Talk:Sabretooth (character)

The stuff on the Sabretooth FAQ is outdated, unoffcial, and in some cases incorrect. T-1000 04:33, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

The Part of Origin with Logan's older brother is out of order, so I fixed it. added a link to Dog Logan.

T-1000

". Mathematically, it would take an axial load of at least 3 tons to twist a dumbbell in such a way."

wow i didn't realize there were people who figured this out, mathematically.

Most civil engineers could figure that out in there heads. Especially if they have experience with such materials. You have to know how much pressure it takes to bend such structures or when you build things they collapse. ScifiterX 20:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Somehow, it just seems funny to me that Sabretooth, who has large amounts of hair, is played by Tyler Mane.

Or even more, that he only has a significant amount of non-costume hair when played by that actor. (that and X-Men Evolution) ^_~

In the Marvel vs. Capcom games, Sabertooth is assisted by a woman named Birdie, who carries a large gun. I didn't see any mention of her in the article. Who the hell is she, or was she created just for the games?

She was his telepathic sidekick in the early 1990s. Jim Lee introduced her in his run on X-Men, and Larry Hama killed her off in the first Sabretooth miniseries. -Sean Curtin 04:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've added info about his time with Birdy. I also plan to add info about how he "lost his soul" (the first time he killed a child), which more or less was the start of his decent into insanity, I just have to dig up that issue of mine from my old collection.(Whipsandchains 19:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC))Reply

Sabretooth could possibly be born Dog Logan, Paul Jenkins admitted this in his interview, so I do not know why DrBat keeps removing this info from the profile. His alias of "Dog" is from his memories of being called that by his father, it may or may not be based on Dog Logan. If it is to be changed, I favor changing the name to "Unknown, Possibly Victor Creed, Possibly Dog Logan"T-1000 23:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Wolverine and Sabretooth aren't related, per a SHIELD genetics test in the mid-40s of Wolverine v2 ("unless Dr Mendel was wrong").

 

• • Actually that only proved that they weren't father and son, which is what Shield was trying to determine. Praternal half-brothers share much less genetic material than father and son, and that is assuming that Dog Logan was actually Thomas Logan's son and not adopted. It was also said that they had trouble even determining that fact due to their strange genetic make-up. It has also been revealed that Shield has consistantly lied to Wolverine about many aspects of his past that they were privy to. It was recently revealed that Wolverine recovered his memories and when Shield found out at least one employee committed suicide (which does not exactly inspire confidence in the idea that they have been consistantly honest with Wolverine).

And speculation is meaningless - Jenkins could say in an interview that Dog Logan could possibly have grown up to be Jean Grey, but it wouldn't mean anything. If he'd said that he'd intended Dog to be Sabretooth, then that would be worth noting under a "trivia" heading, but shouldn't be presented as overriding the in-comic info. Instead, he said the opposite. - SoM 02:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Jenkins said "I am not sure." in his second interview, thus, there is no confirmation. T-1000 18:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

That's acknowledging the possibility of someone else retconning it later. But anything could be retconned into anything. - SoM 22:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

• • To say that 'Tooth is definately Dog Logan really does spoil the mystique of the character. Also, depending on how much of Sabretooth's original memories are intact it may not be safe to say that they are same character even if they are physically the same person. If enough of Dog Logan's memories were destroyed and replaced with another personality, then Dog Logan would essentially be dead. Just fun speculation.

From Uncanny X-Men #326: Xavier's files have Sabretooth's first confirmed kill as being Doctor Eiger Harnerst, his pediatrician. Creed was nine at the time. Later on, three policemen are shown to have been killed by Sabretooth when he was 13. Sabretooth was declared dead in part one of The End. His age was said to be over 200. While we the fans will probably never know his true age, it is known or easily obtainable in the Marvel Universe.

When did Sabretooth receive his first Adamantium Skeleton? When was Sabretooth first revealed to be a mutant with a healing factor similar to Wolverine's?

