This wiki is a XML full dump clone of "Heroes Wiki", the main wiki about the Heroes saga that has been shut down permanently since June 1, 2020. The purpose of this wiki is to keep online an exhaustive and accurate database about the franchise.
Talk:Healing touch/Archive 2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|
WARNING: Talk:Healing touch/Archive 2 is an archive of past messages. New messages should be added to Talk:Healing touch. |
|
Unofficial poll
Sorry to do this, but I've seen this unofficial poll everywhere in this wiki (on pages that was nominated for name change)
Healing Touch (The name given by the company)
- --Ricard Desi (t,c) 08:40, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- --Vampirate68 | Talk | Contribs | 08:52, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- --TanderixUTCR 16:29 (Italy), 9 January 2010 (EST)
- --PJDEP - Need further explanation? 12:33, 9 January 2010 (EST) (I'm also okay with Life and Death and Jeremy's ability)
Life and Death
- --Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:38, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- --Jenx222 | U / T / C | <inlcudeonly>08:00, 7 January 2012 (EST) 15:50, 9 January 2010 (EST)
Life Flow Control
Life Transferal
Health Manipulation
- --Catalyst · Talk · HL 08:52, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- --Leckie -- Talk 13:09, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- --ERROR 20:28, 20 January 2010 (EST) - I like this one best, because it describes the ability in full, "life flow control" sounds a little unprofessional, and "life and death" is just a description. "Life transferal" and "life force control" both fit the bill, too, but like Intuitive Empath said, Peter's exhaustion could just be due to overuse, so life transferal is speculative. Health manipulation does, however, imply Jeremy could cause minor health problems, but Peter demonstrated the ability to heal all but those problems, and as the ability has that discussion-triggering flipside, it logically follows that those health problems could be inflicted, too.
Life-Force Manipulation
- --Darkfiremaster13 23:53, 8 January 2010 (EST)
- --Scorvi12 08:47, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- --Catalyst · Talk · HL 08:52, 9 January 2010 (EST) Either one of the two is fine by me.
- --Hiroman 19:56, 9 January 2010 (EST) Either this or my other choice is ok by me.
- --Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:38, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- --Evil Maldini 16:57, 14 February 2010 (EST)
- --Jenx222 | U / T / C | <inlcudeonly>08:00, 7 January 2012 (EST) 17:00, 14 February 2010 (EST)
- --Imax99 07:21, 19 February 2010 (EST)
Why it couldn't be Healing touch
The name given to Jeremy's ability by the Company is an outdated name. They called it as they saw it and not what it became. That's like calling A "A", but when it turns to B, you want to keeping calling it "A". If someone can give me another reason why we should keep it as Healing touch besides the canon argument, I'm willing to let up. --OutbackZack 13:02, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- I'm fine with "healing touch", "life and death" and "Jeremy's ability". As long as it's one of those three I won't complain. I wouldn't necessarily reject "healing touch" just because it doesn't encompass the entire ability however, we did the same with Tracy, so unless we're willing to change precedence for all (which is something I haven't really formulated a strong opinion for or against), we shouldn't make an exception for one.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 13:10, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- With the second part you said, I think it would be difficult to use one current issue to support or argue against the other. Only because there's no way both can be resolved at the same time. With that said, one issue will have to be solved before the other. --OutbackZack 14:38, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- PJDEP, does that mean you'd be opposed to all the other names proposed? -- Leckie -- Talk 15:27, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Yes, why?--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:34, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- PJDEP, does that mean you'd be opposed to all the other names proposed? -- Leckie -- Talk 15:27, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- With the second part you said, I think it would be difficult to use one current issue to support or argue against the other. Only because there's no way both can be resolved at the same time. With that said, one issue will have to be solved before the other. --OutbackZack 14:38, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- The prime concern is that it may be an extension of the same ability, not a different one. And because there is not enough evidence to overrule the ability name given by the Company, "healing touch" is still a valid option. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 13:11, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- What about what Noah said, and this isn't a direct quote but close to it, "it evolved into something entirely different"--OutbackZack 14:38, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- I believe he says "but it evolved into something very different" (not "entirely", which does make a difference). Which implies that while they didn't exactly hit a bullseye, they may not have been altogether wrong. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 15:11, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- "A" is very different than "B". So we need a name that is "very different" than healing touch for this ability. --OutbackZack 16:43, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Ok, something I find really annoying in this whole discussion: people keep using examples, such as Tracy, to justify inaccurate names. THE TRACY MATTER IS STILL IN DISCUSSION MUCH LIKE THIS ONE. Just because we haven't reached a conclusion it doesn't mean that the current situation is the consensus. This goes for every ability we have an issue with effects and name. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:38, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- I believe he says "but it evolved into something very different" (not "entirely", which does make a difference). Which implies that while they didn't exactly hit a bullseye, they may not have been altogether wrong. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 15:11, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- What about what Noah said, and this isn't a direct quote but close to it, "it evolved into something entirely different"--OutbackZack 14:38, 9 January 2010 (EST)
why was it changed from "jeremy's ability"?
