathy" then, by all means, do so but it does not go in the article until we can find an in-universe colloquial reference to that name.(never according to you two) In other words, we need to be able to verify the in-universe name of the power. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC) & 172.129.123.196 (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the citations you posted don't talk about mimicry, like Peter, they talk about projecting or receiving emotions from others: not the power we are talking about. We are trying to name the power to attain the super-human abilities of others. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

~SIGH~ why do you two "own" this page anyway? Seems like a silly choice to have two people who know nothing about the show to moderate this article...---172.129.123.196 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, was that nice? Was that supposed to make Padillah and I suddenly stop and say 'omg - we've been wrong all this time and we just needed this person's rudeness and incivility to snap us out of it'? Really? If you want to build a consensus, feel free. Being unpleasant is going to close doors mighty fast. Take that little bit of hard-earned advice or not. If not, you aren;t going to find WP a very friendly place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

First, it's generally regarded as bad form to edit another users comments. Even to correct spelling. Second, the best argument you've come up with thus far is "But you're wrong because I'm right". You've given us plenty of proof that Peter's power is controlled by his ability to care about others but nothing to suggest that his ability to empathize with others is any stronger than anyone else. You refuse to acknowledge what his root power is, or insist his power be called by your name regardless of the fact that the power doesn't fit with any example you've given thus far. We two do not own this page. If we did it would look a lot different than it does now. You've been insulting, derogatory, and rude. If this is the attitude you are going to take I am done communicating to you. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources of Peter's powers

I read through the previous discussion of this topic and I disagree. There were several arguments against the inclusion of the people Peter absorbed the powers from.
1. It is unimportant to the plot.
2. The origin of the powers should be considered original research, because Peter could have gotten the powers from any passerby on the street.
3. The information is uninteresting, because it is already known to anyone who has seen the show.

Re 1: I think who absorbs/takes whose powers at which point in time is one of the central plot points in the whole first season. Peter saves Claire specifically so Sylar won’t be able to get her ability (though he doesn’t know it at the time). Also without it he would die several times later on.
Re 2: I think this is made unambiguously clear in the show in most cases. He walks by Ted Sprague and his hands begin to glow. He is questioned by Matt and begins to hear his thoughts. He is chasing Claude and turns invisible, etc. I have not yet listened to the commentaries on the DVDs (I expect most of the open questions are answered there), so you could argue that the information is not 100% certain. However if you want to use that agrument, you should use it consistently: There are several passages all over the article that should be rewritten as well, for example: “While in Isaac's company, Peter also confirms that his superhuman ability involves copying those of others, when he mimics Isaac's powers.”, “However, when Claire shows up, Peter mimics her healing powers.”, “Peter, now capable of using Niki's super-strength, tells her to go back to her family.” (From Niki’s article). In at least one case the source of the power is unambiguously clear: When Peter falls from the building onto the taxi and regenerates, he afterwards tells Claude that he did it by remembering how Claire “made him feel” so the source of this power is definitively Claire.
Re 3: Well, so is probably more than 90% of the article… maybe a bit less for people who watched a foreign language dub. It was certainly interesting enough for me to spend the time to cross-reference the information with the other character profiles to make sure everything is correct. (I haven't seen season two yet, so I had to rely on those for some entries.)
Finally I do agree that a section "Other people with the same power" serves no purpose in Peter's article. I was originally going to title the column "Gained from" but changed it to "First exhibited after having contact with", though in my opinion the first would also be justified.
--Mirage GSM (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. As a response I must present this:

Re 1:How would it be any different if Peter had survived Sylar's attack using Adams power as opposed to Claire's? How does who he gets the power from impact the power itself?

Re 2:This is, in point of fact two different arguments, so...

Re 2a: It may appear, at first, unambiguously clear in most cases but there are other situations (Elle for example, If he has Micha's power for another) that are quite ambiguous. These ambiguities now cast doubt on the formerly unambiguous cases and the whole thing can't be represented clearly.

Re 2b:Thank you for pointing those out. I will change them as soon as I can. I've tried to be diligent but I can't catch everything. Yes, everything you pointed out should be rewritten so as to avoid OR. This was the recourse several editors took when we first eliminated the column and we editors have apparently missed some.

Re 3: I can't imagine anyone that would classify a topic that has caused as much controversy as this one as "Uninteresting". I can honestly say this is one side of the argument I agree with you on, this is a very interesting aspect of Peter's power. Padillah (talk) 14:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re 1: Well for one thing he hasn't yet met Adam at the time, but that's probably not what you meant... My point was that it probably is not as important for the plot who he gets the power from as at what point in the story he gets it. To use the earlier example: If he didn't get regeneration from Claire when he did, he would have died in the fall with Sylar, because Adam is only in the second season.

Re 2a: As I said, I have not yet seen the 2nd season, but the Powers of Micah and Elle seem to be quite different to me from the descriptions. To be honest, I can't imagine right now how some of the cases could be made to seem ambiguous (Claire, Ted, Isaac), but I'll concede the point until I have watched the second season.

RE 2b: One more thing I noticed: The article states that Peter first used Space-Time-Manipulation in "Collisions", but in that Episodes it was Future-Hiro who used it. Peter was not affected, but whether that was due to him absorbing the ability or due to Future-Hiro excluding him from the effect could be considered OR as well...

Re 3: I think it was one of your statements in the archive, but I might have misinterpreted it.

You know, I understand why there is a "No OR" policy here, but sometimes I think there can be too much of a good thing. Maybe the definition of OR should be updated some time...

So would a possible statement by the director or by the actor in the DVD commentary be sufficient to remove any lingering doubt?--Mirage GSM (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re 1: I just have one thing about this. Adam may have only been portrayed in the second season, but who knows if Peter had ever been near enough Adam, even growing up, to absorb his power. ~QuasiAbstract (talk/contrib) 15:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re 1: QA brings up a good point, with Peters parents being founding members of The Company it's conceivable that Peter has come into "close enough contact" to Adam to have absorbed his power. The benign nature of Peters absorption makes this type of "there's a .000001% chance" an ongoing, never ending debate.

Re 2a: (and kinda Re 3) It's actually a statement by the writers that makes what powers Peter may or may not have open to questioning. A writer said Peter was close enough to some at Kirby Plaza to have absorbed their powers (I don't want to spoil the episodes), so all the sudden everyone is trying to assert that if he was close enough to absorb one persons powers then he must have been close enough to absorb... and it goes down hill from there.

Re 2a:As for Elle, there are arguments that Peter got his electricity manipulation from Elle but the series has left this up to the viewer to decide. There are statements that say Peter was close enough to the person next to Micha during the Kirby Plaza fight to absorb their power, which opens up debate for Peter being close enough to Micha to absorb his power... or not. See, not all the situations are as unambiguous as others, and as soon as we start debating the merits of one we have to acknowledge the possibility of others... and then it's down the rabbit hole.

Re 3: It's statements by the writers that gave us the "Peter has Micha's powers" conflict. It's statements from the writers that gives us the ongoing "Which power did Angela give Peter" debate. Oddly enough, statements from the writers have not be as helpful as one might think. Padillah (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Padillah notes the salient points. We are not here to interpret the material, we are here to present it, collated, for the reader to make their own evaluations, We don't interpret or find context for that material. We note citations that make those evaluations and interpretations. A lot of people tend to make that mistake when they start editing here in earnest. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Micah's power is talking to/influencing/repairing machines and/or computers he touches. Elle shoots bolts of electricity. I don't know which of those powers Peter exhibits, but the article seems to suggest the electric bolts.

As far as I have seen nobody has suggested listing every power Peter might have because of a character he might have had contact with. The list contains only powers he has actively shown to posess. It seems to be pretty certain that he got the precognitive dreams from Angela, as it was stated that he has already used her powers in the show and this is the only power in the list without any obvious source, but in this case I agree that this would be too speculative to include in the article.

Any opinions on the "First exhibit of Space-Time-Manipulation" which I posted above?--Mirage GSM (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Mirage wrote:

Any opinions on the "First exhibit of Space-Time-Manipulation" which I posted above?

It is widely regarded that Peter was able to move and talk when Hiro stopped time because, being in Hiro's presence, he had absorbed Hiro's power and was using it (subconsciously as he did in the begining).

Mirage wrote:

As far as I have seen nobody has suggested listing every power Peter might have because of a character he might have had contact with.