Sabretooth's first appearance with his first set of Adamantium implants occurred in Wolverine #126. It was revealed later in Wolverine #145 that Sabretooth was given these implants by Apocalypse. As to exactly when Sabretooth was revealed to be a mutant with powers, including healing powers, like those of Wolverine I'm not exactly sure. Truthfully, Sabretooth was a rather generic villain until the early 1990's. During Sabretooth's earliest appearances, as a Luke Cage and Iron Fist villain, in the late 70's and early 80's, he didn't really possess healing powers. During this time, he had superhuman strength, stamina, and his body was somewhat tougher than an ordinary human's. Since Sabretooth became a popular villain, his early days have been tinkered with by various writers over the years that have written various stories, such as Sabretooth's involvement with Team X during the 1960's for instance, that portray Sabretooth as always having accelerated healing powers. Various writers have been able to smooth over these inconsistencies because the Luke Cage and Iron Fist titles in which Sabretooth initially appeared are fairly obscure. Sabretooth wasn't a particularly memorable or popular villain so, someone simply decided to juice him up along the way and add bits and pieces to him that he simply wasn't initially created with. Same thing happened to Wolverine. In his initial appearances, such as his very first appearance against The Hulk, Wolverine's claws were connected to his gloves rather than being implants within his body. Sabretooth recieved his adamantium in the Gambit series. Mr Sinister implanted it in him after it was taken from the Constrictor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.131.46.61 (talk) 03:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why is it that among his notable powers it says that he is highly resistant to telepathic detection and control? Hasn't he, on many occasions, been controlled by professor X or other psychic beings? Lue3378 01:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

In the past, Sabretooth has been telepathically probed and controlled but not since he was a member of the new incarnation of the Weapon X Program. Aside from all the physical enhancements he was given, his mind is more resistant to telepathic attacks. Although, his mind would probably still be vulnerable to telepaths along the level of Emma Frost or Charles Xavier.

Sabretooth recieved his adamantium back in the Gambit series. Gambit had taken it from the Constrictor because Creed was dying from adamantium withdrawls. His body had become acustom to the metal in his body. Gambit had found him is South America where he had a tribe worshiping him as a god. He then had to take him to Mr Sinister and then to New Son, who put the adamantium back in his body.

It looks as if Marvel has finally decided to dig up the old question about a potential father/son type of relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth. In the latest issue of Ultimate X-Men, Sabretooth provides an explanation as to how he survived being beheaded, rather anti-climactic in my opinion. Sabretooth reveals that he was chosen by the Weapon X Program to replace Wolverine because Wolverine happens to be, at least allegedly, his father.

Ultimate X-Men is in a different universe, it does not have anything to do with Earth 616 creed.T-1000 18:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'm fully aware of that fact. I'm just mentioning that Marvel has brought it up in the Ultimate Marvel Universe.

I've altered the section somewhat with a little rewording and spaced it out a bit so that it doesn't look as if it's just crammed together. I've also removed a statement at the beginning of the article that stated Sabretooth healing and regenerating hundreds of times faster than an ordinary human. That sounds suspiciously like someone's opinion and not a fact taken from Marvel. It's probably true, but unless it's a confirmed fact from Marvel, it shouldn't be included. Odin's Beard

as long as we mention his healing powers are not consistent, it is fine.T-1000 06:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why has the range that lists Sabretooth's strength been removed from the article? It's not a guess or my own personal opinion, it's what Marvel is using, at least for right now. Odin's Beard

In this section there is a picture where Sabretooth is getting adamantium injected into his skeleton.This picture has a foriegn language in it. Is it possible to get the same picture but replace it with English? Mr.Wednesday 14:04, 20th June 2006

I have the same page in english. http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y93/Jyppe/sabretoothskeletonjpg.jpg 84.231.142.132 17:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You know something I just remembered, one of the claws implanted in Ultimate Sabretooth's left forearm is broken. You can see it clearly in the image of Ultimate Sabretooth in the section of the article talking about him. Odin's Beard

oh! i forgat to explain the broken adamantie claw in ultimate x men so here it is dude!

victor asked to make it quick as possible the new set of extra

automatic-claws and as such resulted in process to rushed and sloppy to make perfect shaped set. that's why one claw is actualy incomplete rather than broken atleast that's may speculation what do you think?

Nah, I don't buy it. To look at the picture, the claw doesn't appear to be misshapen to me, it simply looks as if it's been broken. Sabretooth is an operative of the Weapon X Program, which I think is government funded at least to some extent, so I doubt that the government would approve of their brain trust doing a halfassed job in developing their operatives or improving the operatives, particularly one of their top agents like Sabertooth. There are questions as to the durability of the Ultimate Marvel Universe's version of Adamantium, due in part to the situation involving the UMU's version of the Hulk ripping Wolverine in half. There's all sorts of speculation among readers, but there's never been anything confirmed by Marvel. Since the Ultimate Marvel Universe is an entirely seperate reality, writers can pretty much do whatever they want to do even if it completely ignores decades of accepted canon within the Earth-616 continuity. I don't belive that the UMU's version of Adamantium is nearly as durable as the Earth-616 version. That's my position, however, until/unless Marvel publishes something that makes me think otherwise. Odin's Beard

well,stay convinced on what you wish Odin's beard,my explantion is the process for creating adamantie-claws set was in a rush and thus one claw broken during forging,

i don't really see any difference betwwn the mainstream marvel(wich i droped in ultimate favor) and the ultimate version of sabretooth short of the enhancements fashion,and physical mutation more tiger-like, both version are exactly the same hyper psycho-charismatic for wich i love the character so much he always kicks me in to shape