Calling it healing touch is wrong. That name was based on Linderman's and Ishi's abilities, so their ability should be healing touch! We have decided that Jeremy's ability is not the same as theirs so his cannot be healing touch. I think it's high time we got someone else in to help, and get an admin to protect the page from moves and edits. --mc_hammark 15:10, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- While I don't agree that calling it healing touch is wrong, it shouldn't have been moved back without some resolution.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:12, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Mc hammark, there is a canon source for the name, which trumps "Jeremy's ability". The only way we can move it to ANYTHING BUT Healing touch is if we come to a complete consensus. We haven't done that, and likely won't. Since it was explicitly named, we HAVE to keep it. Don't move it back.--Riddler 19:15, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Furthermore, the name is NOT based on Linderman/Ishi's ability, otherwise they would already have been merged. Jeremy's ability was named by a one of Noah's documents.--Riddler 19:19, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Noone can come to an agreement about healing touch so it should be neutral and be left as jeremy's ability.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 19:21, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Catalyst, since it has an in-show source, the default name for the page has to be just that. To put it back to Jeremy's ability, we'd need a consensus for that. No consensus doesn't always mean "User's ability." This needs to be noted somewhere.--Riddler 19:24, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- The in-show name is outdated in-show, Jeremy's ability is the only 100% accurate name while there is no consensus. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:26, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Freezing is also outdated. Keep that in mind.--Riddler 19:27, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Freezing involves other people, it still has to be split, this was already split from Ishi and Linderman. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:30, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- You know what I meant. Tracy's involvement in it is outdated. If her ability is split from that article and named "Tracy's ability", then I can agree with this being named "Jeremy's ability". If it's left alone, this must be left alone. --Riddler 19:32, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- We might even bypass that if the on-going poll splits the page in the current proposition. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:34, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- You know what I meant. Tracy's involvement in it is outdated. If her ability is split from that article and named "Tracy's ability", then I can agree with this being named "Jeremy's ability". If it's left alone, this must be left alone. --Riddler 19:32, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Freezing involves other people, it still has to be split, this was already split from Ishi and Linderman. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:30, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Freezing is also outdated. Keep that in mind.--Riddler 19:27, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- The in-show name is outdated in-show, Jeremy's ability is the only 100% accurate name while there is no consensus. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:26, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Catalyst, since it has an in-show source, the default name for the page has to be just that. To put it back to Jeremy's ability, we'd need a consensus for that. No consensus doesn't always mean "User's ability." This needs to be noted somewhere.--Riddler 19:24, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Noone can come to an agreement about healing touch so it should be neutral and be left as jeremy's ability.--Catalyst · Talk · HL 19:21, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Furthermore, the name is NOT based on Linderman/Ishi's ability, otherwise they would already have been merged. Jeremy's ability was named by a one of Noah's documents.--Riddler 19:19, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Mc hammark, there is a canon source for the name, which trumps "Jeremy's ability". The only way we can move it to ANYTHING BUT Healing touch is if we come to a complete consensus. We haven't done that, and likely won't. Since it was explicitly named, we HAVE to keep it. Don't move it back.--Riddler 19:15, 9 January 2010 (EST)
Moving this page
The name we've been given for this ability is "healing touch". The name was given very explicitly in a canon source. We can debate the name all we want, but in the end, our job as wiki editors is simply to archive. Despite our debates and strong feeling for or against the name, we will go with the name that is given to us. Whether it's right or wrong, or whether it only names an attribute or not is not the question. I know his ability has evolved to do other things, but we don't know if the name of his ability has changed. On a personal note, I can't always say why writers choose the names they do, and I certainly don't always agree with the names that the writers give us...but the important thing to remember is that we should archive what's given to us. So please don't move this page from "healing touch" until we're told that the name has changed. Thank you. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2010 (EST)
- Ryan, I disagree. You say that it's irrelevant if a name cover all attributes of an ability; but the naming conventions claim otherwise. But the very same naming conventions indeed say that only canon names should be accepted. That was the entire point of the discussion: the "must cover all aspects" that currently exists in the naming conventions is conflicting with other guidelines, so moving this page to anything but Jeremy's ability is arbitrary and unjustified, since any guideline to be used is void in this case. If the admin team thinks this page should be called "healing touch" and that's non-negotiable, that's fine, but please fix the naming conventions first, or this sort of thing will keep happening again.--Referos 11:22, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- I agree with Referos, and Noah did describe the ability as more, using other terms than Healing touch. Just because The Company said it was Healing touch however many years ago does not mean they were right. The Company is not infallible, they can make mistakes, too. --Skullman1392 12:46, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- You're right, the Company isn't infallible. But it gave us an explicit name and we don't have a consensus agreeing on anything to change it. We have to go with whats given unless we can come to a consensus, and no consensus does not always mean it drops to the lowest level of the naming convention. --Riddler 12:52, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- I have to agree with Referos as well, Ryan. Whether or not it names all attributes of an ability is exactly the right question, because if it doesn't, the conventions state we cannot use it. This is true whether it comes from the Company or anywhere else. If the conventions need changing, that's a seperate debate that must be held first. Swm 12:55, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- And that seperate debate has been started at the naming conventions article. If anyone wants to weigh in, please go there.