Not anymore, no. But that was very much what some were attempting to do as a logical extension of the list and, more specifically, the column you are proposing.

Mirage wrote:

The list contains only powers he has actively shown to posess.

It does now, yes. But it had to go through semi-protection and months of discussion to get to that point. If you look in the archives you will see Micha's power in there, Angela's power in there, concessions made that explain he may have everybody's powers, and everything in between. There was even debate about linking over to HeroesWiki so people could see an article with this type of speculation in it. In the begining we were fine, as you say it was pretty blatant where Peter got each of the powers he displayed. He usually had an episode involved with controlling the power and the onset was pretty evident. But in season 2 we see him use not one but two powers that were never blatantly acquired. As soon as the writers did that they opened up the doubt that he could get powers from others off air and the list went down hill fast. Padillah (talk) 12:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Padillah wrote:

It is widely regarded that Peter was able to move and talk when Hiro stopped time because, being in Hiro's presence, he had absorbed Hiro's power and was using it.

I tend to agree with you, but after all this discussion I'm surprised to see you use this argument ;-)--Mirage GSM (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not my argument. As far as I'm concerned this is another case of assuming he has or acquired a power. However, as RREDD13 mentions below the fact that Hiro had to fight with Peter rather than freeze him in time along with everyone else, suggests that Peter was able to remove himself from the time-freeze, which would suggest that he has control over Hiro's power. Padillah (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

OK everyone here is thinking to realistically with this, no writer is gonna make Peter absorb a power from a passerbyer unles they have some role in the show, you just have to assume that he got is power from an already established character, as for the hiro's power, Peter did get hiro's prower from hiro's future self on the subway, also if it wasn't for present hiro fighting Peter in season 2, you could have convinced me that future Hiro excuded Peter from being frozen in time in season 1, but since hiro and Peter's season's two fight it is obviose that Peter is resistant to Hiro freezeing time, since Hiro is still unfamilar with his power to stop time for certian people, and even if he cold why would he do it for peter when he is about to kill adam? As for the power chart, put back the benfactor colum, episode asborbed colum, and notes, since it is important to know that he gets headaches when trying to read Matt's mind, he is unifected by Hiro freezeing time, he can see other invisible people like cluade and so on and also it is interestining and informaitable, also an encyclopedia is an infomational guide containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject, so just because you know how peter got a power from doesn't mean you shouldn't add it since you know it, wikipedia is to inform other, So any questions?- RREDD13 (talk) 22:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

"...you just have to assume..." - need I say more? Padillah (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Padillah in this. Where Peter got his power is speculation. Were every character possessed of a completely unique power, this wouldn't be as much of an issue (though it would still present a problem of synthesis), but that isn't the case here. Nathan and West can both fly, and there is no indication that duplication of powers doesn't occur. Pete lives in NYC, which is known to have more than a few people in it with powers. We don't get to make that call. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

For most of the powers, it is not speculation... Peter absorbs Claire's power after his fall. Even if he had already gotten the power from Adam, he still uses the version he got from Claire, as he had to think of her in order to trigger his healing. The same goes with other heroes. He may have duplicate versions from people he doesn't know, but he is still using the version that he gets from people he does know. I think that if we can get reliable sources that confirm the sources of his powers, they should be included in the article. Ophois (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "for most of the powers, it is not speculation", you then have to ask, how do we make the distinction? And how do we denote that distinction to the reader? Where do we stop making the distinction? We were fine and even supported the inclusion when it was obvious once it became obfuscated then we had to dig to get the answer, and we're not allowed to do that. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The distinction is that some characters, he has been shown to absorb the power from them, as he is only able to use them at first around them. For example: Claire, Nathan, Isaac, Claude, and Ted. He states that he got his TK from Sylar, so that should also not be speculation, IMO. Just because another character may have the same power, doesn't mean anything. Peter relies on his empathy for the most part to use his powers, and he accesses the powers he got from the specific person. If he got duplicate powers from someone else, he doesn't know about it and doesn't access it. Ophois (talk) 17:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

We tried that and look what happened. There were even editors trying to imply Peter got the electric manipulation as a different aspect of Ted Sprague's power. If you remember this column is what got the page protected not once, but twice. The idea of keeping editors from adding their favorite power to the list is not gonna work. That, coupled with the fact that who Peter got the power from has proven to be largely irrelevant, make this an issue that's not worth the upkeep. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 18:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Pyrokinesis

I found a source that confirms that Future Peter's pyrokinesis came from Meredith Gordon. Should this be mentioned in the alternate future section, as it also signifies that they came into contact in that timeline, or is it too insignificant of a detail? (http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=17061) Ophois (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I also think that we should include that he got superspeed and electricity manipulation from the guards, as a reader may be confused due to present Peter now having Elle's power. Ophois (talk) 22:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

And how is that notable? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's notable because it means that they crossed paths after the explosion, and the other stuff avoids confusion with Elle.Ophois (talk) 15:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTE doesn't control the contents of an article, only it's existence. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 16:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And I would ask you (Ophois) to not reinsert the material again until you have found a consensus to do so. The current consensus is that we don't need it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh... what "concensus"? Only three people have posted in this section, and only one of them shows your opinion (you)... So, if anything, concensus would seem to be against you... And BTW, half of the stuff you keep removing was in the article for over a year until this week when you first deleted it, so you seem to be going against concensus. And yes, to avoid confusion with listing a power he has in the current show and due to reliable sources that give the sources of the listed powers, I will readd it. Now, if padillaH feels that it shouldn't be there, then you'll have your "concensus", but until then, I will readd it. Ophois (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Inasmuch as Arcayne is out of line for determining consensus based on three comments, the included section covers two of 23 episodes and has been relegated to obscurity based on the events of that seasons finale (that future will probably not happen and no longer affects the "Heroes". They don't have to keep saving the cheerleader.) As such I think all the talk regarding the possible futures should be removed from the base/character articles except as prose to explain the character arc. Sorry. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify, I wasn't referring to our discussions here and now as the basis of the consensus, but instead of those conversations and agreements occurring weeks ago regarding this very same discussion. While recognizing that consensus is not immutable, there has to be significant and agreed-upon reason for it to change, and a new consensus should be forged out of a majority of folk currently involved in discussion. I imagine that there will be ample opportunity to revisit this issue once the series returns in September.

Sorry if I made you feel that I was referring to a consensus here and now, Ophois. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Anyways, I've reverted it back to the original way it was before the recent changes, which did mention pyrokinesis and the graphic novels. Ophois (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we still need the Alternate Future sections?

I'd like to get rid of the alternate future sections. They are outdated and invalid since Peter stopped that version of the future from happening. Yes, I understand there are references to the future in the new season but to keep the information on the off chance that it will be related to something that might come up is the embodiment of WP:CRYSTAL. We need to purge these sections. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 13:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Tomàs, I think that we should take a more wait-and-see attitude. If the new information doesn't refer to any info from the past season (and remember, there that enormous plot hook of that Irish gal stuck in a future that apparently Is No More). It isn't CRYSTAL to retain it, as it still remains pertinent. Indeed, it might be considered CRYSTAL to purge it believing that the future depicted will not come to pass. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the whole point of the season one finale was that Sylar had been stopped and the future that was witnessed by Hiro had been averted. We've already waited an entire season (truncated but still a season). At what point do we decide we've waited long enough to stop singling out this one episode? (FWIW, I'm Thomas(English spelling), it's my dad who's Tomàs(Puerto Rican native), but thank you for the attempt) padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That may have been the point, but we haven't yet had someone citable come forth to say that. Unless someone does, we have to (illogically) presume that the future has not yet been changed. As for the Tomàs/Thomas mistake, i took it from your own sig, which I thought identified you. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Re: consensus

Could you please show or link to the discussion that resulted in this consensus? Fredmdbud (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, See archive 2-5. You can mostly avoid 1, as that was more of the same fannish crazyness. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI discussion

To be fair, there's no synthesis for most of the powers acquired; of the twelve powers so far mentioned, almost every one of them is explicitly mentioned who they were gained from (for example, it's repeated over and over that he got his radioactive powers from Ted, regeneration from Claire, and flight from Nathan). I think we could have a source column and make indications about the few holes that exist; they are the minority in this situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would open the door for every person who comes to the article with every, friggin' power displayed with a pet theory about where they came from. If we have an explicit, reliable, non-bloggy or fanatic source stating this stuff, then there is an opening to explore Without such, it is us playing Sherlock Holmes, and we cannot do that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think saying "Not definitive" is particularly difficult (policing it, though...), I do see your argument. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

And the ability to "cross-possess" people? Who did Future Peter get that from? What other powers are we going to have to deal with in regards to having two Peters now? It started off fine but has been found to be the very definition of slippery slope. Padillah (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

In regards to future Peter's powers... so far, he's only exhibited a single additional power, so I think it could just be added as a sentence below the table. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Two actually, he transported Matt to the Desert which is an unobtained power to date. --Stuartjmanton (talk) 15:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah... three, actually; he trapped his younger self in the body of a Level 5 inmate, which is also a new power. Oy vey. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The extra helping is Crazy is now dawning upon you, EVula. By keeping it simple and encyclopedic (ie, remaining true to the base ability), we avoid the Power Of The Week considerations that would inevitably follow.

