Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-61022-20160330220251/@comment-4651179-20160401183514

Nausiated wrote: So why does Brevoort's position matter? Hickman wrote the story. As you said, Brevoort is an editor. If we're caring what the writer intended, then it should be Hickman's position not Brevoort's.

Like you said, Brevoort is an editor, the editor of Secret Wars. The person that worked together with Jonathan Hickman on adapting his script into a comic book, and thus, should know the details of the story that could've been left ambiguous to other people, or misinterpreted. If somebody knowns what did Hickman intend, it's Brevoort. I'm pretty sure the fact that he stated Sue von Doom is not Sue Richards when asked about it has value.

And I would love to communicate with Hickman. However, I don't know know the URL of his Tumblr, and I don't have a Twitter account to reach out to him. Additionally, I didn't expect the word of the the second person, after Hickman, to have a say on how did the event unfold would be regarded to worth less than the word of a person that summarized the event as an outsider.

But still that does not negate the fact that as an encyclopedia of knowledge based on what media is released the way it is written. At this time, because there is no retraction *in story* at this time. The handbook says X, we report X. I would agree with a foot note stating that this statement is contended but has not been officially recanted at the most. But until there is an in-story explanation stating otherwise we should accept what the Handbook said. Even if one member of Marvel staff says that it is wrong is not the point. They let that go out to print. If it's a mistake, that's too bad because that's the only official statement they put out there. The handbook says "Official" right on the title.

Why would there be a need for a retraction in-story if there hasn't been a confirmation in-story either?

And no matter how official the statement is, that doesn't make it any less wrong.

If we're questioning the credibility of material in an official Marvel handbook, then we might as well toss everything else out printed in them. You either accept the handbooks as absolute fact or you don't accept them at all. As a Wiki we have decided that the material in the most current editions of the various Marvel Handbooks as fact, ergo, even if Brevoot disagrees with that statement, we have to go with it until a new handbook or comic comes out that states contrary.

That's quite the jump from point A to point B in that hypothetical conclusion.

I'm not denying to accept that piece of information for no reason, I'm denying it because there is a contradiction with the word of a person that worked on the story.

And Brevoort is not disagreeing with the handbook's statement. That would imply he has a different opinion. And what he has expressed is a fact. On the other hand, what the handbook states is an interpretation of the story from whichever writer wrote that section does.

Which goes back to my statement about "Wolverine is a frog that shoots confetti out of his butt", it is an absurd statement, but that illustrates my point very clearly. Because a Marvel staffer says it doesn't make it "fact". What makes it "fact" is what ends up on the printed page.

That's an overgeneralization of this issue. Because it's not merely a Marvel staffer who opposes what the handbook printed, it's a person who certainly had more authorship on the events from Secret Wars than the person who wrote that handbook section.

I'm the first to agree that the handbooks have errors in them from time to time, material becomes dated, overhauled, re-worked... Whatever.... But the fact of the matter is, we cannot selectively toss out what is said in a Handbook until a comic or handbook published AFTER the fact clarifies the point.

And why isn't Brevoort's word of value? Why do we have to wait for a clarification to be "officialized" when somebody from within Marvel itself that worked closely with the person writing the event is telling us that piece of information is wrong?

Presently, it says these were all members of the Fantastic Four of Earth-616. Sue had a lapse in memory? Well how many people on Earth-616 right now remember anything that happened on Secret Wars? Probably a handful. It's probably an M-Day scenario. Only a select few actually recall what is happening. Why would Sue forget what happened? Well gee, you were forced into a marriage to your greatest enemy. It could be that Reed made her forget such a horrific scenario. We don't know. It hasn't been stated one way or the other.

So, while it hasn't been stated one way or the other, we are going with the one way even if the person who certainly knows beyond the interference of interpretation that it has been the other way?

But debating on the issue when the Handbook says "This is X" is not our mandate. Our mandate is to report the facts. Those facts.. as we have outlined.. is what is published.

The isuse is not debating that the handbook has said "This is X." The issue is that the handbook says "This is X" while a person whose words for some reason are not being taken into account says "This is Y."