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 12:56, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- We're not here to question whether or not the name that's been given to us matches the power exactly, or whether it names all attributes. If the name of the power is "healing touch", then that's the name of the ability, and all the other attributes that might be associated with the power should be described in the body of the article. No, the Company is not infallible, but we have no reason to believe that they're wrong in naming the ability, especially since they had encountered others with the same ability and the same change to the ability (to take away life as well as give life). I'm not sure what needs to be changed in the naming conventions--it states very clearly that if a name is given for a ability in a canon source, that name should be used, regardless of whether it is the best description or not. Only when we are coming up with a descriptive name should the name be rejected if it doesn't cover all aspects. If you can be more specific about what changes need to be made to the naming conventions, I will gladly bring it up with the admin team, and a broader team if needed. But until then, our standard is and always has been that when a name is given to us, we use it. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- If there was nothing wrong with the naming conventions, we wouldn't be having such a lengthy discussion about possible changes to it. No convention or guideline is perfect, there will always be flaws and cracks, but not to mend those cracks if possible seems like giving up on it. The very fact we call it a convention does that. It's too strict. Guidelines, while setting conventions for how things should be done also leaves open the possibility of doing something different should a situation in which it doesn't work, it's more flexible. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 17:38, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- "As a general rule, for a possible name to be considered the name of an ability, it should include at least all aspects of the ability which have been displayed; otherwise, it is considered to be the name of an aspect or effect of the ability." This is listed under "names derived from canon sources" section, where episodes are listed as a canon source. This appears to conflict with the rule you cite, Ryan, but there's nothing there about this only applying for descriptive names as opposed to generally. Hence, the debate is over which of the two rules should take precedence in cases like this one and Tracy's power- and this is why people suggest that whether "healing touch" covers one attribute or all of them is indeed important. Swm 18:36, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- Yes. Ryan, the point of the discussion wasn't really whether or not to use "healing touch"; it was pretty much a flaw in the naming conventions. As Swm pointed out, currently they state that even a canon name can be discarded if it doesn't cover all aspects of the power. This is a contradiction because, as you said, a canon name cannot be invalidated, ever. Since the naming conventions explode, we have nothing to justify naming this page, whether "healing touch", "life and death" or "fipojfpioe". The naming conventions must be altered, or they will remain void.--Referos 20:00, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- Ah, I see where you're talking about. It does say in general, which is softly referring to times when people mention an ability's name in passing, not when they are given explicitly. For instance, Hiro's ability is sometimes called "time travel" in conversation, but that certainly doesn't cover all aspects of his ability, so it's rejected. Ditto the Haitian's ability being called "memory wiping". Luckily, in those two cases, the name of Hiro's ability was able to be derived from an overarching conversational comment from Hiro about being able to manipulate the space-time continuum (and then the name was later given to us in a canon source). In the Haitian's case, we were able to create a description that covered all aspects.
Some time after the naming conventions were developed, we decided that explicitness takes precedence over canonicity. That doesn't really affect the case here, but an offshoot of that decision would be that if a name is explicitly given, we use it. I can certainly update the naming conventions so that the part you're quoting says, "As a general rule, for a non-explicitly given name to be considered the name of an ability..." That probably does need to be updated. However, the rest of the naming convention still stands--if a name is given for a ability in a canon source, that name should be used, regardless of whether it is the best description or not. It's not a perfect set of guidelines, but it certainly does work. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- Anything could work, but it certainly wouldn't work as well as it could if it was different. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:12, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- I thought it was our job to correctly archive the show. Just because we are given an ability name does not mean it is correct. Correctly archiving the show would take into account all aspects of a person's ability when naming it, not just a name stated, but everything the user has been shown to do. It is wrong to name an ability from an outdated source that is no longer correct. Sure, years ago, Jeremy could only heal things, so The Company called his ability Healing touch. But his ability has since evolved to not only a healing touch, but a killing touch as well. Saying that Jeremy has a Healing touch is only stating an aspect of his ability, not his ability in its entirety. Healing touch is not his only ability, and should not be considered as such. It would make no sense to somebody new on the site to come to a page that has "Jeremy {[kills}] a man" with "{[kills}]" linking to a page titled "Healing touch". Said user would become confused, wondering why on earth anyone would name an ability that causes the user to kill through touch, "Healing touch". It makes no logical sense to the user, so he or she discredits our website as unreliable and inaccurate, especially if the user has seen the show! They know Jeremy can both heal and kill, so why should his ability be called "Healing touch"? It makes us look ignorant to keep it as such, when it is so obviously and clearly more than that. It is, notable, that the Company misdiagnosed his ability as only a healing touch; in fact, I think this should deffinatly be mentioned on the page, but this not mean his ability should still be named that way. --Skullman1392 20:33, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- If the Company used the name "healing touch" to describe Jeremy's ability, that's what we use too. That would be correctly archiving the page. We correctly describe the ability on the article itself, not in the title. Yes, it's obvious that Jeremy's ability has mutated or changed, much like Tracy's and Matt's and others' have. But we don't know that the name of the ability has changed. Until we know that, it would be supposition to assume anything else. Ultimately, we go with the name that was given to us. Always have, always will. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- Then I guess what I don't understand is why so many people blantantly follow rules set years ago, without even considering the need for change. Who said rules can't change? For some reason, it seems like certain people on the wiki are completely and utterly blind to the need to change certain things. "Nothing is set in stone." So why does the wiki have to remain completely unchanging when that isn't the way the world works? Things change and evolve; we should change with them. --Skullman1392 00:02, 11 January 2010 (EST)