Persoally, I think the writers are so close to jumping the shark that even Fonzie is scared. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I would love to see "shark jumping" as an actual power of his. ;)
I still think we can do this in a manageable fashion, but that was before I took into account the slew of new powers that Future Peter (*snicker*) has. Maybe I'll whip something up at some point, but I've got more pressing matters... especially now that I'm caught up on all the graphic novels. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

(*heh heh heh*) Made you say Peter. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Five Years Gone Peter

In the section about "Five Years Gone" Peter, it is stated that "He has a very prominent scar across his face, although it is never revealed how he acquired it (especially since he has Claire's regeneration ability)."

The part about him having Claire's regeneration ability is incorrect. In this timeline Claire died at homecoming and never gave Peter the ability to regenerate. In this situation it is perfectly acceptable that he could have a scar although I agree that it is never revealed how he acquired it. --demmeister

Remember, Peter doesn't need anything other than proximity to replicate a power. There's no telling how Claire died at homecomming nor if Peter were there and failed to help or was there but ineffectual, or not there at all. There's also no telling if they had met before this or if he had gotten the ability from someone else. This is the big danger with attributing source to Peters powers. We got them out of the list but we have to watch the prose as well. Thanks for the tip. Padillah (talk) 12:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That's true. There is no way to know if he has regeneration or not though so the comment about him having Claire's power can't be stated as fact. --demmeister

It doesn't really matter, as in the updated timeline, Claire was saved, he obtained regeneration before getting the scar, yet he still has the scar when he comes back to stop Nathan. Also, specifically naming who he got any power from is speculation. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 13:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed that the comments for "The Second Coming" Peter say "He was able to teleport Matt Parkman to Africa just by touching him without teleporting himself"

There's no reason to assume that he doesn't teleport himself since he can control space and time so he could quite easily teleport away and back again without appearing to disappear at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.5.22 (talk • contribs)

Right. Again, as folk have noted, speculating isn't allowed here. When Hiro stops time and moves all over the place, the folk frozen don't get to see the movement. Trusting your eyes is not a valid defense in a programme like this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

To Denmeister: Peter already had regeneration when Hiro and Ando went forward into this future. They even showed Claire alive in this future. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

76.126.239.175 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Nov 26 affinity292 Is Peter really just a "normal human" now? The article states that now that his powers have been taken by his father, Peter is a normal human. Do we know this for certain? When Peter travels to the future to acquire Sylar's power, we learned that there is something unique about Syler's power. Peter could not acquire it through his own empathic power. Sylar asserted that the power could not be taken and peter could only acquire it IF Sylar allowed him to share it. If this is an accurate "fact" in the heroes universe, than Peter still has one power left, Sylar's...And Sylar's power involves the ability to acquire powers from others (either through taking them apart to understand them or through sufficient empathy to understand them.) We may not have seen the end of superpowered Peter.~~

Read this First!

• For convenience, the long-held consensus is that we do not list where Peter obtained his powers, due to the often murky nature of how they are acquired. To list where we think they come from is synthesis, part of our original research policy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Francis Capra

Should we also put him under Milo's name for the actor portraying Peter? - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.163.140 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

If Capra had actually had any real screen time portraying Pete, I'd say yep, but nope. He had no words as Petrelli, and we only saw him in mirrors, miming Milo. God, I hate mimes... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

He is shown speaking lines as Peter in the first two episodes. Ophois (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What do others think? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell})

But he's credited as Jesse. It has never been suggested that the change was permanent or that Milo was going to be a different character and Capra was taking on the "Peter" persona. He never played Peter, he played someone possessed by Peter. Padillah (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Total agreement with Padillah; Capra was playing Jesse, not Peter. The fact that Peter was possessing Jess is irrelevant; Capra was only portraying a single character. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

How is he only portraying Jesse? He has lines as Peter, therefore he is also portraying Peter. Ophois (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But his physical performance was as Jesse. Compare this to Anakin Skywalker, where three different characters have portrayed the exact same character in the same medium. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Forum-sniffing hair-splittery, really. I think its not only non-notable, its moot, and crufty as trying to pretend we know where Pete picked up all his powers. Focus on the character, and not the story in progress. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

• So is Milo portraying Jesse then? --172.134.194.254 (talk) 04:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Milo plays Peter, and Capra portrays whoever the character's name was. There was little in the way of Master Thespianism going on with Capra.

Hey could we impose upon you to use the Indent (:) to begin your paragraphs? You mark yourself as a noob when you do that, and i am sure you want to be taken seriously, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The actor was not trying to replace Milo as the person to portray Peter. This isn't One Life to Live, so far Peter hasn't died in a car crash only to be brought back but there's too much plastic surgery and now he looks different. If "Peter" got stuck in the Capra character and had to continue his existence that way, then yes, Capra would then be portraying Peter on an ongoing basis. This was a one-off and now it's over. Padillah (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm used to the asterisk on Heroeswiki. I look less like a noob in here than you since I can remember Jesse's name and you can't after I had just said it.... Clearly he wasnt being "replaced" padillah, but neither was the actress who played Candice when Ali Larter and Tawny Cypress played her. And neither was Zach quinto when Adrian Pasdar played Sylar. Anyway, someone is playing the other character in this scenario one way or the other. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Let's make this astoundingly easy, then. Find a citation for an interview where Capra discusses how he chose to play Milo's character, or how Larter portrays her different characters, or Pasdar when he portrayed Sylar. That will help, since we are, y'know, citation-driven. Without that, this discussion page is looking ever more depressingly like that sad little mock-up fanfluff, HeroesWiki. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Another attack. Classy. I wonder where people really go to get info on heroes...--172.134.194.254 (talk) 04:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, the local library? There are stories about fireman, policemen and famous pioneers and such...

What attack? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There actually is an interview or something somewhere on how Pasdar got Quinto to do all of his parts first so he could see how Sylar would say and do things.... Ill see if I can find it later --12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that would be awesome, anon12. It sounds like something Pasdar would do, as I remember him stating in an interview during his Profit series (this is before the internet took hold) about how he would play all the other roles, so he could change his body language while around them - more in keeping with the chameleon-like Jim Profit. Yeah, I have watched too much tv. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

[3] About 2/3 the way down of the post. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. That will work nicely for Nathan Petrelli's article as an out-of-universe aside. What about for Peter Petrelli? After the posting by Beeman is a lot of commentary from various users, and none of them are notable enough to cite. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, anything on Francis talking about trying to mimic Milo or talking about advice Milo gave him would be extremly revalant. This article is far too plot heavy so adding more real world information would be very welcome. Rekija (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Acquired powers

IMO we should list the sources of his acquired powers in the table as we do for Sylar. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But the problem with that is there isn't a future Sylar yet (I say yet because I saw next week's previews). Future Peter has already displayed 1-2 (depending on if teleporting Parkman was just Hiro's powers or some new guy/girl's) and I can be reasonably certain that if he stays around for another episode or two he'll show some new powers. Anonymous (yes the same anonymous person as before)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.104.172.179 (talk • contribs)

Maybe if you weren't concealing your IP address, we wouldn't have to guess, anon 75. How many times do you have to be asked to start an account. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Future Peter put Present Peter in the body of Jesse - what power is this? Pathtoeternity (talk) 06:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any official term, they call it body insertion on Heroes Wiki. IMO the current description is fine. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