You're entitled to your opinion. I don't agree with it, but you're entitled to it. It's all just speculation at this point no matter we believe because Marvel hasn't said anything about it. As far as any differences between the two Sabretooth's, there are a few physical ones although they're trivial and minor. Ultimate Sabretooth is a few inches shorter and about 50 pounds lighter than the mainstream counterpart. The Earth-616's skeleton is laced with Adamantium, while Ultimate Sabretooth's isn't, he was only implanted with a set of claws similar to Wolverine's. We don't really know much of Ultimate Sabretooth's background or the Earth-616's background either for that matter. To my knowledge, nothing has been revealed about the mainstream version's path before the 1960's, when he was a member of Team X, and it's likely to stay that way. If they ever decide to do anything more with the Ultimate version of Sabretooth, I'd say that there'll be some real differences. As for right now, I'd pretty much have to agree that there aren't any major differences between the two except for a few trivial things. Odin's Beard

okay you are right odin's beard,i forgot that the histories and origins may be very different though,and answering the ripped in half wolverine by the hulk is that logan's joint-bones aren't covered if they were covered he would unable to move smoothly. even yuriko deadstrike noted that logan's skeleton isn't completely covered he has at least two pieces still breakable,

my speculations about victor's broken adamantium claw well, i don't know but it make sense to me that one claw was broken during forging process i am not forcing ANYONE into my opinion

the writers of ultimate marvel like mark millar will never (mostly) expain this stuff to us they believe we are inventive enough to figure out this on our own

He was around for about ten years before first appearing in an X-Men comic.

21:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Enda80Enda80

i,m looking forward to see how they gonna bring victor into x-men like: hello i,am sabretooth sure i am a hyper psychotic, but i was kinda boored with the criminal thing,so want to try goodie-good two shoes

In Wolverine: The End, was it implied that Sabretooth knows about Origin? T-1000 04:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC

Wolverine: The End isn't canon. It's not part of the mainstream Marvel Universe, it's just another alternate reality/timeline. There was a lot of talk about The End, debate as to whether or not it's canon. The thing that kind of ruined the storyline as being canon was a storyline was being published at the same time that was contradicted the events of Wolverine: The End. The first issue of Wolverine: The End came out in January 2004 and in March of that year, a storyline was started in New X-Men #151 that's set 150 years in the future, where as the events in Wolverine: The End are set roughly 100 years in the future. I'm can't compltely remember all the events surrounding the New X-Men storyline but I remember that it involved Jean Grey, the Pheonix, and I believe something involving the Beast being taken over by some kind of entity/lifeform of some sort. I'm a little iffy about that last one, but Beast was involved. Anyhow, the New X-Men storyline featured Cassandra Nova, the decendants of Xavier Institute students that had been heavily featured in the title during the time, and Wolverine. What I remember most about the New X-Men storyline was that Wolverine looked exactly the same 150 years in the future while in Wolverine: The End, which is set roughly 50 years before the events of New X-Men, Wolverine has aged considerably. The New X-Men storyline worked itself out with Jean sort of manipulating the timeline and reality and all that stuff and the storyline wound up being...yep you guess it, just another alternate reality/timeline. In The End storyline, while Logan is at Creed's funeral service, an attorney presents Logan with a letter. Next thing, Logan and George have driven halfway across Alberta and come up on the the deserted Howlett mansion. Also, the events that've happened as a result of the House Of M storyline and Wolverine: Origins have mooted The End since Wolverine has all of his memories restored and that wasn't the case with The End. Odin's Beard 01:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