- If the Company used the name "healing touch" to describe Jeremy's ability, that's what we use too. That would be correctly archiving the page. We correctly describe the ability on the article itself, not in the title. Yes, it's obvious that Jeremy's ability has mutated or changed, much like Tracy's and Matt's and others' have. But we don't know that the name of the ability has changed. Until we know that, it would be supposition to assume anything else. Ultimately, we go with the name that was given to us. Always have, always will. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- I thought it was our job to correctly archive the show. Just because we are given an ability name does not mean it is correct. Correctly archiving the show would take into account all aspects of a person's ability when naming it, not just a name stated, but everything the user has been shown to do. It is wrong to name an ability from an outdated source that is no longer correct. Sure, years ago, Jeremy could only heal things, so The Company called his ability Healing touch. But his ability has since evolved to not only a healing touch, but a killing touch as well. Saying that Jeremy has a Healing touch is only stating an aspect of his ability, not his ability in its entirety. Healing touch is not his only ability, and should not be considered as such. It would make no sense to somebody new on the site to come to a page that has "Jeremy {[kills}] a man" with "{[kills}]" linking to a page titled "Healing touch". Said user would become confused, wondering why on earth anyone would name an ability that causes the user to kill through touch, "Healing touch". It makes no logical sense to the user, so he or she discredits our website as unreliable and inaccurate, especially if the user has seen the show! They know Jeremy can both heal and kill, so why should his ability be called "Healing touch"? It makes us look ignorant to keep it as such, when it is so obviously and clearly more than that. It is, notable, that the Company misdiagnosed his ability as only a healing touch; in fact, I think this should deffinatly be mentioned on the page, but this not mean his ability should still be named that way. --Skullman1392 20:33, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- Anything could work, but it certainly wouldn't work as well as it could if it was different. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:12, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- We're not here to question whether or not the name that's been given to us matches the power exactly, or whether it names all attributes. If the name of the power is "healing touch", then that's the name of the ability, and all the other attributes that might be associated with the power should be described in the body of the article. No, the Company is not infallible, but we have no reason to believe that they're wrong in naming the ability, especially since they had encountered others with the same ability and the same change to the ability (to take away life as well as give life). I'm not sure what needs to be changed in the naming conventions--it states very clearly that if a name is given for a ability in a canon source, that name should be used, regardless of whether it is the best description or not. Only when we are coming up with a descriptive name should the name be rejected if it doesn't cover all aspects. If you can be more specific about what changes need to be made to the naming conventions, I will gladly bring it up with the admin team, and a broader team if needed. But until then, our standard is and always has been that when a name is given to us, we use it. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- And that seperate debate has been started at the naming conventions article. If anyone wants to weigh in, please go there.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 12:56, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- I have to agree with Referos as well, Ryan. Whether or not it names all attributes of an ability is exactly the right question, because if it doesn't, the conventions state we cannot use it. This is true whether it comes from the Company or anywhere else. If the conventions need changing, that's a seperate debate that must be held first. Swm 12:55, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- You're right, the Company isn't infallible. But it gave us an explicit name and we don't have a consensus agreeing on anything to change it. We have to go with whats given unless we can come to a consensus, and no consensus does not always mean it drops to the lowest level of the naming convention. --Riddler 12:52, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- I agree with Referos, and Noah did describe the ability as more, using other terms than Healing touch. Just because The Company said it was Healing touch however many years ago does not mean they were right. The Company is not infallible, they can make mistakes, too. --Skullman1392 12:46, 10 January 2010 (EST)
- Query for you Ryan. You say it is supposition if we assume any name that's not been used on the show. But if the name we choose is inferred directly from actual canon evidence (i.e. episodes), how are we speculating? Example: if we called Jeremy's ability "healing and killing" (awful name I know, but bear with me), because that's what he's been shown to do (he can heal, and he can kill), there's no original thinking there at all, just like when we're not when we put the information in the article itself. This would also apply to Tracy and something like "water manipulation". Surely we cannot be said to be speculating if everything we use is backed up by the evidence, including the ability's name? However, we are speculating if we say that the writers want his ability to still be called "healing touch", because we've no evidence for that. If we're going for the least amount of speculation possible, therefore, the name shouldn't remain healing touch at all. Swm 05:46, 11 January 2010 (EST)
- Now, this upcoming idea may sound just as awful, but it could theoretically be possible that Jeremy's ability to "kill" is not actually an ability to kill at all. It is theoretically possible that Jeremy used his ability (of "healing touch") to heal himself using his victim's health, and simply healed himself so intensely that nothing was left. Look at what happens when Peter uses it. He heals someone, and his own life energy is substantially weakened (to the point where he may wind up dying trying to save someone). What if an aspect of this ability, is the ability to reverse the effect. Healing yourself at the cost of someone else's life energy. This could even explain (if we were to entertain the notion of combining the two abilities) Ishi's death immediately after healing Hiro's memory. And take Linderman. He has known about his ability for about 30 years, during which time he could have found ways to channel his power to less weaken him afterward. Anyway, my point is, it is possible this is still a healing-centric power. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 14:52, 11 January 2010 (EST)
- This debate is starting to become very clear. It's looking like this:
- "Here is the name."
- "The name is wrong."
- "But that's the name they gave us."
- "Well, it's wrong, let's change it."
- "The rules say we go with the name they gave us."
- "Then the rules are wrong, let's change those."
- "An admin says the canon rule is correct, we can't change it, even if we want to."
- "Then the canon rule is wrong, let's change everything."
- Here's the situation, guys. We were given a canon name by the writers, by the most knowledgeable in-canon source: The Company. We have no other explicit names given to us in a canon setting. Every other suggested name was a description given by one character, at best. A description in a canon source cannot overrule an explicit name in a canon source. If we attempt to change that rule, then literally every ability name in the wiki is open to debate, interpretation, and change, despite the writers of the show telling us otherwise. This ability was named healing touch, and this is the only name we are able to choose from. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 14:46, 11 January 2010 (EST)
- Now that Ryan cleared up the misunderstanding of the rules I'm fine with the name. I only debated for the name change because of the unclear guidelines that had supported it. --OutbackZack 15:23, 11 January 2010 (EST)
- An excellent summary of the debate, Ricard (no sarcasm). The thing is, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that final conclusion. Just because it would mean we would need to debate a lot, possibly all of the other ability names if we change our rules, it doesn't follow therefore that the correct course of action is to keep the current ones. It simply means we've adopted a possibly unsuitable policy for a long period of time and now need to correct it (which I believe is the case). Saying "to do this would require a lot of work, therefore it's not the right thing to do" doesn't seem a strong argument to me. Swm 14:19, 12 January 2010 (EST)
- Now that Ryan cleared up the misunderstanding of the rules I'm fine with the name. I only debated for the name change because of the unclear guidelines that had supported it. --OutbackZack 15:23, 11 January 2010 (EST)
Still a healing power?