With regard to Peter's power loss, should it be clarified to state that it is unclear what exactly Arthur Petrelli did to Peter? To be competely clear, we don't know that ALL his powers were taken, just the electricity, demonstrated by Arthur at the end of the episode. In the interest of objectivity and brevity, I'll leave my other considerations out of this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.193.150.75 (talk) 09:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If we don't know it, it doesn't go in the article. You bring up a good point, we don't know what powers, if any or all, were absorbed. So we should either say what was shown (the electricity part) or not say anything. I vote for saying something ambiguous until we find out just what happened. Padillah (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"An event happened to Peter, caused by Arthur Petrelli." ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

:-D Good point. Maybe we can put a little effort into it. Padillah (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Read this first

Angela tells Peter "Where do you think you got your first power from?" in the Season premiere. Its blatantly stated now... 12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't remove the speculation involved with the other powers he has acquired. Padillah (talk) 15:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

And that isn't a blatant statement. A listing of where he gets his powers from would be a "blatant" statement. Cruft and speculation is indeed subtle. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

What if the person he gained the power from is confirmed by a reliable source, such as an interview, commentary track or Peter's dialogue? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Then, I'm sure, it'll be noticed by a great many editors and added so fast that Wikipedia might just catch on fire. ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 07:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Funny. I was going to say it would happen so fast that the the US financial crisis might magically resolve itself. Yours is funnier. :P - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been established that he gains powers by being in the presence of those who have them. Would it count as synthesis of published material which advances a position if we had a "possible sources" column listing everyone with the same power who Peter is known to have been in the presence of prior to exhibiting it himself without making any claims about who he gained the powers from? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The answer to your question lies within the question, Gordon. "Possible" means we have to speculate, and we don't do that here, as that violates a host of our core policies. As well, the creation of such would act as a Sextupole magnet for cruft. I frankly shudder to think of the wackiness that would ensue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Angela tells Peter he got his first power from her. CONFIRMED. 12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

At best that just moves the source of speculation from us to her. How does she know what the first power someone else absorbed is? Or if that was the first power he absorbed? Or if he got it from her? This doesn't help. Even though the writers have stated some power sources unequivocally, it doesn't matter. What is the significance of whom the powers come from? Why does it matter? What possible impact could it have? Sylar uses a method that renders most people dead when he learns others powers so there's a significance (death of the original power holder). Peter could walk past you on the street and you and he never know (case in point, it's widely accepted that he has Eden's power but he dosn't know it so he has thus far failed to use it). So, aside from being able to only support about three of his 12 powers, it doesn't matter to the article. Padillah (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Im not even necessarily saying add it to the article, I'm just saying we know now. And I think a woman who can see the future and who apparently knows what she should not would know where Peter got an ability. 12.103.23.19 (talk) 16:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, in that case please stop. This is a talk page to discuss improvements to the article. If you are not discussing the article, please don't clutter the page with fan forum.Padillah (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

'Neccessarily' being the key word, Mr. Article Squatter... :) Its up for discussion. So here is our first case of being blatantly told like you and the other guy that hovers over this article have asked for. --172.134.194.254 (talk) 21:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if you are referring to me or not, but I will chime in now (and my power is not hovering but the utter emotional dismantling of rude folk). I see your point, anon. I really do. I am a humongous believer in discussion over editing - seriously, ask anyone (it tends to drive some of them absolutely batshit). However, we tend to confine our discussions to how to improve the article and thusly the encyclopedia. Speculating - ie,, adding your own connection of what powers belong where via deduction, elimination or midnight consultation with the Great Pumpkin - is not allowed here. If you can cite it to a verifiable, reliable and neutrally notable source, then we can include it. If you cannot, it cannot be added. If you think these rules are too constrictive, I direct you to the one-stop shop for new ideas on policy changes, the Wikipedia Village Pump.

As for Angela stating that Pete's power came from her, I think its a fair assessment that the Machiavellian bitch says whatever keeps the trains running on time. Did she program his genetic structure to do that? Did she give him the power? Did she have someone else give him the power? The incestuous way that some of these powers keep popping up (flying, cryokinesis and telekinesis, not to mention healing) pretty much guarantees that a clear line of succession isn't going to emerge for most of these powers.

Ever more importantly is the same line of reasoning that keeps having to be repeated when folk don't bother to actually read the prior article discussion: the story isn't about the powers, folks. Its about the people. The same sorts of people who want to catalog all the powers are the same sorts of people who go to see Batman movies and wonder how he takes the occasional dump while in costume, or how much lubrication is needed for the 'bots in the Transformers movie. It's like being in the forest and then complaining about not being able to see the inside of the forest because all the trees are in the way. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

you say the show is about the people, yet the argument here is to add the OBVIOUS people Peter gained his abilities from, but you are against it. Now Angela has stated Pete got his power from her (i think the show itself is a refutable source), The writer's have said things along the lines of "got from nuclear ted.." (which is obvious since Peter first manifests radiation when Ted walks up to him.. it couldnt get much clearer than that unless ted said "Where do you think you got that ability?" like Angela does. Oh wait.. HRG [the most knowledgable on abilities at that point] literally says "He is absorbing your ability!") they have said "Isaac's precognition." Blah blah balh. There are so man sources... but you and padillah will just keep shooting it all down to make the article your own. BTW, to determine I'm "one of those people" and cast them in a negative light is a personal attack, too, Mr. Teapot. You rather consistently do it, but using a different tone doesnt make it better. And relegating everything else to the history page doesnt help either. Anyone interested, read the history to see what went here originally. --Kettle12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, look up refutable, we are on the Internet after all, it isn't that hard. I believe you mean reputable source, and it's not. The show is a representation of the characters in it and as such it is clouded by their misinterpretations. Quick example, when Peter was in Jesse's body Noah thought he was Jesse. Noah said he was Jesse. Does that mean we should believe that Peter turned into Jesse? The show has represented Noah as Claire's father when he's not. It put forth the idea that Peter's ability was to fly, it's not. The show has depicted Sylar using the vocal intonations that indicate Eden exerting control, and then the director denied it saying he just wanted it to sound "cool". Need I go on? The show is only as reliable as the characters in the show. (BTW, the saying is "Pot calling the Kettle black", not Teapot) Padillah (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I meant to say "irrefutable". But you are right about the pot thing. CONGARBULATIONS! WOW! Its funny how you keep talking over yourself though. If the show is only as reliable as its characters... then we have to assume Angela is right. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why? Has Angela been shown to be infallible? What makes her any more knowledgeable about what powers Peter has than anyone else? Padillah (talk) 16:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So then everything on this site based on what a character has said must be assumed untrue... --12.103.23.19 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Remember, WP is not about truth, it's about verifiability. I am currently dealing with this, the Pontiac Hispanic History Preservation Project is supposed to be named "Pontiac Hispanic History Project" (it's my mom's project so I just asked her) but since the news articles refer to it as "Pontiac Hispanic History Preservation Project" I can't verify the correct name so I have to take other steps to get the name corrected. Yes, we all know who Peter got his healing from, the show was pretty unambiguous. We all know who Peter got his invisibility from, especially since we have never met another person with this power. We know all this stuff, it would take an especially dense person to not have picked this up. Our problem is verifying these assumptions. Inasmuch as we can't verify any information, in-universe or out, we can't publish it here. Padillah (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So, thats kinda the point. If NOTHING can be verified, then how can anything be in the article? -------172.134.194.254 (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that a sort of zen koan? Lol. Almost anything in the article requires citation. You will note that plots are exempt from this because anyone who contributes to the article is going to be able to spot something inaccurate and correct it/address it in discussion. That's how discussion, as a tool, benefits the article. To hlp you along, read WP:SYN; that will help you understand how we try very hard not to inject ourselves into the analysis process while writing the article.