So the letter is from Creed, right? It had something to do with the Howlett estate, correct? So does this imply that Sabretooth knows about the Howletts? T-1000 02:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The letter was from Creed. Creed's attorney, Emily Rand, approached Logan after the funeral service and made a little small talk. She told Logan that Creed always respected him and all that. She gives Logan the letter, a letter that bears a family crest on it, but Logan never reads aloud what exactly is contained in the letter. Next thing, he and George, the old man that's driving Logan, have driven halfway across Alberta and arrive outside the Howlett mansion. They eventually make their way inside and see the same crest above the fireplace as was on the letter. Creed might've known at least something about Wolverine's past, his family name if nothing else. It's also possible that John Howlett might've given Creed the information, Creed could've worked for him for all anyone will ever know. Emily Rand might have worked for John Howlett and was instructed to tell Logan that she was Creed's attorney. Anything Creed might've known or not known is all just a guess. The End didn't go into any detail as to what Creed's involvement might have been. Odin's Beard 00:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've read somewhere that Dog Logan is somehow tied into this. Was he mentioned? T-1000 01:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Dog wasn't shown, or even mentioned, at any time during the entire mini-series. Odin's Beard 01:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Is that section really even necessary since Sabretooth didn't make any appearance, alive or dead, in the mini-series? Since his body wasn't shown, and given the whole mysterious cloak and dagger kind of plot of the series, Sabretooth's status as dead or alive couldn't be verified one way or the other. Odin's Beard 00:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

It still is an alternative version of Sabretooth that dies. As I don't think there will be a sequel to the End series, we can accept that Sabretooth died in this alternate universe. T-1000 00:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's no need for it because it's not notable enough to be included in the article. Sabretooth's appearance in various issues of the old "What If?" series would have more merit to be included in the article, particularly since he didn't appear in Wolverine: The End. Since Sabretooth's actual appearance, whether alive or dead, wasn't important enough to be included in the mini-series, there's no need for it here. Odin's Beard 00:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your article mentioned that sabretooth will be joining the x-men for the first time in x-men#188. I think this is incorrect because I remember reading a few years ago that sabretooth was taken in by charles xavier (or was it magneto?) as a replacement for wolverine (wolverine was missing or went on hiautus or something). So sabretooth became an x-man then (so this will not be his first time to be an x-man). I remember this because that was the first time I liked sabretooth and became a fan of sabretooth because he was now a hero but with a very dark side.

Sabretooth was being held by the X-Men, but he was never a member. Basically, Sabretooth was a prisoner.. After the death of Birdy, a woman possessing telepathic abilities that Sabretooth had used to help control his fits of bloodlust, Sabretooth went on a worldwide killing spree. He was eventually captured by The X-Men with the help of Maverick. After Sabretooth was brought to the X-Mansion under Xavier's orders in order to at least attempt to treat him, help him control his feral nature. Sabretooth was held in a special cell that was designed by Forge. Sabretooth appeared at the X-Mansion just after Wolverine departed, after having the adamantium magnetically ripped from his skeleton by Magneto. Sabretooth wasn't an X-Man, he was a dangerous mutant that Xavier was attempting to treat. Sabretooth, just like Wolverine, is prone to berserker rages. Unlike Wolverine, however, Sabretooth revels in the carnage he causes. He relishes giving into his feral nature and instincts whereas Wolverine doesn't. This made Sabretooth nearly impossible to treat, even for someone like Xavier. Sabretooth, at least for now, is at the X-Mansion seeking asylum, not because he wants to be an X-Man or believes in the X-Men's cause. Odin's Beard 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Graydon Creed was assasinated by Bastion, not Mystique as the article states. Mystique appeared to want him dead, but was actually trying to stop the assasination. 193.63.48.48 11:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Her future self killed him, X-Men Forever #2. ChlorineFriday (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

I heard that in one comic, the narration used a racial slur used to insult Jews to describe Sabretooth. The narration said something like "the vicious k*ke known as Sabretooth". Is this true? If so, what were the bloody writers thinking!? Also, is Sabretooth supposed to be Jewish in the first place? I've heard of non-Jews being called Jewish racial slurs, but in any case, it wasn't a good idea to use that word. Evernut 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC

The comic in question is Wolverine #131. Simple explanation is that "The killer known as Sabretooth" was misprinted as "The kike known as Sabretooth". Heggart 18:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Oh, okay! Thank you! Evernut 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is it possible for someone to upload a more appropriate image for the infobox?

The current one fails in a lot of ways based on the Project guidelines (Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Style guidance#Superhero box images).