Separating this from the above debate because it only just occurred to me, but it might help explain exactly what this power is doing, and (meanwhile) possibly support "healing touch" as still being a correct name. Now, the big concern is that Jeremy can kill using his ability. But what if the killing is not the ability, but a side effect of the ability?
Now, let me explain. When Peter uses this ability to heal the hospital patients, he is visibly weakened by using it. His own life energy is being depleted by healing others. Now, let's take the opposite approach. We witnessed Jeremy kill a man using his ability. What if he was able to reverse his ability? The biggest flaw in Linderman's ability was that he could heal anyone, but he couldn't save himself. What if healing touch could be used to heal yourself using someone else's health? Jeremy could have, out of reflex and possible fear of being hurt, uncontrollably healed himself, at the cost of the other man's health (and ultimately, his life). Thus, this ability could still be described as a "healing touch". It's just that the one being touched and the one being healed need not be the same person.
Now, in addition, we can observe this ability from the perspectives of Linderman and Ishi. Linderman used this ability to heal, but had over 30 years of experience with his ability. It is possible that he learned how to no longer be exhausted by the use of his ability, but after the trauma of the Vietnam War, did not attempt to explore his ability much more than knowing he could heal (whereas Jeremy's confusion and fear may have "unlocked" the darker side of it, in a subconscious attempt to protect himself). Now we see Ishi, who herself is dying. It is possible she was aware of the darker side of her ability, however, let us see her surroundings. She lives with her husband Kaito, a Company founder (not risking his life to cure her cancer), and her son Hiro (whom she would never risk harm to of any sort). She may not have known where the ability could go, and if she did, she would almost certainly not use it to harm anyone. When she healed Hiro's memory and transfered the catalyst to him, the flipside killed her.
So, gigantic post, but I think if we consider this power as the ability to heal at the cost of another's health, Linderman's, Ishi's, and Jeremy's abilities remain consistent and singular. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 15:42, 11 January 2010 (EST)
- It's possible, and a nice theory, but still a theory. Peter could have just been over using the ability. We all can run, but at some point we get tired and can't run anymore. Same could be said for abilities. However, because Healing touch was only name for Jeremy and not for Linderman or Ishi, I support the separation. --OutbackZack 15:54, 11 January 2010 (EST)
- TBH, I feel that it's completely the same ability, but just with an evolution that linderman hadn't discovered. Claire no longer feels pain, but sylar still does, Tracy can turn into water, but no one else with freezing demonstrated it, Flint learned how to make his fire "extra hot" etc . . .Gamerelite1 22:57, 18 January 2010 (EST)
Nothing will happen here
Not to be rude to people who are actually interested in this topic, but I think this ability will simply end up again as "Jeremy's ability", though there is an AT on his ability. People will simply counter the fact that this is an ability called as "Healing touch" becuase it could also kill, not just simply heal and then another will contradict this claim and so on and so forth... this is an endless debate that people will son forget like Gordon's and Trevor's abilities.
I know my opinion doesn't count much, seeing that I'm a newbie here but I guess I probably should say what's on my mind to clear my head up. What if the most cannon sources that are given to the audience are incorrect or not fitting to the site's naming conventions? Say if Mohinder(from the TV episodes) calls Meredith's ability "Heat Generation", would the site follow it when it could clearly do more than that(make fire, to be specific)? I think that the wiki is torn between following cannon sources(even if the names are clearly wrong or unjustified)and naming abilities by themsleves and giving justice to all aspects of the ability. --Realistic
- This is an argument that's been had before, most recently at the talk page of the naming conventions, including more or less that exact point. The current rules are that if we're given an ability name, we must use it regardless of how accurate it is. Many people (based on the unofficial polls and the debates over this), think this is a flawed policy, including myself. However, the debate over it seems to have stalled at the moment. Swm 07:04, 20 January 2010 (EST)
- The rules are (as far as I've heard) intended to say this: If we get an explicit canon name, use it. If we get multiple, choose the most-correct one. If we have no explicitly-named names, then we choose a descriptive name which covers all aspects. The "covers all aspects" part is strictly for descriptive names. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (EST)
- And that set of rules lead us to the currently immense debacle over canon vs. accuracy. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:56, 20 January 2010 (EST)
- The "most correct" one when we have multiple names is the one deemed to be the most canonical (on what is an arbitrary scale), not the most accurate, right? An interesting use of correct there, but I understand the point. Since PJDEP agreed to disagree with me in the discussion, nobody else has yet responded to my arguments on the subject, yet nobody's said anything about a change. Swm 06:18, 21 January 2010 (EST)
- I always reply to people, I have already made my point in all on-going discussions, I just need someone to reply to them. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 07:31, 21 January 2010 (EST)
- The "most correct" one when we have multiple names is the one deemed to be the most canonical (on what is an arbitrary scale), not the most accurate, right? An interesting use of correct there, but I understand the point. Since PJDEP agreed to disagree with me in the discussion, nobody else has yet responded to my arguments on the subject, yet nobody's said anything about a change. Swm 06:18, 21 January 2010 (EST)
- And that set of rules lead us to the currently immense debacle over canon vs. accuracy. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 20:56, 20 January 2010 (EST)