I would have told you all this on your talk page, but you seem content on deleting posts of folk who give you advice there. This way, you see it. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Not at all, i read and then delete it. And I've read that page as well. Just seems like the abilities and their holders are part of the plot... :) --172.134.194.254 (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They are, but not nearly to the extend that you feel they are. The story is character-driven, not powers-driven. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that your POV? --172.134.194.254 (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In a word, no. In two words, Nuh-uh. All entertainment beyond that appealing to an average 9 year old (or NASCAR fan) is necessarily character-driven. Now, do you have something to add, or do you want to waste more time making this about li'l ol' me? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So Daily Show isn't entertainment? Nor is a documentary? They arent character driven, but they sure do entertain me. Look, clearly I know the show is character-driven, but the appeal is the power, and I dont think Wikipedia exists to document what entertains you. It exists to document, period. I'm making nothing about you, I'm simply pointing out your continued hypocrisy on these subjects, so that perhaps we can include relevant information in this article. Obviously that wont happen til Tim kring knocks on your door and tells you this stuff himself with a promise he will never change his mind and make sure it entertains you, but this is a discussion page, so I am discussing. Please do not discourage discussion and debate. It is of no help to the article, and clearly you care about the article as heavily as you guard it. --172.134.194.254 (talk) 03:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to say this once, because clearly, no one has told you to make it about the edits, and not the editor. I know this particular game, and once upon a time, I would have simply shredded you with words and sent you packing. I am thankful and so should you be that those times have mostly passed. You are not the smartest person in the room while editing in Wikipedia. Ever. I'm not either. There is room for growth by everyone. Calling names is just going to get you marginalized and ignored. Until you take more time to read about how we actually discuss things, you are going to learn the hard way that not all types of discussions are fruitful or tolerated here. We do not speculate. EVER. You want semantics? Join your junior high school debating team; this isn't the place to even attempt throwing your weight around, as you will likely get schooled but quick. Learn how things work. If you don't know, ask. Be civil and polite and professional. This will be the last time you are asked to do so.

Now, do you have something to ask about without couching it in an attack?- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I never had a question really. Just came to state the truth. And I guess you are done debating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.134.194.254 (talk) 04:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit Break

Anon, if you truly feel that nothing can be verified then this might not be the place for you. I've got a good feeling about some stuff (the John F. Kennedy assassination and Westward expansion seem pretty solid to me) but if you need more, than so be it. Yes, there are some things that can be taken for granted (that "Peter Petrelli" is a character in the show "Heroes" is moderately self-evident). There are some things that are questionable (if Angela really is Sylar's mom) but have been treated as fact by every source thus far so we have to accept what we are told. Then there are things that look like they are facts but when examined really aren't - who Peter gets a power from is one of those things. On the surface, and to the viewing audience, it looks pretty cut and dried, and it was - until season two when they introduced acquired powers off-screen. Then the entire thing was thrown into disarray. There was a huge debate about where Peter got the phasing ability (which only got worse when it was revealed that more than one person can have the same power). And the Electricity was stalled for ever due to the fact that Elle wasn't introduced until the third or fourth episode. And, unfortunately, once origin of one power is called into question the origin of the other powers must be questioned and now we've decided that we can't identify the sources with any amount of verifiability. This is only exacerbated by the fact that it's not worth fighting about. As I've mentioned before, the origin of the powers, while interesting to know, doesn't impact anything at all. Peter has the power and can use it as he sees fit, where he got it is not a factor in it's execution or use. P.S. Please don't be driven off by harsh words, this is a perennial sore spot and we knew it was coming but dreaded it none the less. You may even notice my preparatory statement above regarding the onslaught. We're people too and everyone has bad days. Padillah (talk) 13:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, ok. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I do want to state that it isn't a consensus like stated at the top of the discussion page. Not as long as someone disagrees. But whatever. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BRD:

"There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.103.23.19 (talk • contribs)

First of all, thanks for finally reading BRD. Secondly, you are technically accurate that consensus can change - it does, and often. However, for it to change, substantial and significant reasons have to emerge for consensus to shift. For example, the consensus as of now is that George W. Bush didn't know that there weren't WMDs in Iraq before invading. If however, it is discovered that he in fact knew this, but invaded anyway, that changes consensus significantly and substantially. It isn't just a numbers game (ie, voting and whatnot). The component is good citation as to the new information which changes matters or alters perceptions. Hope that helps to clarify matters. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Powers in a table or not?

Would someone care to discuss the rationale for removing the acquired powers from the wikitable? Padillah (talk) 12:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Empathic Mimicry.. again..

I see it's back as his main ability, with citation! Does it hurt?.... --12.103.23.19 (talk) 15:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't see anywhere that the citation actually has that information, so...the citation doesn't support the claim, as far as I can see. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 15:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither do I. Very sharp eye, anon; I definitely applaud the effort to seek out good citations. :)

The problem with the cite is that it is a link for an ARG, which is what all links to fictional companies that feed in as viral marketing into series represent (recent examples include the Blair Witch site, Lost's Dharma Initiative, and Fringe's Massive Dynamic Corporation). While the information is indeed interesting (and the websites are often pretty spiffy), the info being added isn't really good as source material, as info can be removed in accordance to plot developments, and isn't as reliable as published material from a review or news article. I hope that helps explain matters better.

I've removed the link from the infobox, placing it as an external link at the bottom, and reinstated the older, more accurate name for his ability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OH MORE ACCURATE OK. 12.103.23.19 (talk) 16:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sory, that is the same source, without a navigational tool to find Petrelli. As it is an ARG, it is doubly unreliable, as it is part of a plot-assisting device, and therefore not consistent. Maybe find another source - one not part of a bogus website, like a news article or review that points out the issue specifically. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

[4] Says on Peter's verified tip that hes an empathic mimic. This is show material. From the people who create the show. How can this not be considered? Its as reliable as a news article, because they can be interviewed and change their minds as well... --12.103.23.19 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on sources. There is no source provided that explicitly gives his power as "Power mimicry". I have provided a source that gives it as "Empathic mimicry". Ophois (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Correction: Wikipedia is based upon reliable sources. An ARG does not meet that particular requirement, or verifiability, for that matter. Please do not add material to an article after it has been reverted. If you are unfamiliar with WP:BRD, please familiarize yourself with it now. You made a bold edit, it was removed, now discuss and seek a consensus for its inclusion. Otherwise, you are spitting into the wind, my friend. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

and your source for it being called power mimicry is...? Couldn't he just as easily already HAVE the powers and he just needs to be around someone else to figure it out? That wouldnt be mimicry. Ophois, I'm here to throw my hand in to say it is empathic mimicry based on show content you have provided. --12.103.23.19 (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Anon, while I appreciate your willingness to throw your hat in to support Ophois' version, this isn't a haberdashery. We use reliable citations. As for why we are using a generic title for the ability, take a closer look at the link. While I personally think that linking to a wiki list of comic book superpowers is synthesis, the larger consensus saw it as an acceptable connection. Are you now arguing that we should not refer to that list? Hmm, I sense a disturbance in the Force, and am fairly sure you might want to take that up at the talk page for WikiProject: Heroes. They might have a word or twelve to say about that.

And again, you might want to dial back the incivility, anon. Being polite and friendly makes the editing go far smoothly than trying to edit after more experienced editors metaphorically pimp-slap you into a coma. Be polite, or begone. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to chime in but I can't - I can't access the page. The link doesn't directly access the information. With that, I'd have to say it's not a valid citation (citations should not require login access). Padillah (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing to log into. The link pulls up the map. Toggle on only "verified tips", and Peter's file is within Texas on the map. Ophois (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Which is one of the many reasons why its a bad source, Ophois. The link needs to be clear, not navigation within a non-searchable ARG to find a name with infor that we cannot show the provenance for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm forced to ask, what is the importance of naming it one thing over another? This information, as incredibly obfuscated as it is, is in-universe and, much like Angela's assertion above, has no authority. With that in mind I'm left with the impetus to call it one thing over another (assuming either is even remotely correct, I wouldn't advocate calling it TK). Padillah (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I will visit the haberdashery and then head to the apothecary to meet a gentlema.. wait.. I ACTUALLY MEANT HAND! As in "all hands in"! As in "Hands in the middle, GOOOO TEAM!" WOW!Pimp slap? Lets start calling Invisibility phasing too, while we are at it. I mean why not? It doesnt matter what we call it, and we are just making assumptions that its mimicry anyway (we cant be sure, after all. He might just have ALL abilities. There is no good enough source to tell us otherwise.) RIGHT? --172.134.194.254 (talk) 22:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, when you actually read my posts and not perceive them all as the Big Bad World out to complicate your life, we can interact. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

