Talk:Toy Biz, Inc. v. United States

Untitled

I don't know if anyone is interested, but there was a discussion about whether the Supreme Court would uphold the sorts of actions taken in X-Men 3, and I responded by citing this case. The whole conversation is pretty funny, if you ask me. Dave (talk) 06:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, yeah. Thanks for sharing. —Nightstallion (?) 09:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Last link in References ("Is Wolverine human? A judge answers no") is broken. --70.231.227.194 23:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course they are not human.

They diverged from Homo sapiens,retaining humanoid appearance.(Homo sapiens superior according to Xmen) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.228.243.145 (talk) 22:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Actually, that's not true. Homo sapiens sapiens is a subspecies, not a species. Homo sapiens idaltu, Homo sapiens sapiens, and Homo sapiens superior are all subspecies of the same species. In addition, the term "human" can be used for any species in the genus Homo. If they were Homo superior, you might have a stronger point. 75.118.170.35 (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Popular culture

This article reminds me of various age-old jokes where an enthusiast must defend his hobby by arguing that he isn't playing with dolls ("They aren't dolls, they're action figures!.. something along those lines). Does this, or could this, relate in any way? Even if it could only be related in a humorous mention, I think it would be a neat tie-in for the article, assuming I'm remembering it right. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 07:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)