- The rules are (as far as I've heard) intended to say this: If we get an explicit canon name, use it. If we get multiple, choose the most-correct one. If we have no explicitly-named names, then we choose a descriptive name which covers all aspects. The "covers all aspects" part is strictly for descriptive names. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 20:51, 20 January 2010 (EST)
Life-Flow Manipulation
This name cannot be considered reliable, because healing touch was only given in the assignment tracker as this boy's ability when they thought that was all he could do; so since it was revealed he could control the flow of life itself, it should be called (duh) Life Flow Manipulation... It only makes sense--Shadowulf1 14:17, 22 January 2010
- Please remember to sign your comments in the future. In response to the supposedly invalid name "healing touch", if you read even a fraction of the discussions above you'll understand why the article has kept its name.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:30, 22 January 2010 (EST)
- I've been thinking about it... how could you "manipulate" life? As far as I know, even if you're injured, dying or in any bad physical condition, you still have one complete life force(or soul, for that matter)and it's not damaged in any way. If you take it from a paranormal point of view, a soul is another "thing" from a body and it cannot be harmed unless the person is ultimately killed. Thus I don't think that you can "give" or "restore" life due to aforementioned reasons. That would the power of God, technically. So how could you describe somebody healing as "manipulating" life force?--Realistic
- I've explained my side for the life-force thing above, I didn't made it up. I got it from the Activating Evolution website, don't know why we're not using it as a source isn't it the name of the book that Chandra wrote? --Dark Master 06:56, 27 January 2010 (EST)
- Life, life force, or anything similar in this case refers to physical integrity. Manipulating it translates as harming or healing. Once dead, life isn't there anymore, so there's nothing to manipulate. Darkfiremaster13, do know that there is an Activating Evolution site that is part wiki, and has abilities as crazy as Mr. Muggle theories, among them comicbookkinesis. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 07:17, 27 January 2010 (EST)
- Haven't really browse the whole site yet --Dark Master 07:25, 27 January 2010 (EST)
- Uh, don't remember asking you to tell me whether I read the discussion or not; I did read some of, that's beside the point; since the person who created this series has credentials in theology and divinity and included a power like Mediumship, it's quite clear that we can assume that life-force flow, at least in the heroes universe; to control this flow would imply the name of the ability be called Life Flow Manipulation, Mr. Rudeness; no need to get snippy about why you kept the name, because if it's inaccurate, it's inaccurate. Besides, the file in Assignment Tracker was even stated (by HRG) as being outdated (the name given before they knew that he could control the flow of life both ways); now as for the sig, let's not get nit-picky; if you knew who I was in the first place, please just sign for me like you did, since you know so much. I'm a bit forgetful, so please try not to harp on little things like that; it seems a bit petty if you ask me.
- Haven't really browse the whole site yet --Dark Master 07:25, 27 January 2010 (EST)
- Life, life force, or anything similar in this case refers to physical integrity. Manipulating it translates as harming or healing. Once dead, life isn't there anymore, so there's nothing to manipulate. Darkfiremaster13, do know that there is an Activating Evolution site that is part wiki, and has abilities as crazy as Mr. Muggle theories, among them comicbookkinesis. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 07:17, 27 January 2010 (EST)
- I've explained my side for the life-force thing above, I didn't made it up. I got it from the Activating Evolution website, don't know why we're not using it as a source isn't it the name of the book that Chandra wrote? --Dark Master 06:56, 27 January 2010 (EST)
User:Shadowulf1 13:44, 3 February 2010 (EST)
- I added your signature out of kindness, and politely reminded you to add it in the future. I wasn't reprimanding you or being petty. If anything, your reaction was petty, but I'm not going to focus on that. We try not to assume things when picking ability names, especially when we have a name from a canon source. Once again, if you read some of the discussions above, you'll understand why the name cannot be changed from "healing touch". Also, assuming how the ability works based on a writer's background is extremely speculative, and cannot be used as evidence.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:16, 3 February 2010 (EST)
- ("If you read even a fraction of the discussions above..."; that WAS snarky, whether you intended to be or not, and I DID read the discussion, believe it or not; it's just that if you're paying attention to the name given in the Assignment Tracker, you should also pay attention to the true function of the ability, and what HRG said in regards to the true function of this ability)
So the name that you have for this ability (Healing touch) will just disregard the fact that he can also harm with his ability? OK, making sure that I'm not crazy when I conclude that you're being an orthodoxical know-it-all User:Shadowulf1 17:04, 4 February 2010 (EST)
- As has been said numerous times, it is not our job to decide that what the show explicitly says is wrong. We were given "healing touch", so that's the name we use. Also, if you could refrain from insulting members of the site, that would be nice. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 17:15, 4 February 2010 (EST)
- You don't need to speculate. If the show shows a scene with the sky and characters say it's pink with black stripes, even if they show it as blue, we say it's blue, noting that the characters say otherwise. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:40, 4 February 2010 (EST)
- Thanks, IE, I was thinking the same; and to you other two people if HRG already mentioned that Assignment Tracker 2.0 was incorrect in the naming of the boy's ability, then shouldn't you say the same? And don't take it as an insult; it's fact; some people just like to have all the answers (which is being a know-it-all) and go strictly by the book, even if the book is dead wrong... That's orthodoxical...