So how is a concensus reached on a subject exactly? ---Action figure (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) A really good model for learning how consensus works can be found at WP:BRD. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense, Arcayne, but the anon has a point. If you demand politeness and respect, it's probably best not to say that you and other editors are going to "metaphorically pimp-slap [him or her] into a coma". Ophois (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I never said that I (or anyone else present) might be tempted to such an action. I guess my verbiage was colorful enough that it missed the point. A better way of getting hte point across would be to note that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar. Edit-warring doesn't change anyone's mind, except that some people become more resistant to allowing that person's edits in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem calling it "Power Mimicry", "Empathic Mimicry", or "Better Than Rogue's Ability", but my problem was the link. I'm not sure what the difference between the "Verified Tips", "Tips", or "Assignments" are. Verified by whom? The Company, players of the ARG, the writers, or some intern that was told to code the page. NBC may have authorized the page, but it seems quite anonymous as to who is actually writing the material that shows up on the page. The graphic novels, the webisodes, interviews, and the series can all be identified as to who's actually coming up with the material, but this ARG doesn't have credits and could ultimately be written by some minimum wage lackey in a cubicle who's makin' stuff up. As for the name of his ability, how about "Empathic Power Mimicry"? At least until we get a more concrete citation. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 23:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

We had this discussion before, wherein a lot of folk confused normal empathy with being an empath; two related yet totally different things. Power Mimicry is a term that we have previously agreed is the best definition of what Peter does. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

"Assignment" is an agent of the Company. "Tip" is a character that anyone can add for fun. "Verified Tip" is the official characters and information. Ophois (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I get that, Ophois, but that information can be altered or changed in furtherance of the series plot, and is therefore unreliable. Find a reliable, less transitory source that says the same thing, and we'll be on the right course. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Ophois, if you look at the javascript you can see that Tip is a randomly generated point on the map. I means nothing at all. In hopes of illuminating Arcayne's "changing data" complaint (that is a true "strawman"); Ophois, do you really think any one or any thing will suddenly concretely establish the name of a made-up power? Let's all face at least one fact in this argument - the name of these powers will, most likely, never be made concrete. Barring the outside chance of a first-person source book on the Heroes universe being published, it's just not going to happen. With that in mind, coupled with the pragmatism that we must call them something, how do we determine that something? Padillah (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Russian Roulette? ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 16:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Stone breaks Scissors breaks head? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't their be a "temporary" appendage to the "none" listing of powers? It's not like Peter's going to be powerless for the rest of the series--that would just be poor planning by the writers at NBC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkmboston (talk • contribs) 02:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia generally doesn't host speculation, I've changed the entry to "None as of Dying of the Light, previously possessed power mimicry and multiple acquired abilities". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Illusion Casting

This may not be correct, but my theory is that the "illusion casting" power that Future Peter uses to take away the scar is Matt's power. Should that be noted? 68.214.212.186 (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You say "This may not be correct" and that it's "your theory". Probably best it isn't noted. Perhaps a good theory on the Heroes wiki. I personally thought it was a power similar to Candice's.-- WORMMЯOW  21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right. There's nothing that confirms this, and until it is confirmed it is just my theory. Thank you. 68.214.212.186 (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Read this First!

• For convenience, the long-held consensus is that we do not list where Peter obtained his powers, due to the often murky nature of how they are acquired. To list where we think they come from is synthesis, part of our original research policy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter's current power situation

I'd like to remind everyone that no one knows the extent of Peter's abilities as of the last episode, "Dual". We do know he can fly. We don't know if he regained all of his abilities, including fly, or if he only regained his mimicry, then re-absorbed Nathan's ability, or if he only gained the ability to fly. This was a public service announcement. Had this been an actual emergency...~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 08:39, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. What we've been presented with is that when Arthur takes powers it's permanent so the question of his having gotten back other powers should be answered - NO. The only question in my mind is if he got his power back and knew he would get flight from Nathan or, and this is just as plausible, did he just get flight as a new power? I tend to err on the side of "We know what his power is going to be, he's already had it." but there's sufficient wiggle room to think the formula would give him a different power than one that would spring forth naturally. But, to revisit for clarity, it's been made clear that he's lost all his powers from before. Arthur took them all permanently. The formula wasn't designed to restore lost powers, but to grant them in the first place. The fact that the formula granted him the same powers he already showed a propensity for should not be surprising. Padillah (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, my actual point is that we don't know if he only gained flight or it unintentionally restored, at the least, his mimicry. With Arthur's penchant for lying, his claim of permanence could have been for some power superiority, or that he doesn't know the extent of his own abilities(Parkman and Daphne had aspects of their abilities that they were unaware of: Parkman - control, Daphne - time travel). In any case, we still don't know the side effects of the formula, as it wasn't tested, but on three people and since it IS a scifi show, and writers like throw curve balls. (Personally, I believe the formula basically "turns on" the gene that gives the person an ability, so if they had an ability, and lost it, they'll just regain their base ability, but that's just my own theory.) ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 13:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Basically, we don't know for certain what powers Peter has at the moment. I expect it's mimicry with flight (and possibly fire) and I'm sure that this will be addressed promptly in February. For the moment, I think the hidden comment is absolutely appropriate, until we have more information from a reliable source. -- WORMMЯOW  14:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

well yes we do not know if he will only get flight because what he wanted was to save his brother i mean both matt and daphne got their power because they wanted something close to it (matt wanting to know what people thought of him and daphne to run) but the others powers seem to be simalar to their personalities Nathan wanting to be on top can fly, micha was very gifted and smart with technolgy is a technopath, sylar wanting to be spiecal (very speical) could take from others what he wanted so he was spiecal even to super humans. so yes he could only have flight or sense his personality has not changed at the base have his old abilities and sense it is empaty and through memory he could still retain the thoughts and feelings towards them he could have them but hey we can't know till the next episode airs hopefully on January 5th —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voltageman78 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

We cannot really speculate on it too much, since not alot has been provided from the writers. However, logically speaking, it is more likely that he got his previous power back of Empathic Mimicry. We know that when ANYONE gets a power, they take time to learn how to control it. Peter not only got 1 - The power he needed, right when he needed it, but also 2- Got a power he already knew how to control. You could also go further to say that 3- Out of all the possible powers he could have got, he got the power of Flight, which just happened to be the same as his brother, who was right beside him. You have more chance of winning the lottery than two people 'randomly' getting the same power in the same room at the right time. I do however believe he has lost his other powers, alot of what we are seeing in this series is actually following along the lines of the alternative future.

Peter in the future, did not show Electrical Discharge powers, which became one of his favorite powers in the present, explanation for this could be that he lost that power when his father absorbed it. He also has a scar, which would ordinarily be impossible to acquire because of Claire Bennets healing factor. This could suggest that a long long time is going to take place between him meeting her again, and during which he gets injured. Then again, you could also argue that he never had the Regen Factor in the future, since Claire Bennet killed his future self so easilly, and he had been in close proximety to her, which alludes to the possibility that he might not have Empathic Mimicry after all, or for some reason, he is unable to absorb her power. Either way, there is evidence to suggest he has Empathic Mimicry again, and evidence to suggest he has something else. Although I feel strongly that it is increasingly unlikely that he has 'flight' as a main power, the probability of it is just so unlikely. Powers I would say he has permanently lost are: Phasing, Electrical Discharge, Pyrokinesis (assuming Merideth is dead), Time Travel (Nothing suggests that Hiro will ever get this power back, and no one else has it).

Anyhow. Sorry for the rant. Baaleos (talk) 00:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This is just pure speculation, and arguably does not belong on wikipedia, however, if you think of it in terms of how his power works, you could argue that he acquires powers when he meets a person, and then associates memory/emotion with that person. He has to think of Sylar initially to use telekinesis, think of Clare to trigger healing etc. If his power is linked to association of a person, then perhaps he cannot re-acquire powers from people he already knows. Eg - He already knows Clare, so he cannot re-acquire her power after it has been lost. This is not a far stretch in the Hero-verse, as after all, Sylar is able to get powers from 'understanding' them alone. One could argue that the reason he was able to re-absorb Nathan's Flight power, assuming that is how he did it, is because he had a new association with him, no longer associating him with 'Friend/Brother' but rather association of 'Enemy/Yet Kinda Still Family' sort of thing. Peter's power has been shown to be associative in the past, triggerable by being near to the person, or thinking about the person who gave the power. Anyhow... that is all. Food for Thought. 12:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baaleos (talk • contribs)

We do not know if the power restoration actually restored his previous power per se, but what we've seen as of now, in today's episode, shows a very alarming change. There is evidence on this matter, I suggest you to actually watch the episode before you comment and start removing everyone's additions to the article. Why didn't he fly if he could? Why did he get beat up suddenly while he was trashing the guards with his super agility and strength and speed, after he touched Tracey? Why did he appear surprised when he accidentally touched Tracey and suddenly started frosting up the plane walls? Why was he stunned when his powers were suddenly converted to frost powers, and why did he still attempt to punch the guard at all? and edit: what about the cool power passing wave thing that went from hand to hand ONLY AFTER PHYSICAL CONTACT, if anyone here wants to insist he got his old power back? --202.156.14.76 (talk) 19:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

In the most recent episode he showed the ability to take a power by touch. when he touched Mohinder he gained his strength. Then when he touched Tracy he seemed to have lost it. Then when the plane was going down he held on for dear life. Now my thing is that maybe he can only have one at a time. Why not just fly out the hole? Why get beat by a guard when your super strong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.102.162.189 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The one thing most of you seem to be forgetting is that Peter (and the rest of the supers) had been drugged, thus inhibiting their abilities and Peter's possible mimicry of said ability. Again, speculation, but a possibility. If a super's ability is inhibited, Peter may not be able to take it. Since Peter was drugged, he may have only been able to mimic one ability at a time. He may have not been able to control the taken abilities (why he didn't fly, why he only used Mohinder's ability for a short period, why he accidentally iced the plane).