- J Greb 20:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

In Wolverine vol.3 #52, the latest issue, Wolverine slices off Sabretooth's right hand, so where'd the adamantium go? I haven't followed much of the storyline involving Sabretooth seeking asylum with the X-Men, so does anyone know if something was mentioned during the storyline about him losing the metal or is this an example of the writer paying no attention to continuity?Odin's Beard 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Odin, from what I can tell, no one is really sure how Wolverine was able to cut off Sabretooth's hand, his arm, and finally, his noggin. From a continuity standpoint, it was never cited that he had lost his Adamantium after the events of WOLVERINE (vol. 3) #162 in May, 2001. The best explanation I can suggest is that Logan's mysterious Muramasa Blade, forged specifically for his sense of anger, I guess, somehow "magically" nullifies the invulnerabilities of his hated opponent. I kind of understand it as, the sword hates what he hates, be it an enemy, or even himself... I don't know. Maybe Loeb just didn't care about canon. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.74.244.63.126 14:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

That's pretty much what I've thought myself. I've heard people go on and on about how he sliced through the joint and severed the connective tissues rather than the bone itself. The only problem with that is when his hand was lopped off, all of Wolverine's claws were extended when he made the strike. If the intention was to sever the connective tissue with one claw, the others would have banged up against the adamantium bones in Sabretooth's forearm and kept the one claw from cutting through. It's just a sloppy situation all around.Odin's Beard —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I can't provide a 'cite, but at one point, Wolverine, sans admantium skeleton, was pitted against Sabertooth, with admantium skeleton. Wolverine won, and as a prize, he was given Sabertooths skeleton, (in a painful process.) One of the canon villians was responsible for the exchange, and the pit-fight, but I can't recall whether it was Sinister or Apocalypse. --Sean —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean.Roach (talk • contribs) 14:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

the article claims that the profile picture of Sabretooth contained within is taken from the cover of X-Men 162.... but last time I checked, the cover picture of Creed looked like this: http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/5541/sabrexd2.jpg O61469 09:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Don't know the issue number, but Apocalypse had Wolverine and Sabretooth fight to see who would become the next Horseman of Death. Wolverine knew that Sabretooth would relish the role, while Wolverine thought that he could possibly overcome the conditioning. After Wolverine defeated Sabretooth, Apocalypse removed the Adamantium from Sabretooth and put it into Wolverine. Drunknesmonsta (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

ok i went to go read about sabertooth today and it's gone WHAT THE HELL!- JJ15

 

Image:Sabretooth.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wow, they sure changed Sabretooth. He looks like a really, really mean and scary Beast.

The article states that around the time that Creed was employed by The Foreigner, his strength was augmented by The Hand.

According to Marvel.com he partnered with The Foreigner in "PETER PARKER: THE SPECTACULAR SPIDER-MAN #116-119" in 1986. Are these the issues cited for that statement, or was it one of his earlier "POWER MAN & IRON FIST" appearances?74.244.63.126 13:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply

Atheist OR Protestant? Where did you find that he ever was one or the other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.39.126.3 (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Ironfist014.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:LIARS.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Sabreparents10tf.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Sabretooth xmen189.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

 

Image:Sabrexd2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Dog was meant to look like Sabretooth, just like Rose was meant to look like Jean Grey. The picture shows an example. It is not original research. T-1000 (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you show me where he said that?--CyberGhostface (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

In Wolverine #176, I think, Wolverine saw ghost of Rose and thought she was Jean Grey until she revealed she isn't. As for Sabretooth/Dog theory, it's notable enough to be brought up in a interview, we are reporting the speculation, not endorsing it, so original research does not apply. See also Category:Theories. T-1000 (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Events have taken place since #176 that throw anything that happened in the issue into question to some degree. Firstly, Wolverine encounters two "ghosts" of people that have since been revealed to have never been dead, namely Colossus and Cyber. Also, the recent storyline involving Lazaer and Wolverine. Since 1915, Wolverine's soul travels to purgatory in order to fight Lazaer everytime that he "dies", it throws a monkeywrench into the works that Wolverine was seeing any sort of representation of the afterlife. Since that's the case, one has to assume that what Wolverine was experiencing was something from his subconscious and that he wasn't actually dead. I admit that it all doesn't make sense, but that's what retconning does sometimes. Based on the most recent storylines, Wolverine couldn't have been "dead" so exactly what everything represented in #176 is so questionable that it's not reasonable for it to be a reliable source. As to the whole Dog/Sabretooth thing, it's been over six and a half years since the first issue of the Origin mini-series was introduced and not one single thing has been done with the Dog Logan character. I don't see any mention of the physical resemblance between the two mentioned in the interview, so I fail to see how the image the the two side by side couldn't be considered original research. It's an example of people seeing what they want to see. Also, the various OHOTMU profiles of Wolverine that've come out since Origin lists John Howlett, Jr. as his father and not Thomas Logan, which means that Dog isn't his half brother. I know that the OHOTMU isn't reliable when it comes to the power ratings and the categorization and limitation of character abilities since it tends to change from adventure to adventure but the personal information like vital stats, character history, and relatives is all consistent.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This issue has nothing to do with Wolverine. The resemblance is established by existence of the speculation itself (If Dog didn't look like Sabretooth, there would be no speculation). The speculation is notable for being brought up in an interview. As for the picture, see the article on Convergent evolution to see how this is used to describe a theory. T-1000 (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Again, this is all original research on your part. All the interview establishes is A.) The interviewer (who says nothing about it being a popular theory elsewhere or that its been established as such in any way) says "Gee, I think Sabretooth is Dog". Jenkins says, "Who knows? I didn't think it, but its up for future writers to decide". That's it. Anything else that is NOT referenced by the interview IS original research. Saying that Sabretooth looks like Dog because you think he does (and I'm not doubting there are other fans who think so to) and using two images to make your case is original research. Finding a reliable source that makes the comparision is another thing entirely.--CyberGhostface (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, such picture are used to describe theories, see here:[1], as for establishing the fact that fans believed Dog to be Sabretooth, a simple google search is enough [2].