- You don't need to speculate. If the show shows a scene with the sky and characters say it's pink with black stripes, even if they show it as blue, we say it's blue, noting that the characters say otherwise. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 19:40, 4 February 2010 (EST)
User:Shadowulf1 22:53, 4 February 2010 (EST)
- Noah never said that the assignment tracker was incorrect, he simply implied that he was unaware that Jeremy's ability would change that way. That isn't enough evidence for a name change. We aren't here to make assumptions or speculate, we use the information the show gives us. The only explicit canon name we got was "healing touch", so that's what we go with. Everything else is noted within the article, we don't disregard it. Also, I would hardly say that I'm an "orthodoxical know-it-all", all I did was remind you to add your signature and inform you that this debate has been held several times in the past.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 23:05, 4 February 2010 (EST)
User:Shadowulf1 23:17, 4 February 2010 (EST) did you see what you said? "...he simply implied that he was unaware that Jeremy's ability would change that way..."; yes, he never explicitly said "this ability is no longer healing touch, it is now Life-Flow Manipulation", but he did say that the ability changed; therefore, one can conclude by any logical process, that the ability is no longer simply a healing touch, but is now something more...yes???
- No. Obviously, the ability can do more then heal, that's what we have the article for. It explains all aspects of the ability and doesn't leave anything out. However, the name of the article is not up for debate. We just don't know for certain that the writers didn't intend for "healing touch" to be a permanent name. Therefore, we cannot assume that we can change the ability name to something like "Life-flow manipulation". The only exception would be if Noah did say that quote you have written above.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 23:22, 4 February 2010 (EST)
- I agree, he does say it changed. So I think the ability name should change too right? But the problem was on the naming convention that we have. There are a lot of ability now that needed to be change because the name doesn't cover all the aspect, but we still keep it because it was shown on a canon source. I think we should discuss about the convention first --Dark Master 23:27, 4 February 2010 (EST)
- This wiki is here to catalog the show, not interpret it. If any name of anything is given explicitly in a canon source, it trumps any other source of lesser explicitness. Period. Plus, ability names need not cover all aspects of an ability, that's what the page is for. The only time covering all aspects is importnat is if we need a descriptive name for an otherwise unnamed ability. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (EST)
- Noah said that "abilities can change into something else", I think that was the way of the writers to tell "us" that there are things not permanent even for the name that they give and if the company was still alive they will change the file according to what they can do "now". The "Healing Touch" for Jeremy was outdated and I think the company will change the files and give the ability a name that fits on what he can do now don't you think. --Dark Master 01:13, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- The moment you start with "I think..." is the point where we have to stop. The rest of your statement is speculation, and we do not speculate. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 02:30, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- Don't you think the company would change the name if they see what he can do now? They will change it surely that's what they do they keep the files "updated" on what the specials can do. But now that the company is gone there was no way assignment tracker can be updated, that's why the writers make a company agent "Noah" said those things. --Dark Master 02:43, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- So, the point is, is what Noah said valid? If you want to stick to what truly goes on in Heroes, then stick to it all... Will you follow the Assignment tracker's naming of the ability, which is outdated due to the oldness of the ability? or will you go by HRG's statement, which implies anyway that the ability changed? It seems like now you should put it to a vote... User:Shadowulf1 08:32, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- It's all about things making sense. There is clearly a time interval in which the ability changed. I call again the example of Tracy. If she could freeze and become water when we first saw her, would her ability ever be called "freezing"? Certainly not. Let me use the René example I used in another page. From day one, we knew his ability had two main effects, we found a name to account for them. For the sake of argument, let's say that if he only demonstrated power blocking when he showed up, we called his ability just that, power blocking. When the time came he developed memory erasing, would the name "power blocking" still accurately describe his ability? No it wouldn't. It's the same in this situation. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 12:02, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- That's not the issue. If we saw an AT or file listing Rene's power as "Power blocking", we would keep it until told, explicitly, otherwise. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 12:50, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- Now you're speculating. And it is the same issue, we're using an example of another character who would have had the same problem if his ability was presented in the way Jeremy's was. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 13:57, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- If it's speculative to say that the name has changed, why is it not speculative to assume that the writers have a master plan behind the name of this ability to justify keeping it as "healing touch"?--Referos 14:43, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- It is speculative to assume anything. Hence why this page is still "healing touch". --Ricard Desi (t,c) 15:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- It was called healing touch when all it could do was heal. It has changed since then, and therefore so should this. No assumptions there. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- You are making an assumption, that the name must change because of a new aspect. Telepathy did not change after Matt emulated precognition, the writers consistently refer to him as a "telepath". Precognition can be explained by telepathy but isn't within the name itself. Same thing with healing touch, if Jeremy could regenerate the flesh in Peter's chest, perhaps he could "over-heal" him, making cells divide where they shouldn't leading to fatal consequences. That may or may not be true, we don't know either way.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:59, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- The "how" telepathy can achieve precognition was explained and makes sense. No such thing in this case. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:08, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- It's also speculative to keep "healing touch". Let's start with what we know: Jeremy's ability changed. Fact, Noah stated it clearly. Now, there are two possibilities: either the name didn't change (1) or the name did change (2). Option 2 is speculative, okay. But option 1 is equally speculative. There's absolutely no evidence or proof that the name changed: nobody called it "healing touch" after the ability changed and no explanation to how healing results in killing was given (this is different from telepathy/precognition, since an explanation was provided). Hence, both options make assumptions, so they are both speculative.--Referos 16:11, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- So the matter is which is less speculative. Putting a name accounting both for healing and killing seems less speculative, but I still rather have "Jeremy's ability" over this. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:22, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- My views on this particular issue have been stated several times over, so I'm going to let this discussion go it's own way. However, I'd like to say that using an explicit canon name is NEVER speculative. It is the only thing we can be certain of.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 17:32, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- It is in this case, ability named before all the effects were documented. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:56, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- It is speculative for the characters in the show, perhaps. But as far as we go, in chronicling the series, it is not. They gave us a name, it's not for us to decide they're wrong. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- If we call Jeremy's ability "Ability that was named healing touch", then yes, we're only chronicling what we saw and isn't speculative. But calling it "healing touch" makes an assumption that the ability changed without altering its name.--Referos 05:55, 6 February 2010 (EST)