I'm not trying to say that my theory is correct, but just to say that there are SO many theories that could explain why Peter could have power mimicry or power theft. We don't know. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 20:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter's current power situation - arbitrary break

I think it might work better for everyone if the only info discussed in re: Peter's Power Situation™ is done so using cited information. I know everyone's all a-titter with Heroes returning, but let's not steer the wikibus into Crazy CruftTown. Clearest possible terms, if it has a RS, V citation, it can go in If not, it cannot. Using only ciations in our arguments betters the noise-to-sound ratio. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think it might be prudent to remind everyone to avoid OR as well, especially with using "clues" in the show to come up with what one believes is the situation. ~Auzemandius {talk/contrib} 09:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

His new power is that of power replication so I think it should have thata down as his ability. His powe mimicary power was taken away. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.159.229 (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

He's still mimicking powers. He just can't mimic more than one. Ophois (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Especially with the recent reboot, I'm starting to question the usefulness of the list of powers. It's mentioned in the body, where pertinent, so there's really no need to keep this going. The simplest thing to do is walk away clean. It will quickly become what it was the first two seasons, a list of everyone's powers. It's not even a case of needing to determine when he got a power since he gains and looses them regularly.In another three episodes this will be nothing but a list of powers. Padillah (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've already removed the reboot powers, as it's pointless to list abilities that he retains for a few minutes. However, I strongly disagree with removing the pre-Villains power table. Ophois (talk) 18:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the speed limit but that's not gonna get me out of my ticket. Why do you strongly disagree? I can't refute an argument you don't make. Padillah (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Because that section is about his powers, so they should list his powers. Just because he no longer has them doesn't mean they should be removed. Sure, the powers are listed throughout the plot, but the plot for this article is ten sections long(!) and makes it very inconvenient for people who just want to see the powers he has absorbed. Ophois (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree; we don't need to document the powers he picks up for a few minutes, but the ones that he has for a substantial amount of time (and have been a significant part of his character history and development, such as picking up Hiro's or Isaac's abilities) do need to be document. Remember, we don't write about fictional works in only the present tense; any old episode can be watched at any time, so we document that just as well as the "present". EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the new table.

On the need for the pre-Villains table: I think EVula and Ophois make good points about the historic usefulness. If you're watching Season 1/2/early 3, you'll want the table just as much as you did beforehand.

On the post-Villains table: You're speculating when you say that his history of powers doesn't matter. All we know is that, so far, he can't access a power once he gains a new one. We don't know that his body completely forgets each power; we don't know whether his power history will be relevant. All we know so far is that Peter says he seems to forget each power.

You can't say, "We shouldn't have a new list of powers, because it's meaningless." If you want to say, "We shouldn't have that table until we know whether it's important," then that's defensible. (I don't quite agree. I'm still interested in the question, "What powers has he had?" But I won't argue too strongly, if no one else agrees with me.)

On my other change: Right before I added the new table, I also moved the old table to the bottom of the "Powers and Abilities" section. I think it works better if all the exposition is together, and the tables (or tables) are at the bottom of the section. Ophois reverted both changes at the same time, but I'm not sure why. I'm going to restore that change. Ophois, if you still disagree with it, please explain why.Tirmie (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the tables should be with the exposition; if that means there's a paragraph between them, so be it. However, the "We don't know that his body completely forgets each power" bit is the first step towards original research; there's lots we don't know, but we do know that he can't currently hold more than one power. I think merely listing the powers (in the text, not a table) is fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is my take on it:

1. we don't know where this season is going, any more than we did with any of the seasons prior.
2. To that end, speculating as to what is happening isn't going to do us a bit of good.
3. As well, there is a batch of recentism occurring (note how the section subhead keeps changing?), due to the episodes still unfolding.
4. We tend to try to skip forward to the end of the story - that is how editors here are (not entirely unlike the typical fanboi) - so if we cannot change the editor, we limit how the behavior is exhibited.

To that end, I am beginning to think that we need to do two things. First, we need to pull the table and put it here in the article discussion. It is useful, and if the one-power-at-a-time thing is a red herring (and Peter is just in the middle of a powers "reboot"), we can add it back eventually. We can say that Peter prior to this season was able to gain and retain powers, but his power being removed and returned has altered this accumulative effect He still can absorb abilities, which is his and always has been his base power. Because he apparently cannot retain them, it is illogical for us to keep them in a list, either. That way, we avoid the crufty gatherings of a list of every power known to man and Hollywood writer. If Peter;s ability returns to something resembling his former level of ability, we put the table back in. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne's suggestions make sense. For myself, I'm still interested in both tables--but this article doesn't have to contain everything interesting about Peter! People still have Google, or HeroesWiki for that matter. (And if we remove the table, then my change to the order becomes irrelevant. If we don't remove the table... Well, I'll leave that in other people's hands. I just hope you'll spend a little time comparing the current version with the table-splitting-up-the-exposition version, before you revert.) Tirmie (talk) 14:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter's current power situation - arbitrary break II

I've removed the following from the article:

Prior to his confrontation with his father, Peter used the following abilities, not including powers used by future incarnations of himself:

Ability	Episode first exhibited
Enhanced dreaming	"Genesis"
Flight
Precognition (expressed through visual art)	"Don't Look Back"
Space-time manipulation	"Collision"
Rapid cellular regeneration	"Homecoming"
Telepathy	"Fallout"
Invisibility	"Godsend"
Telekinesis	"Unexpected"
Induced radioactivity	"The Hard Part"
Enhanced strength	"How to Stop an Exploding Man"
Electric manipulation	"Four Months Later..."
Phasing	"Lizards"
Pyrokinesis	"I Am Become Death"
Intuitive aptitude
Enhanced speed

... as per the above discussion. When (and probably more appropriately, if) Peter's powers are stable, we can add this back with modifications. Until then, it is unencyclopedic to keep it in, to my reckoning. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

? How is it unencyclopedic to have that table? His power was stable when he acquired all those powers, so they should remain. Just because his powers now have changed doesn't mean that it should affect what was already there. Wikipedia is supposed to encompass the whole show, not just what is happening now... Ophois (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought Arcayne meant the other table, the one of powers he's had for three minutes at a time. Per Ophois argument above I was willing to let this one stand. Padillah (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Really, I see where both of you are coming from. Take a moment and look at the section without it. In what way is the description of his powers incomplete without a list of the abilities he was able to compile earlier? The article has to evolve as the character does. He doesn't have those abilities now, and noting that he had Pyrokinesis and Precognition before he lost them all seems...well, a bit crufty. I am not saying that we purge the list forever; its why I ported it here. If it turns out to be some massive dream sequence, or Peter gets his mimicry engine revving again, we can put it back in. I am just thinking it's extraneous right now. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm apparently not going to be any help in this situation. I'm the one that started the removal discussion. I obviously feel that the article is big enough as it is and needs to be "plot-trimmed" and this would be a good place to start. But, as I said above I can see why people would want to keep a notepad of powers Peter had absorbed in the event that it becomes relevant in the future or they are trying to reconcile a continuity conflict in some back issues. I'm no help at all. Padillah (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that he no longer has the powers. He had them for two and half seasons, so they should be listed. The section is for his powers and abilities, and those were his powers and abilities. Rogue doesn't have Ms. Marvel's powers any more, so does that mean that they should be removed from her article? The powers don't have to be relevant to the future to be listed, as they've been relevant to a majority of the series. Ophois (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

To begin with, Rogue is hardly an equitable comparison article - it has a couple of tags denoting the sorry state of that article. I'd like to think that this one is somewhat better off.

That he had the ability to gather powers has been noted. If he no longer has them, what point is it to an article to note all the powers he does not have any more?As for relevancy, how is the list of powers relevant exactly? Again, noting he had powers (instead of a list of powers that have gone the way of Batman's rainbow batsuit). Just as we note that Batman has something in his utility belt for every occasion, we similarly do not denote everything that has has been used from that utility belt. By the same token, we don't need to list every power that Peter has obtained; we can simply note how, at one point, he could hold onto multiple powers at once. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

One word: RECENTISM. The scope of the article should not be focused solely on the present, but on the series as a whole. The fact that he does not have those powers at the moment is not relevant to the issue of the importance of documenting them. Wanderer32 (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am not sure this falls under the scope of recentism, as Peter has been without powers since at least the middle of last season. He did have powers, accumulated powers, and we aren't talking about removing mention of that - its already noted. If you are, however, applying recentism to the removal of a list that is in itself not notable in its content, you are applying that particular essay (and not policy or even guideline) incorrectly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Persuasion is missing from the table. He used it during the fight with Isaac in the episode Unexpected, when he declared "Don't lie to me", causing Isaac to confess.92.10.187.198 (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Writers have confirmed that he has never used that ability. It was just a sound effect to make the scene cooler. Ophois (talk) 04:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, I move that the pre-Arthur table be put back into the article. Ophois (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Read my thing on this belowIAmTheCoinMan (talk) 10:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

In response to Arcayne's previous post, yes, it is recentism. See Wikipedia:Notability#Notability is not temporary, Peter's powers were no less notable the day after Dying of the Light aired than they were the day before, and have probably gained notability over the past four and a half months due to new sources coming into existance. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

But,Gordon, Notability doesn't affect content. Only inclusion. So what metric do we use to determine content? Padillah (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How many times do we have to reinvent the wheel here?

Peter's ability is not - I repeat, not - empathic mimicry. We keep having this conversation every few months because one person or another decided to either literally (and quite spectacularly incorrect) interpret Claude's statement in the second season. I have asked for citations, and its pretty much high time someone bring them forth, in stead of edit-warring the crazy nonsense back in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

A citation was provided, the Company map that listed it as such, and nobody was able to provide a better source for the name that labeled it otherwise. As well, it has pretty much become the term for the power in the fanbase, as all other sites (including the Australian Yahoo page for Heroes) lists it as "empathic mimicry". All Q&A's that I've seen have the writers responding to questions about "empathic mimicry", and they have never said that that isn't the power's name. And it's not being edit-warred "back in". The term has been used throughout all the Heroes articles for over four months up till now. Ophois (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And, if you will recall, the consensus at that time was that neither fansites nor marketing websites to increase viewership of the series meet WP:EL. If you have something somewhat more citable, bring forth the reference with all due speed. And its been a rather busy four months. If you wish to change consensus, then start here - not via edit-warring it here. Remember BRD, please. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well since you don't have any sources listing it as "power mimicry", I'd like to call for a vote on which name is more appropriate. Ophois (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hold on there, tiger - not so fast. Power mimicry is what it is called - hence the wikilinking in place. We have that. If you want to call it something else, you need to cite that. This isn't a vote for the popular kid in middle school. If you want to add something other that the linked ability, then you need to come up with reliable, neutral citations that meet our EL policy. Without it, I am afraid you are shooting blanks. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

We might want to look up that past discussion because I don't remember the NBC-sponsored website being declared unfit. In fact I thought I remembered that we determined that if the writers want to call it that (and the website proves they do) then for us to change the name to something else would be OR. If we are getting rid of the NBC sponsored media cite, then we're going to wipe out several more citations than just this one. Quite a few release schedules are based on NBC.com and it's related sites. (I remember this because I HATE "Empathic Mimicry" but got stuck with it anyway. What we DO keep changing is that he's an Empath.) Padillah (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you are right here. By any measure, Peter doesn't have empathy beyond normal human capability (and I dare someone to put info that he is), but then again, some other characters appear to be sprouting enhancements to their abilities, so maybe he will develop out some wacky permutation, like being able to shoot lightning from his ass or whatever.

I am not entirely convinced that a marketing game meets out criteria for citation, open as it is to manipulation by the series folk (as they are wont to do, and examples of this extensive manipulation exist within Lost and Fringe); the information there one week and then gone the next. This isn't a reliable source of info, to my reckoning. News stories, blogs from the creators - material that becomes static once posted. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The latest Q&A has the writers responding to questions involving "empathic mimicry". Is that enough to be considered a source, or do we need a writer to blatantly state it to count? Ophois (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the answerer doesn't want to say, but it isn't stating unequivocally that his power is described as such. If anything, it is saying that Peter's normal, average, everyday human empathy - the kind that you or I feel for our brother human (when we aren't dipping into the well of schadenfraude) - is what allows his ability to work. It's also saying that Peter becoming more settled and grounded again is the key to expanding his ability. Recall that Claude - a person mostly devoid of human empathy and caring - notes with cynical pity that Peter has empathy for people. He is commenting on him being a sucker, and not defining his supernatural ability. This is reinforced by the fact that his mother describes Peter as "the most powerful of us"; had there been another person like Peter, this wouldn't be a statement Mrs. Petrelli would make. Granted, this reasoning is all synthesis on my part, but it is a synthesis to ensure that we don't make a larger mistake and literally transcribe what one person said into a description of an ability. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Season Premiere Sept. 22nd, 2009

Arcayne, I think we may have to backtrack on the "Claude wasn't calling his power 'Empathy'" line. Now we've got another character discussing, out of hand, that he bumped into "an Empath" (I know the CC says "I'm at an impasse" but the context for that statement is all wrong). That's two in-show references to his being "an Empath", we may have to give this one over. Padillah (talk) 11:54, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Now...

Now I read alot of the Peter's abilities arugment thingy, but theres no way im gonna read all of it, its a very long discussion. Mainly i thinks its only right to say what abilities he has or had at some time or another. After all, his powers are a large part of what he is, and what he has become. Right?

What I'm saying is that there should be a column in this article like there is in the Sylar article. The interesting thing about Peter is that he got powers from his brother and mother (for a brief amount of time) before you knew too much about it all. Like he knew when Nathan and his wife got into an accident, (cause he dreamt it), way before it was revealed that Angela could do so. Doesn't matter how brief of a time he had a certain power, because it still has shaped the character. He used that he new about Nathans' car accident before he got the call in like the first episode, and it really made him believe that he had powers.

But "Peter's original ability is to mimic the powers of others, acquiring powers simply by being near someone. Peter is eventually stripped of his abilities, before later regaining a modified form of this ability." is really the only bit of information (in the Powers and abilities section) about Peters powers for the first two season, and first 39 episodes of the series. If you removes the powers for those 39 episodes, why not just remove other stuff for the 39 episode, cause they have shaped the character heaps. But what many people said above is correct. And while I do understand the Batman utility belt argument, the big difference is; that batmans utility belt is a plot device, where as peters powers shape in.

In final my argument is this; His previous powers has shaped him and has made him who he is. Hypothetically, Say if Luke Campbell had depression from 12 years until 14 years of age. Although he no longer has it, the experience would certainly shaped and changed him. You get me?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 01:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I do get you, Iam. The difference between Sylar and Peter is that Sylar opens up your head and takes your ability and, with the exception of Claire, you are pretty much taking a dirt nap. It no longer becomes imporant who he got the power from, from a television serial point of view. Peter interacts with the people who he mimics, and their power - and their story is continuing. Peter's ability is indeed a plot device. They are not who Peter is. Who Peter is, and not what Peter is, is what helps shape the plot. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

How bizarre, I came to the same conclusion as you but from a completely different POV. I think Sylar's power-grabs are significant because they are actionable - He does them on purpose with the goal of obtaining the power. Peter did nothing to get his powers. Noting them is akin to noting that he was breathing in the last episode. Until recently I didn't consider there to have been an action of "Peter getting X power", he simply stood there and was blessed from above. Now that he has to participate in the power taking and make judgments, which power to take and at what time, it's getting to be more of a conscious decision and, thus, more notable. Odd line of reasoning, but there it is. Padillah (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)