Finally, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research

"Comparing and contrasting conflicting facts and opinion is not original research, as long as any characterization of the conflict is sourced to reliable sources." T-1000 (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

CyberGhostface is right - you can't just hold up two pictures and suggest they are similar. The convergent evolution picture is only part of the puzzle and they use comparative anatomy and genetics to get the link. Basically the interview could be in, the rest is out. (Emperor (talk) 21:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC))Reply

Convergent evolution is superficial similarity between genetically and anatomy distanced organisms, so they can't use anatomy or genetics to get the link. The point is, you can claim that a hummingbird and a sunbird doesn't look alike, but their similarities are already acknowledged in the article. The picture is merely an example. Same thing applies here. T-1000 (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

So far all the only reliable source in this article is the sole interview with Jenkins, in which the Sabretooth connection is mentioned fleetingly at best. Per WP:V, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—meaning, in this context, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." You say its a popular theory, then prove it with reliable sources. I checked your google search, and none of the links listed would hold up on Wikipedia. So far everyone who has discussed this here agrees with me on this matter.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

We are reporting on the opinion of fans, so discussions between fans is a reliable source. T-1000 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, its not, actually. I actually asked this on the Reliable sources noticeboard because I wanted to write about the strong fan reaction to a Stephen King character's fate, and I asked if since it was about the fan's reactions if messageboard postings would be alright. They said it wouldn't, and said I would have to find another source commenting on the controversy instead. So I went and found some book reviews commenting on it and used that instead.--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I had misread your last post, so please disregard my last post. The notable source for the speculation is the interview. The issue now is with the picture. As I have shown, the convergent evolution article is full of example of this kind of comparison pictures, and none of those pictures are marked as Originial research. T-1000 (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

(UNDENT)This is Original Research, plain and simple. It's advancing what is, essentially, fan theory, aka WP:FRINGE, as fact. It's bald speculation, nothing more. That someone evinced their own personal speculation while conducting an interview shows them to be less than thoroughly professional, not a better source for citation. I oppose it's inclusion. Further, thanks for the links above, I've nominated all that britney Spears stuff for deletion, and the account for a username violation. ThuranX (talk) 06:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just some general comments...

The "Origins" section (of which the image in question is a part) is either misplaced or poorly handled. Assuming it shouldn't be part of the publication history — the real world context of how the character was pitched, developed, and altered by the publisher and writers — it still bounces between real world and in-universe POV. The only solid portion of the section is the Claremont quote.

As for the Wolverine: Origins section... there are two uncited assertions, and a single cited one. The first unsupported assertion — visual similarity — is weaselly at best, editor theory presented as fact at worst. The second is only relevant in an article on Wolverine, and then only if the first assertion is supported. This makes it an extension of a theory presented as fact. And the supported statement only fits this article only if the preceding two are supportable. The bottom line, the only verifiable statement in the paragraph is "Jenkins created Dog as a new character without any reference to Sabertooth", and that has nil bearing on the subject of this article.

The image is a worse situation in that it appears to be a non-critical creation used solely to support the uncited first assertion.

Without reliable, verifiable cites that one or more of the following happened:

• Jenkins created Dog to be Sabertooth — contrary to the existing cite;
• Kubert was instructed to draw Dog to resemble Sabertooth;
• Marvel editorial had Kubert's art altered to create the resemblance;
• Marvel editorial dictated that other pencillers move Sabertooth's appearance to look like Dog; and/or
• critical reviews of the story advanced a theory that Marvel was going with the "Dog becomes Sabertooth" storyline;

all we are left with is a fan theory being presented as fact. Something that flat does not belong here.