- If I remembered right we first named Anna Korolenko's ability as Mental manipulation but now it was Neurocognitive deficit, because we now know that she can only do one thing. But Jeremy can do two things, to heal and to kill. --Dark Master 06:19, 6 February 2010 (EST)
- If we call Jeremy's ability "Ability that was named healing touch", then yes, we're only chronicling what we saw and isn't speculative. But calling it "healing touch" makes an assumption that the ability changed without altering its name.--Referos 05:55, 6 February 2010 (EST)
- It is speculative for the characters in the show, perhaps. But as far as we go, in chronicling the series, it is not. They gave us a name, it's not for us to decide they're wrong. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 19:00, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- It is in this case, ability named before all the effects were documented. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:56, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- My views on this particular issue have been stated several times over, so I'm going to let this discussion go it's own way. However, I'd like to say that using an explicit canon name is NEVER speculative. It is the only thing we can be certain of.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 17:32, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- So the matter is which is less speculative. Putting a name accounting both for healing and killing seems less speculative, but I still rather have "Jeremy's ability" over this. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:22, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- It's also speculative to keep "healing touch". Let's start with what we know: Jeremy's ability changed. Fact, Noah stated it clearly. Now, there are two possibilities: either the name didn't change (1) or the name did change (2). Option 2 is speculative, okay. But option 1 is equally speculative. There's absolutely no evidence or proof that the name changed: nobody called it "healing touch" after the ability changed and no explanation to how healing results in killing was given (this is different from telepathy/precognition, since an explanation was provided). Hence, both options make assumptions, so they are both speculative.--Referos 16:11, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- The "how" telepathy can achieve precognition was explained and makes sense. No such thing in this case. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:08, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- You are making an assumption, that the name must change because of a new aspect. Telepathy did not change after Matt emulated precognition, the writers consistently refer to him as a "telepath". Precognition can be explained by telepathy but isn't within the name itself. Same thing with healing touch, if Jeremy could regenerate the flesh in Peter's chest, perhaps he could "over-heal" him, making cells divide where they shouldn't leading to fatal consequences. That may or may not be true, we don't know either way.--PJDEP - Need further explanation? 15:59, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- It was called healing touch when all it could do was heal. It has changed since then, and therefore so should this. No assumptions there. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 15:17, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- It is speculative to assume anything. Hence why this page is still "healing touch". --Ricard Desi (t,c) 15:06, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- If it's speculative to say that the name has changed, why is it not speculative to assume that the writers have a master plan behind the name of this ability to justify keeping it as "healing touch"?--Referos 14:43, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- Now you're speculating. And it is the same issue, we're using an example of another character who would have had the same problem if his ability was presented in the way Jeremy's was. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 13:57, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- That's not the issue. If we saw an AT or file listing Rene's power as "Power blocking", we would keep it until told, explicitly, otherwise. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 12:50, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- It's all about things making sense. There is clearly a time interval in which the ability changed. I call again the example of Tracy. If she could freeze and become water when we first saw her, would her ability ever be called "freezing"? Certainly not. Let me use the René example I used in another page. From day one, we knew his ability had two main effects, we found a name to account for them. For the sake of argument, let's say that if he only demonstrated power blocking when he showed up, we called his ability just that, power blocking. When the time came he developed memory erasing, would the name "power blocking" still accurately describe his ability? No it wouldn't. It's the same in this situation. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 12:02, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- So, the point is, is what Noah said valid? If you want to stick to what truly goes on in Heroes, then stick to it all... Will you follow the Assignment tracker's naming of the ability, which is outdated due to the oldness of the ability? or will you go by HRG's statement, which implies anyway that the ability changed? It seems like now you should put it to a vote... User:Shadowulf1 08:32, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- Don't you think the company would change the name if they see what he can do now? They will change it surely that's what they do they keep the files "updated" on what the specials can do. But now that the company is gone there was no way assignment tracker can be updated, that's why the writers make a company agent "Noah" said those things. --Dark Master 02:43, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- The moment you start with "I think..." is the point where we have to stop. The rest of your statement is speculation, and we do not speculate. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 02:30, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- Noah said that "abilities can change into something else", I think that was the way of the writers to tell "us" that there are things not permanent even for the name that they give and if the company was still alive they will change the file according to what they can do "now". The "Healing Touch" for Jeremy was outdated and I think the company will change the files and give the ability a name that fits on what he can do now don't you think. --Dark Master 01:13, 5 February 2010 (EST)
- This wiki is here to catalog the show, not interpret it. If any name of anything is given explicitly in a canon source, it trumps any other source of lesser explicitness. Period. Plus, ability names need not cover all aspects of an ability, that's what the page is for. The only time covering all aspects is importnat is if we need a descriptive name for an otherwise unnamed ability. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 23:30, 4 February 2010 (EST)
healing touch does not suit the description of the name.--50000JH 09:05, 24 February 2010 (EST)