It is my belief that Immortus should have his own article; he has an entirely seperate comic book history, 45 years worth of it, that is seperate from Kang. He also has his own set of abilities and personality traits. Immortus is as much a different character from Kang as Iron Lad is, and honestly, has done more noteable things in comic book histor for which he should be recognized. FF6LockeCole

I'd be okay with it, provided there is enough data to fill up a new, separate page. (Which I believe there is)
Anyone disagree? If not... we may proceed.
--Jamie 20:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Immortus actually has very little history, despite first appearing in Avengers #10. In fact, all of his appearances besides Avengers #10 are in Kang storylines, at least that I'm aware of. His next appearance after Avengers #10 is ballpark Avengers #129, during the Celestial Madonna storyline (Kang). His next appearance after that is mid-200s Avengers during the Council of Kangs storyline. There is basically no reason to give Immortus his own page. --Squirrelloid 21:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kang has noted he was named after an ancestor, Nathaniel Richards. His claiming of Doom as an ancestor was based on Doom's time machine. While it could be a mistake, enough could happen in the centuries for Doom and Reed's descendants to become linked.Kokushishin

I put him as neutral...Kang is usually 'bad', Rama-Tut seems neutral, Immortus is usually 'good' but his methods... KokushishinKokushishin

Can someone explain the whole, Kang/Iron Lad dilemma...It confuses me -- M1shawhan 06:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Move to Nathaniel Richards (Earth-616)?

I vote no. We don't know that Kang's last name is Richards, do we? Plus this would cause confusion with the actual Nathaniel Richards. I vote it stays as Kang the Conqueror (or just Kang) for easy linking. --Edlicious 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this. Too confusing...Kang's story confuses me WITHOUT changing names as well. --M1shawhan 01:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I only put Nathaniel Richards (Earth-616) up there because 1, that's what the article says, and 2, my own name is Nathan, so it would be sweet if a character this powerful(-ly confusing) had my name.  : ) --Peteparker 02:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I should have known...Nathan's think they can confuse more than the rest of us...NEVER! ;) --M1shawhan 23:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The move tag is back up. Has his name been revealed recently?
I doubt it. Anyone have the handbook for him? How about Immortus?
Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talkcontribsemail) 07:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Suggested Move

In addition to adding a source for his real name, I added three move stubs to separate this page into manageable chunks. Kang and Immortus truly deserve separate pages because, even though they originate from the same individual, they are divergent beings (as seen in one of the Avengers Forever issues. I want to say 7 or 8, but I'm 100% confident in this, and will hunt down and scan said revelation, if need be) with different plots and machinations, often intersecting at cross-purposes (see Avengers Forever, yet again, for clear evidence of this), and on at least one occasion, Immortus has impersonated Kang in one of these plots (see the Crossing). As for Iron Lad getting a separate page...well...he so clearly separates that he deserves one. Plus...there's a big gap between him as Iron Lad and him as Kang (and no one considers Kang to have been on the Young Avengers) and, frankly, some question as to how they connect (or IF they connect. Who knows? Kang going back and visiting himself could have created a divergent timeline). --GrnMarvl14 00:01, October 17, 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if the different variations actually turned out to be from different realities, and not just different times in the same reality, but Marvel isn't that nice. :)
Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talkcontribsemail) 21:43, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Well, at least with Immortus, we know there's a clear division point where the original entity (Nathaniel Richards) became split into two beings (though that was through the machinations OF Immortus. So...confusion only sort of intensifies). And, with Iron Lad, there's at least a sizable gap between that and Kang. Busiek needs to come back and try and clear things up again (like he...sort of tried and succeeded/failed at with Avengers Forever).
--GrnMarvl14 22:25, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

This definitely needs splitting up. Simply put, while Rama-Tut, Kang, Scarlet Centurion and Immortus all started as Nathaniel Richards of Earth-6311, and their histories overlap, all the time travelling has schismed their timelines. Putting aside the non-Richards' Kangs (from timelines where Kang was slain, and his armor and Kang identity stolen by others, as witnessed with the Cross-Time Kangs), we know of:

Rama-Tut, who became Kang, but in later life became nostaligic and became the semi-benevolent Rama-Tut again.
Rama-Tut, who became Kang, and then became Scarlet Centurion (the guy who fought the Squadron Supreme)
Rama-Tut, who became Kang, who became Immortus
Rama-Tut, who became Kang, and didn't change to another identity. There were many of these, but Immortus cleaned up his own timeline by manipulating the Kang's into killing each other off and then absorbed the memories of all into a single Kang Lokiofmidgaard 19:19, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Split 'em up

I think that the whole Kang article should be split up. When Marvel does profiles of Kang/Rama-Tut/Scarlet Centurion/Immortus/Iron Lad they do separate profiles. Plus factor in all the Cross time Kangs and alternate reality version.

Separate articles, hands down.

Nausiated 16:06, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Seems that has been the consensus for quite a while, but no one ever gets around to doing it. I say go for it! --edkaufman 21:51, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
I've always been for it. I'm just not the guy cut out for the job.--Max 04:15, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
Right. Neither am I. Who is? ... (was that a tumbleweed that just rolled across my screen?) honestly, guys - the first entry on this page that suggested this is almost three years old. Don't we have ANYONE who's well-read enough in FF and Avengers to at least start this? Is this the moment where we finally own up and rename this whole project X-Men Wiki? Or will someone claim the mantle and be justly called Captain Kang henceforth? --edkaufman 23:13, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
I'm the one who's been pushing the hardest, and I'm the one who put the tags gimme some time and I'll tear the page into its composite pieces. Kang's the biggest headache in terms of division because of how things go back and forth and you have Kang vs Immortus and Immortus impersonating Kang, and all kinds of crazy stuff like that. It's like trying to piece a 500 piece puzzle together when you only have 450...and several are duplicate pieces.
--GrnMarvl14 01:39, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
The least I can do is start us out. I'll create the pages, and try to cut up the history if I can figure it out. If not, I'll leave the history I'm not sure about on this page. Here are the links to the others:

Thanks to Loki for explaining the divergence further.

Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talkcontribsemail) 03:04, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
I thought Kang and Rama-Tut were the same divergence. He just got a better hat. (Isn't this fun???!!!)--Max 03:49, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
Apparently there's a version of Rama who went back to being a benevelent Rama...
Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talkcontribsemail) 05:39, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I kinda remember that. Benevolent Rama sounds like a flavor of Ben and Jerry's.--Max 05:44, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
Oh yum! And it comes in a cone shaped like his weird hat. :)
Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talkcontribsemail) 14:42, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Young Avengers

Should we add his purpose in the whole YA saga with Iron Lad? While it certainly could be wholly covered under Iron Lad, his role also belongs on this page. Come to think of it, he needs a lot of recent history... The Next X-Man (talk) 16:48, July 29, 2013 (UTC)Next X-Man

Kang hates Mutants?

I read Uncanny Avengers #12 and the way Kang wants to take care of mutants like "rodents" has me pondering if he's another mutant hater. First there was Red Skull, Doctor Octopus, and now Kang? You'd think villains would be fond of mutants and would want to use them as weapons or something. --User:Lord Caesar 07:11, October 9, 2013 (UTC)