Oh... and can we please leave the appels and watermellons comparison out of this? This isn't an article on a scientific theory, so it real hard to square image use in one with the image use here. - J Greb (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia isn't presenting the speculation as fact, it's presented as notable spculation. The way that the pictures are used in the convergent evolution article are the same as here. T-1000 (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I agree with ThuranX, J Greb and CyberGhostface that this is speculation, fan theory and as such original research. Hiding T 15:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's original research. It invokes POV. It's fan opinion. Just because one character is designed similarly to another does not mean that a connection between them will become canon. Even if an artist based one character's appearance on another, that does not mean a meaningful connection will arise within story content. Just because Captain Marvel was designed to look like Fred MacMurray does not mean Billy Batson will ever turn out to be the Earth-S version of Fred MacMurray. Just because Ambush Bug is a bald guy who first appeared pestering Superman does not mean he will turn out to be Lex Luthor. Let it go. Doczilla _STOMP! 18:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a side issue, but if the writer, editor, or publisher state "I/We intended character X to be character Y", then that is notable for the real world context. Hence my qualifiers above about the art. - J Greb (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's like John Constantine's appearance being based on Sting. But as DocZilla states, we cannot claim John Constantine is an alternate version of Sting. And we can source assertions that Constantine is based upon Sting to reliable sources. Hiding T 19:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

(Outdent)Wiki is not advocating that Dog is Sabretooth. We are reporting that fans speculated that Dog is Sabretooth. There is a difference between the two. Dog being Sabretooth is indeed an spculation, but that speculation is still notable because Jenkins himself commented on it. Picture that show the simliaities that are already acknowledged in the article are not original research, per the page on covergent evolution. T-1000 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bluntly:

• Provide a reliable, verifiable source for the theory.
• The current cite is an interviewer asking a single, blunt question, and getting a succinct answer. No preamble about the "theory" is evident.
• Convergent evolution (CE) isn't the same, by any stretch, to "these characters look alike". (CE deals with a scientific model of why the heck 2 fundamentally unrelated organisms look similar and operate in the same ecological niche. Fictional characters, especially fictional characters owned by the same company, do not function in that way. Insisting the two situations are the same is say apples are the same as watermelons.
• The same goes for parallel development, though the comparison would closer to lemons and limes if Dog and Sabertooth were owned by different companies and first appeared at about the same time (see Doom Patrol and the X-Men).
• The text as is does not present the linkage as fan assumption, but as fact.

- J Greb (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Paul Jenkins himself answered the speculation, How is it not verifiable and reliable?

CE is a scientific model of why the heck 2 fundamentally unrelated organisms look similar, but I am only talking about the ways that the pictures are used. certain Wikipedians can argue that the 2 unrelated organisms do not look similar, (Like you can claim a old world vulture does not look like a new world vulture). But none of the CE pictures are counted as OR.

The current text states that Jenkins did not consider Dog to be Sabretooth, so it is not presented as fact, but notable speculation. T-1000 (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please notice how many people disagree with you and how few (none) are backing you up, and then please consider why instead of just fighting to push your lone position. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a democracy, my basis is the guideline at WP:POV. No one has given me a satisfactory answer to why pictures showing similarity are allowed at the convergent evolution page, but are counted as OR on this page. T-1000 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The topic of convergent evolution is similarity. The topic of this article is not. Doczilla _STOMP! 22:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

But the pictures in both articles still serve the same function. So why is this one OR while the others are not? T-1000 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia operates through consensus. We can test that through editing or discussion, or a mixture of both. It looks to me that, per WP:BOLD you added information that you thought we should include. Per WP:BRD, you were reverted and discussion has ensued. What we need to do now is establish whether there is a consensus to add the information or not. Do you think there is a consensus for your edits to be added to the article? Hiding T 14:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added that picture years ago. But there is no basis for removing that picture in the first place since there are other pictures in other articles that serve the same function. T-1000 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

"Convergent evolution is the process whereby organisms not monophyletic (not closely related), independently evolve similar traits as a result of having to adapt to ecological niches or similar environments". You're saying that the image should be allowed because...what? Both Dog Logan and Sabretooth are tall, muscular men with blonde hair? So what? So are Captain America, Captain Marvel, Captain Britain, Adam Warlock and a whole host of other Marvel characters. Sabretooth'd bear even more of a resemblance to them if he had a shave and a haircut. The image suggests that there's some deeper connection between the two, namely suggesting that it's possible that they're the same character. Might not be the intention, but that's the feeling I get when I look at it. And, right at this moment, Dog and Sabretooth aren't the same character. Odin's Beard (talk) 00:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Again, Wiki is not saying that Dog is Sabretooth. We are reporting that there is specualtion that Dog is Sabretooth. Per WP:POV, reporting of speculation is allowed provided that there is a notable source (the interview). As for the image, my point is that comparative images are not counted as WP:OR. T-1000 (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

That's the idea this image gives, whether it's intended or not. Having the two pictured side by side is giving an idea that the two either are the same or could be the same just because of a casual resemblance. We've all read over that interview and all it says is that Dog wasn't intended to be Sabretooth. If the question had been posed to include mention of the resemblance between the two, then I'd agree that the image should stay. It doesn't, so it shouldn't. And since it's been six and a half years since the first issue of Origin came out, I don't think another credible source, such as an interview with someone that worked on the project, is going to be found or be made anytime soon.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

The image Image:Dog tooth.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the 'Old Man Logan' I am pretty sure that the line; "makes a brief on panel appearance", should read "...a brief one panel appearance".

Jonathancrilly (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Six of one...

A "brief on panel appearance" could be anything from the character only being partially visible in a single panel to the character being noticeable in a crowd in a few panels.

A "brief, one panel appearance" would be a specific type of the above.

- J Greb (talk) 23:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is Mike Zeck the artist for the picture of Sabretooth's parents? (JoeLoeb (talk) 15:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC))Reply

Nope. The FUR lists Mark Texeira, and that appears correct. - J Greb (talk) 23:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article states that "Sinister clones several of the Marauders so that he has a loyal group of lackeys after the originals die, but Sabretooth cannot be cloned." This doesn't seem to be true since in X-Force (the new series) #9 the team breaks into one of Sinister's old bases and is faced with an army of old Marauder clones, featuring at least two of Sabretooth. Should that bit of info be taken out since it doesn't seem to be true anymore? ChlorineFriday (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

If it was simply retconned, then it needs to stay in in order to explain the context of the stories where he wasn't being cloned. However, I've read most of Sabretooth's appearances from the 1980s and 90s, and this bit about him not being able to be cloned is new to me. Moreover, it doesn't make sense; Sabretooth is a living being, yes? A human mutant? Then he must have DNA. So how can he not be cloned? Obviously the writers may have chosen to throw logic out the window, but I'll need to see the issue where it is said he can't be cloned before I'll believe it. I'm going to boldly remove that statement. Hopefully that will lead anyone who knows more about this to post here.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are a total of 9 non-free images, and the recommended is about 2 or 3. I think that the box image should stay, along with the Liev from X-Men:Origins, then I'm torn ... either the young Sabertooth or the powers image seem to add character to the page. Other thoughts? -Sharp962 (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC).Reply

sabre tooth is awsome nd cool hes beast:. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.165.156.242 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

this page is useless. I was tryig to get work done and all I saw was ridiculously, unuseful text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.230.197 (talk) 10:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The section about Logan, Sarah, Victor and Saul has confusing references using just Creed and it's unclear which brother it means. I don't know the tale enough to fix it so I'll mark it with attribution templates. 24.241.69.99 (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sabretooth (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060509015156/http://www.brokenfrontier.com/lowdown/details.php?id=362 to http://www.brokenfrontier.com/lowdown/details.php?id=362

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sabretooth (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928044912/http://x-mencomics.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=14411&page=13&pp=20 to http://x-mencomics.com/xfan/forums/showthread.php?t=14411&page=13&pp=20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

According to Marvel editorial, Sabretooth was never an actual member of this team.^[1] Zuckyd1 (talk) 23:37, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think Birdy (comics) should be a separate article? I found some third person sources. Sabretooth's Old Ally Birdy Might Save the Marvel Universe (cbr.com) , X-Men: Wolverine Brought Sabretooth's Forgotten Sidekick Back Into Action (cbr.com) , Marvel's marauding mutants must face judgment as Judgment Day arrives in Marauders #6 first look | GamesRadar+ Dwanyewest (talk) 08:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Comment' If a split happens the character article would need to be Birdy (character), the (comics) disambiguator has been retired.★Trekker (talk) 08:15, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
• Comment: I'm fine with a split if you've got the sources, and I will note that this used to be an article: [3]. BOZ (talk) 13:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Seems like it’s already done. Should this discussion be closed? HappyWith (talk) 04:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

@BOZ: Do you think the sources I have provided are enough to justify a solo article though?Dwanyewest (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

We could always give it a try, and if someone disagrees it can be redirected back here again until proper sourcing can be found. That's my opinion though. BOZ (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply