Talk:Captain America

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Captain America article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Good article Captain America was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 18, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Captain America as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hungarian language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Talk page archives

Captain America Comics #1 (March 1941):

[edit] Creators

Regular writers

| width="50%" align="left" valign="top" | Regular pencillers

|}

This list is put there while figuring what to do with it. Either create an article combining it with with the list of Captain America comics or omit it altogether as there are no such lists for other articles. --Leocomix 23:39, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with its removal fro mteh article. Significant creator contributions should be kept in the Publication history and biography sections, or elsewhere as appropriate. That said, I do want to preserve the list here. It's useful to us editors, but crosses into triviality in it's holistic lengths. ThuranX 03:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Agree with both above. Better to keep the creators in context, in prose, rather than just do a laundry list that doesn't really provide for that. --Tenebrae 23:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of other people who wore the cowl

I support the removal of this list. It's entitles Alternate versions of cap, not of Steve Rogers. Thus, other who wore the star and bars could count, not just alternate versions of Rogers, like Rohjar, or however that was spelled in 1602. This allows us to shorten the article. It might be a valid point to link separately to the others under the cowl part of that page, and the other versions of Steve Rogers' on that page, though. ThuranX 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the "Characters who have used the "Captain America" name" section be moved to the Alternate versions of Captain America article? If you are, then I support that idea. What do other people think? -Freak104 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
No, because it belongs to the main character and is a recurring theme of that particular character (there have been about 10 replacement Caps which is more than any other hero). But we can remove "In other media" as these are alternate versions also. Plus the unencyclopedic list of villains should be removed from the article. In general, I would prefer that we tyhink in terms of improving the article by getting rid of all the excess rather than splitting it. --Leocomix 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, definitely yes, I have been pushing this for a long time, do it.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 22:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Leo, many FA articles on superheroes, like Superman and batman, use subarticles, and Cap should too, if needed. The alternate versions, specifically BECAUSE there are so many interpretations and variations, more, as you say than most other heroes, are notable enough for a good subarticle. as to the villians, I generally hate big character lists in comics articles, prefering to see good writing reference major ones and thus cross link around. Smaller villians, like say, Porcupine, can go into greater depth about his interactions with Cap on HIS page, but might only connect to cap through a paragraph about cap VS Scourge. And so on. ThuranX 22:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If needed is the point here. It depends also on how you split because frankly "alternate universe versions of Cap" is not notable and deserving of its own subject unless you throw Other media with it. Other media is notable. We could also add heroes inspired by Cap such as General Glory from DC. I consider that wikipedia articls are not for comics fans but for general public. (OHOTMU is for comics fans.) Cap already has an article on his shield by the way. I agree that the succession of Captain Americas would deserve an article in itself as it is a notable feature (and we could add back my comment about Mark Verheiden's The American in it). What exists currently in the article is a strict minimum though and should stay (see Calvin and Hobbes series of articles for what I think is a good way to go about this). Villains of Cap would be a valid sub-article, too and in this case, the list wouldn't even have to appear here. Still the article can be shortened. For instance, the amount of detail in the powers section is ridiculous and seems taken from an outside reference book or wiki. If an outside reference book goes into that much detail, let's reference it instead of copying or paraphrasing it. --Leocomix 08:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
So can we title the page "Other Versions of Captain America"? I propose we do four sections, with subsectioning as needed: "Others who wore the cowl", thus speaking primarily to the Captain America identity, then Alternate versions of Steve Rogers, speaking to the most famous and most consistent man behind the mask, and shorter or ensemble appearances of a variant Steve, like Zombies, then alternate realities, such as Ultimates, 1602 and Marvel X series', where a long-term, consistent variation is presented as a major character in the narrative, and finally an 'Other media', discussing the 1940's serial, the 1970's reb brown movies, the 1991 film, and the animations and games. This would cover all the concerns above, and not need splitting later, because our title gives us a broader scope to work within. Thoughts? ThuranX 22:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Go ahead. But just do not remove "Other people who were the cowl" from the main article as it's about the main continuity. Copy it to the other article. Then the same section in "Other versions" can be expanded. And there should be space devoted to characters from other publishers that are like Captain America: General Glory, The American, etc., i.e. a fifth section in what you propose. (I just wish there was someone willing to help summarise also the remaining main article as it is also needed. Sigh.) --Leocomix 23:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ice

Just to make this clear. Is this correct?

  1. (1945) Rogers fell from an experimental drone plane into the North Atlantic Ocean (Avengers #4)
  2. (1945) He was recovered by Lyle Dekker, taken to Newfoundland, escaped Dekker's base, and entered suspended animation (Captain America #220)
  3. (????) He was found by Namor who fought some nazis, at some atlantean ruines. Following an explusion, he was drifting in the water again (Captain America v4 #12)
  4. (1964) He was frozen and some eskimos worshiped him, Namor hurled the block of ice into the water (Avengers #4)
  5. (1964) He was found by a nazi u-boot in an alternate timeline, but he returned in the original timeline (Captain America v4 #17-20)
  6. (1964) He was found by the Avengers (Avengers #4)

So, what was retconed out? According to the Ice story arc in CA v4, it was the government who placed Rogers into suspended animation, but it was never mentioned again after that. Maybe the documents were truthless (like the documents found in CA #222), but Rogers remembered to meet the Interrogator earlier. 85.238.74.66 05:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Chosen?

Does anyone know if Captain America: The Chosen is canon or not? SoulReaverDan 00:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It is one of many "The End" type of stories published under the Marvel Knights banner. As any "future" story, it is only a possible future, not definite. See other "The End" stories such as Silver Surfer's Requiem and Spider-Man: Reign. They COULD be how the character ends his time, but it's not definite. Notthegoatseguy 21:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CAtransformation.png

Image:CAtransformation.png 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 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 18:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expand publication history

There's a pretty detailed writeup of Cap vol. 1, but the books after that barely have any description at all, save their title and publication dates. We need to know the creative teams, overall plotline/tone, general reception, sales, etc. Also talk about how Marvel changed the content after 9/11, stuff like that. --Marcg106 02:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, and? Not to be brusque, but any editor can do that, including yourself. Would you like to take this on? There are other editors working on other projects. It'd be great to see this stuff, but many of us are otherwise engaged. Thanks. ThuranX 03:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super strength

Does he have superhuman strength? The article says he possesses no superpowers yet he is categorized in the super cat.? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

He did have for a short period in the 1970s. --Fredrick day 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Does it WP:SOURCE that in the article? The category should be removed is this is unconfirmed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
it was mentioned at one stage but then someone later removed it from the article - it's not difficult to source - as he had it from issue 158 of his series until issue issue 194. I'm crap at adding references so if someone else wants to do it .. --Fredrick day 18:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I took off the category, hopefully somebody can reference it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the most recent instance of him being temporarily granted superhuman strength was in Captain America #402-408. The storyline involved a b-list villain named Dr. Nightshade trying to perfect a formula capable of transforming people into werewolves. Nightshade had experimented on others to perfect the formula and was successful in transforming Cap into a werewolf. As such, he had all the standard werewolf abilities: superhuman strength, stamina, agility, reflexes, senses, fangs, claws, etc.Odin's Beard 23:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

At one point, the supersoldier serum was increasing his powers; as well, he's had some power creep as well. ThuranX 23:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:CAtransformation.png

Image:CAtransformation.png 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 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 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commie Smasher--as written in 1950s vs. as revised later

Most of the description of Commie Smasher seems to come from the much later revisions of that story--the character biography here accepts as 'true' the later explanations/revisions, which is fine for certain purposes (e.g., summarizing Marvel's current version of CA's bio). But in addition, it would be really helpful to see someone do the plot summary of what actually took place in the 1950s story--as written the 1950s vs. as revised in the 1960s & later. I make this request as a non-expert in CA who is very interested in the specific chronology of serial character revisions. This kind of detail would be a most valuable addition to this otherwise very informative entry. Thank you. (Troutfang 03:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Nov. 16 paragraph deletion

I deleted a paragraph that quoted Ed Brubaker's blog for several reasons. (Also, as side note, it was real-world PH in the in-universe FCB.) First, there was no citation for it, and Googling "Ed Brubaker" "blog" turned up 159,000 hits, the first several of which were not his. Second, it used the WP:WEASEL phrase "it was announced on Brubaker's web-blog" — so does that mean Brubaker said it, or that somebody in the comments section was claiming it? (It would be surprising if Brubaker released the information before Marvel OK'd this.) Finally, it contained extraneous "it should be noted" POV and WP:NOR fancruft about the Skrull Elektra and green blood and reverting form, etc.

Let's please not WP:CRYSTAL. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

User:Rtkat3 has been unilaterally dividing up articles without any discussion whatsoever on the articles' talk pages or on the WikiComics Noticeboard. He has been asked on his talk page to discuss splits and mergers there, and he so far refuses to do so. This split needs to be reversed so that a proper discussion can begin. --Tenebrae 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics Captain America is listed as one of many articles that needs to be shortened. When the {{toolong}} tag is added to articles it suggest breaking articles into article series. Even with multiple sub-articles for the main Captain America page it is still considered too long, so this should not be merged back in. I can't speak directly for his actions, but I think he is just trying to help do exactly what the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics-page says needs to be done. -Freak104 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
All I have to say is this. I see no problem with his actions.Phoenix741(Talk Page) 01:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
I second Phoenix, and I would say that Rtkat3 was not reckless in what he did. -Freak104 (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Rtkat3 is doing something good for the articles. 134.68.177.185 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Disagree. Bold is good, but you can still take time to cover you bases. Speficily in this case, where Ficitional Character Biography is what overruns that page. I pose that a new trend of breaking off the character bio's vs. alt versions or media is necessary. merge. --66.109.248.114 (talk) 03:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC).
Merge. It seems that the main problem is the length of the biography section. That should have no effect on putting a section of this page in the correct place. DestradoZero 06:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Discussion closed with no consensus. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Cap's Gun

Why do people keep deleteing my updates when I write that the new Cap carries a gun? It's important info, and has been mentioned in many interviews and showing a lot of promo art, so why not mention it? It's important because it highlights how the new cap is different from Rodgers. Wordforge (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it simply hasn't happened yet. It's not that important a difference until someone in the real world reports on it, and until the published work is released to the public, it violates WP:CRYSTAL, as well as guidelines of the WP:COMICS project, to include it. Once issue 34 hits the stands, it MAY be possible to include, but only if it's more than just sa cover image, and the gun is actually portrayed within the story, which may not actually happen.for all we know now, he might use the original outfit, and have an experience that leads him to improve it. YOu don't know, and neither does anyone else. And so, we wait. ThuranX (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence

"Observe this young man closely...today he volunteered for military service, and was refused because of his unfit condition! His chance to serve his country seemed gone! Little does he realize that the serum coursing through his blood is rapidly building his body and brain tissues, until his stature and intelligience increase to an amazing degree!"

"Behold! The crowning achievement of all my years of hard work! The first of a corps of super agents whose mental and physical ability will make them a terror to spies and saboteurs!"

(The second statement was reiterated in Captain America vol. 1 #176 [August 1974])

Young Men #24 (December 1953):

"There! It is done! Now, we must wait for the reaction... the serum is coursing through your veins right now! It is building body and brain tissues... increasing your stature and intelligience to a supernormal degree!"

Captain America vol. 1 #109 (January 1969):

"He (Cap) personifies the ideal of -- mens sana in corpore sano -- a sound mind -- in a sound body!"

This is for the user named ThuranX as you can see the serum did boost his mindSage99 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This is for the user Sage99. Good enough, now cite them, and lose the attitude. Put those into citations in the article and put the information back in. ThuranX (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Before we do, let's examine this a bit more. I believe the Young Men quote refers to the 1950s Captain America -- not Steve Rogers. "A sound mind in a sound body" is an everyday phrase that does not imply peak-human intelligence. As for the first statement, which comes from, I guess, Captain America Comics #1, that quote has to be taken in context -- it's a scientist hyping his own invention. Aside from this, Golden Age and even early Silver Age material is retconned for naturalism all the time, or else the Sub-Mariner could still blow up like a puffer fish,.
Unless one can seriously make an argument that Captain America is as brilliant as Reed Richards or any of the other established human geniuses in the Marvel canon, we cannot assign the character peak-human intelligence. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your reasoning, but we'd need a more recent source to cite to back it up. If we can get some citation regarding the writers in the last few years and their attitude towards Rogers' intellect, then we can counter it, but unfortunately, he does have some legitimate citations. I'll look over at the book store tonight for something... ThuranX (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think when it goes to intelligence, it is more about battle tactics and such. His mind could have been improved with the serum, and that gave him the ability to be one of the greatest tacticians in the Marvel U. Which is something that has been heavily quoted. -- Phoenix741(Talk Page) 00:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thats were your wrong Tenebrae. You see Kingpin is a regular human who is stronger then Cap's peak strength but not in the other aspects as well as Oxking. And there regular humans. Mystical Stick is a more skillfull fighter then Cap although Cap is a great fighter he doesn't know the more eccentric skills that Stick possesses, so by this alone doesn't mean a regular human cannot be above Cap's enhanced intellect. Plus Cap is not a scientist by that logic I can say Reed is not a Military Genius like Captain America. Different fields different strokes. So your logic is not applicable since there are regular humans who's strength is greater then Cap's peak potential. Then also makes sense that there are humans who are smarter then Cap's peak potential mind as well. Fact of the mater is his Mind is enhanced back up by the books and by the handbooks as well.Sage99 (talk)
First, dont' place replies out of order. Second, please don't make this confrontational. Third, all of your examples are what we call 'Original Research' (read it here). And frankly, Tenebrae's concern is mine as well. Even before Extremis, Tony Stark was a brilliant tactician and technologist; Reed Richards as well. Frankly, in almost any academic area, Cap is outmatched by any number of baseline human intellects (characters whose intellects and minds are NOT super-powered). We're discussing which measurements to abide by and how best to research that. Let's avoid a fight here. I've already said that your citations are sufficient for your contention, that the question is now whether or not those still hold for the character. ThuranX (talk) 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I gotta say, it doesn't really feel like Sage99 is specifically addressing Golden Age hyperbole or my "puffer-fish point", shall we say. And honestly, I would have to admit that I'm more inclined to take seriously someone's contentions if they used better spelling and grammar. I think it's important, both for the clearest communication and to help keep this discussion from degrading. Thanks. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Sage, unfortunately, you've talked yourself into a corner here. You started out with this 'peak of human potential' thing, and have just admitted that numerous 'normal humans' are MORE peak than Captain America's peak. I think this shows that the consistency over the decades has left some aspects of the character behind, and picking and choosing like you're now doing isn't even-handed. I think it's fair to eliminate the 'intellect' thign then, as you're now admitting he's below the peak level in many regards. ThuranX (talk) 04:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Then if we eliminate the intellect because there are other humans with a higher peak in intellect then by that you must also eliminat the strength or speed by your logic, since there are other humans greater then Cap in that regard as well. You can't have it both ways. But anyways here's a scan from the chosen that does indeed stated his mind is enhanced.http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1762/aacapchosen03013rj7.jpg

would a Official marvel handbook reference help you as well??Sage99 (talk)

Not really because the various Marvel handbooks are well known for being unreliable. No sooner than an issue comes out could a character be changed. The Juggernaut, for example, had a very recent profile and it mentioned his depowerment. Not a month later, his powers were restored to their full levels. However, since you brought the handbooks up, then let's talk about Cap's latest OHOTMU profile. I have a copy of the All New OHOTMU A-Z Update #2 of 4 that came out in May of last year. The stats that the various OHOTMU and OHOTMU styled handbooks use for intelligence now are:
1. Slow/Impaired
2. Normal
3. Learned
4. Gifted
5. Genius
6. Super-Genius
7. Omniscient

Captain America's intelligence is classified as Learned. As far as the factors of physical strength goes, Marvel has always, or at least since they first began putting out handbooks,that 800 lbs was the maximum amount of weight an ordinary human could lift above his or her head without being categorized as superhuman. In other words, any character that can lift more than that has superhuman strength. By Marvel's standards, no "ordinary" human can lift more weight than Captain America. If you want to go by a handbook standard, then Cap's intelligence is above normal at best.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually here in the hand books it states Peak Human intellect as well.

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7341/captainamericabvg5.jpg Also 800 lbs is not for the ordinary human. If you look here. http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/6309/page051lb4.jpg

It shows 800 lbs starts the superhuman range. Peak human is states can lift twice his own body weight as it states this, which Cap has surpassed on book of course.Sage99 (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

All of that is irrelevant, given that you just got done arguing that he's the most Peak Human stats blah that there is, EXCEPT for all the other peak human stats characters who are MORE peak human stats than him. You gutted your own argument that no non-powered human is stronger than him, except the non-powered humans who are. It's all Original Research anyway, as Marvel has changed its stats system before, will again, and beyond that, writers are always willing to find other sources to defend their 'fudging' the numbers to get the story told. One could point to this guy as proof that 800 is clearly an arbitrary limit, and then write that Cap can lift 5 pounds more than him, making Cap strongest again. There seems to be a growing 'counterargument' with some citation, and clearly, consensus, that Cap is not as smart as a human can be. By the OHOTMU rankings, which I don't put much stock in, but are published by marvel, he's got at least two categories above him that are almost certainly achieved by humans. Look up Reed Richards, Bruce Banner, Tony Stark, Dr. Doom. I'd be surprised if those are all ranked 'learned' as well. There are simply too many variables. ThuranX (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Additionally, WPC guidelines state we're not to use OHOTMU stats as reference.
I think common sense, as defined by the totality and context of the stories overall, and not one isolated example of a recent writer or a bit of Golden Age hyperbole, has to carry the most weight here. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally as you already stated not all seems like hyperbole mumbo jumbo. Plus I don't see you having a reference from the writer that it is indeed hyperbole. Statements like a "sound mind" in a sound body. Or a corpse of "mental" and physical still lead to a mental enhancement just no phrase on it being peak.

Then of course the first scan thats shown in the powers/ability section which even states intellect enhanced to an amazing degree. Then there's even the current 2007 the Chosen which states as well his mind is enhanced. As this shows. http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1762/aacapchosen03013rj7.jpg There's no way you can not deny his mind is at least enhanced. I'll just have to wait until a writer specifies its been enhanced to the peak of human potential. Its funny though I have to prove Cap is a scientist to be smart. Its like me asking prove Tony is as equally as a genius, as a military genius like Captain America is.Sage99 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest it be added that his intellect is enhanced to an unknown degree?Sage99 (talk)
No, that's too vague. a quick glance through a couple of my books shows remarkably little about cap's injection and the results. I'll poke around a bit more. I do wonder, though, how often his origin's been retold and remarked upon In-Universe and NO mention ofhte intellect was made? In other words, how much cherry-picking would hve to be done to swing the evidence either way? ThuranX (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it really that vague, to simply say he's intellect is enhanced? Ask yourself this his immune system is enhanced as on book we've seen him flush out poisons easily, as not being able to get intoxicated from alcohol and healing ability has also been shown enhanced but its also never been clarified to be peakhuman as well. But its still mentioned in his wiki bio.Sage99 (talk)
Again and again you invoke original research. Find secondary sources, please. Thank you. ThuranX (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And as I pointed out before, and to which User:Sage99 did not respond but simply reposted the scan, one passing reference by a new writer (in what isn't even definitively canon in any case) is not enough to overturn decades of continuity. And may I again ask Sage99 to please use proper spelling and grammar, or to at least, for the sake of courtesy to his fellow editors, explain what he has against proper spelling and grammar? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In my earlier response, I didn't mean to imply that OHOTMU stats should be used. I agree that they're too unreliable since writers frequently ignore them. I just mentioned them since Sage99 brought Marvel handbooks into play. In the image, it states that the process which gave Captain America his physical power ammplified the power of his brain. Did he have any mental disabilities prior to the procedure? Mental retardation? Did he have problems retaining things he'd learned? Unable to concentrate? If he did have any of those problems, I could at least see where you're coming from. As to him being a "military genius", that's too vague I think. Now, if a writer were to say something that his tactics and strategy rivaled or was on par with the likes of Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great, that would be something relatively solid.Odin's Beard (talk) 23:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What proof is there that the Chosen isn't a part of the 616 universe, out of curiosity? Also Tenebrae what evidence is this so called decades of continuity that you have, for his non-enhanced intellect? Do you have something as a real reference stating exactly that it did not enhance his mind? Odin's Beard I'll try too see what military genius feats Cap has in order to maybe help you. Tenebrae I agree with you one reference isn't enough. But thats why you have Cap v1 #1 which states his intellect increased to an amazing degree.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CAtransformation.png and the other well known statements. Now of course you could assume said statements are hyperbole but theres more then "one" that mentions the mentality aspect in his origins.Sage99 (talk)

I do appreciate Sage99's easier-to-read post above, and thank him for the effort. However, re: "Do you have something as a real reference stating exactly that it did not enhance his mind?" — one cannot prove a negative. Everybody knows that. (Also please note: Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Are wikis reliable sources? says wikia should not be used as reference, for obvious reasons.)

When a discussion reaches a point like that, I'm not sure it's worth it to continue. The consensus of three out of the four editors is tending against this point. I would say that if Sage99 is sincerely adamant in his belief, that he call for an RfC on the Comics Noticeboard and here. I believe that's the fair way for all concerned after two days of much detailed discussion by four editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree negatives can be proven. Thats is what your trying to achieve at this very moment and disprove "enhanced intellect". You claimed at first it was hyperbole but with no real evidence as then you later stated, "It doesn't really feel like Sage99 is specifically addressing Golden Age hyperbole or my "puffer-fish point", shall we say." So hopefully you still at least believe this. You stated "The Chosen" is not cannon but again you did not supply any real evidence for this as well. And thirdly no evidence has been really brought up against him having just a non-enhanced mind by story, so I don't understand the logic by this direction IMO. But I do hope we can come up with a fair solution.Sage99 (talk)
With all due respect, it doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree that a negative cannot be proven. This is a bedrock of the American judicial system and part of every high school debate class. If we can't have a reasonable discussion, there's no use continuing.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't it matter. Everything matters IMO. Especially the statements made on the intellect, hopefully the more I compile the more people will take notice. It just seems to me I have the references to back me up which is the positive, while it hasn't been posted any real evidence that he has no enhanced intellect, which is the negative evidence. You are right and I agree with you evidence is the bedrock of the American judicial system and of debatesSage99 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
While I don't disagree with that last statement, it's not what I said. I said, one cannot prove a negative. And to repeat myself on another matter, this discussion shows no consensus in favor of your edit. At this point the most practical and collegial thing might be to either drop the argument for now or call for an WP:RfC to get a wider variety of opinions.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you in that regard. If in this case you value the negative being the enhanced intellect. If thats the case then it can easily be disproved when you have a simple quote of it saying on book, "Cap's intellect was not enhanced". As simple as a reference like that would disprove such a negative in this case.Sage99 (talk)
Fine. Every court of law and debate team in the U.S. is wrong, and you're right. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course not Tenebrae your just applying the negative wrong here in this case. True negatives are questions like show me a square circle? Thats a true negative. Plus law and debate are a tad different too call them the same is not correct.Sage99 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is this: Sage has citations that apply to the Golden Age and Silver Age CA in terms of hyperbole and description, but those weren't supported particularly in deeds. In the modern era, the consensus among editors here is that writers don't demonstrate Steve Rogers as possessing an enhanced intellect(EI), but just being a reasonably intelligent fellow with a strong moral compass. Rogers may be one of the wisest heroes of 616, but smartest? Consensus is against. I think if you could find some discussion of the modern era cap actually having such intellect, it would be more convincing. Personally, I'm find with stating that in the golden age and silver age, CA was described as having an EI, but not in the modern era. As for The Chosen, that seems to be similar to the various the end and Spiderman Reign miniseries; opportunities for deeper non-canon explorations of themes by great writers. Chosen seems to be an allegorical about heroism during wartime among ordinary soldiers. I'm not about to add that to the article, without citation, but finding a canon/non-canon on that would be nice. I would say, however, that if the series ends with CA being either a true figment of the soldier's mind (insanity plus hero-worship equals hallucination/fever dream, perhaps) or with CA dying from wasting away, that it's clearly not canon, and doesn't apply. It's a bit of SYNTH, but he can't die in two different ways. I don't deny Sage has SOME citation, but it's primary sources, for one, and way out of date, for two. Were this a static work, a novel or film, primary sources might be more credible, but in a kinetic, ongoing work, such things can age and get stale, so taking the time to examine this isn't a waste of our time. ThuranX (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The chosen is entirely non-canon - that's what the Marvel Knights imprint was retooled to do (and Joe Q mentions this in a couple of newsarama interviews if anyone wants to dig it up) - provide a venue for tools that cannot be published in the monthly title for various reason (generally that they end with the death of the lead character). --Fredrick day (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually ThuranX got it right. The chosen is actually a the end type story which is set in the far future as a possibility like the other end stories, the writer I believe Morales mentions this in his interviews. But alas I will disregard its future scenes since its only a possibility and not definitive.Sage99 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence Revisited

Recently, I was reading through the P&A section, and read the quote provided in the picture offered. Upon reading the argument's above, I wanted to pose additional points. First, in my understanding of WP:Comics guidlines, we should look at how characters are represented and interpretted across their history and not exclusivly that which is modern. User:Sage99 provided multiple sources to support this point, and as this section is describing a fictional element, I'm not sure how quickly we can dismiss the weight of these sources. Additionally, there is evidence in modern Marvel continuity to point to intellect enhancement. Protocide introduced during Jurgens run was presented as a evil Cap that gain all the physical attributes but none of the mental gains for the Super-Soldier Serum. A line discussing mental enhancment (we wouldn't need to say "undetermined level") would be appropriate, and necessary to reflect the whole of Cap and his abilities. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC).

I was reflecting a little more on this topic. As editors, I don't believe we play part of the source material off of another without 3rd party validation, as this is original research. I move that intelligence be included. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
And yet, others still oppose you. It's not 'original research' to provide multiple citations, examine them, discuss and come to consensus. ThuranX (talk) 03:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
It is orginal research if all the citations are strictly fictional. That examination and contrast, by editors is at the purest defination OR. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC).
THe horse is dead, stop beating it. It's clear that consensus is not with you. Please drop it. ThuranX (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


1. I encourage a focus on civility during this discussion. 2. I revisit this discussion, as concerns of original research were not brought up in the previous. Currently, the previous discussion was weighing one piece of source material vs. the next, stating one was more canonical than the next. Such an editor driven discussion is OR. There is not harm providing a intelligence not, specifically when the supporting image supports this not. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC).
Glue factory called. They want to hire you. Consensus against you, not OR, move on, thank you. ThuranX (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Brubaker on NPR

Brubaker spoke briefly on NPR this AM about Bucky in the suit, and how Cap is perceived, and how he writes the character. Anyone else hear it and think it's worth including? I'll try to find the web-feed of it later tonight. ThuranX (talk) 22:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, didn't he go over how Bucky sees Rogers, and how he is trying to be like him, that would be notable.-- Phoenix741(Talk Page) 23:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
he mentioned that Bucky's reunion with Rogers left their relationship unresolved, but it was more interesting to hear his real world commentaries. He mentioned, in discussing Cap's audience appeal that both policital wings lay claim to him. The left thinks cap should lead the charge for impeachment of Bush, and the right thinks that he should be punching out Osama like 40's covers had him punching out Hitler, but that he tries to write apolitically and focus on the character in the suit, not the iconic nature of the costume. ThuranX (talk) 05:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA

I'm new to this article, so to speak, and I was wondering if anybody though this was a good time to renominate this article? RC-0722 communicator/kills 02:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

No. First, find the old GA review and read it. Then, check the GA pages for new conditions the page would have to meet. Then make sure all points from those two steps have been repaired. Then we can worry about content cleanups, more real-world impact, nad so on. ThuranX (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's the link to the old review: Talk:Captain_America/Archive_2#GA_Failing. Hope that helps. checking the images is first, and shouldn't take more than half an hour, but it's tedious. I am glad to help you by reviewing your work and so on as yuo get stuff done. ThuranX (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pursuant to GA topic above

One thing I think this article REALLY needs before it gets GA or FA is a serious culture section. Captain America in American Culture, ideally, to distinguish from the unpopular 'pop culture' sections which are comprised of lists of comedic and movie references in off-hand ways. I'd like to see this section be about his invocation by political figures and serious authors and commentators. I've seen him referenced in magazines and such regarding political manners, often in the context of a perceived inability to pick the wrong moral or ethical course (usually, by extension, picking it for the nation). ThuranX (talk) 17:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Rogers

this should be split into two articles. Most of it should be at Steve Rogers (Marvel), and this article should be an overview article. As there is another Cap now... 70.55.84.89 (talk) 06:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry I disagree. This article is about Captain America not strictly about Steve. Although, I agree that it could probably be restructured somewhat and that Steve probably does need his own page (which incidently I think should be called Steve Rogers (comics). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Me Again. Just noticed the tag on the front about a disambiguation page. Might not be a bad idea actually. Something along the lines of Captain America (comics) which would include the publication history (without so much of the plot stuff). You could also do a list of Captain America's (not alternate version but, the people that have had the name officially) very similar to the way the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe did. Not something I have time to do myself but, I wouldn't object if the final product was a decent quality. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There is discussion already on this page on the matter, i suggest you read it through before creating a new redundant section. ThuranX (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Didn't create this section but, thanks for the note. I'll try to find the appropriate section and join in the discussion there. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Apologies, confused this with the leading section above regarding general application of the article to wearers of the stars and bars. That said, I think we should maintain a focus here on Steve Rogers as CA. He's been the iconic version for 68 or so years, and we have little to base a long term Bucky premise on. Sales may drop, public reaction may fall out, and they may reinstate him 'toot sweet', to paraphrase. Until such time as we get a Barry Allen order, or we haver a real perspective of time, not recentism, to apply, focus on the SR version, esp. since it is to that version that most serious real world analysis will speak, with some media coverage of the recent character changes. the majority of character coverage concerns are based on InUniverse concerns, not real coverage nad analyisis. ThuranX (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking that perhaps that an article entitled Captain America needs to be about the publication history of the comic book and the various people that have held the name historically. Steve is definitely the "main" Captain America and is the most notable "person" to have that name but, there are at least 4 others that have also carried the name "officially". I'm not saying scrub the Steve stuff from here (heck I've got a tattoo of Cap's shield... that's how much I love the character and what Steve's version stood for(in my own mind). What I am saying is can't we shorten the biography section somewhat by including a just paragraph or two about Steve, William, Jeffery, John, and James with the appropriate "for more see" type tags. So you could have a main "Captain America (comics)" article with a disambulation page or appropriate in text links to each characters' main article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that's reasonable because, as pointed out, there have been a variety of characters that've officially taken up the Captain America identity on behest of the government in various comics over the years. While Steve Rogers will always be remembered by fans of the character and comic book insiders alike as the definitive Captain America, Marvel has done storylines in which he's given up the persona, leaving the government to find replacements. These replacements, I believe, have been very brief, but they occurred nonetheless.Odin's Beard (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that is that most of those other heros are retconned in, making them only notable from an 'in-universe' perspective. little to nothing has been written in a scholarly or critical manner about them. When people talk about Captain America going from a scrawny 4F to a super patriotic fighting machine, or whatever, they clearly reference Steve Rogers' version. As I've said before, I'd really like to see this article, and frankly, numerous other character articles seriously focus on the real-world content, be it critical and cultural response, writers and artists talking about the how-to of making it, and so on. Cap's a particularly rich character for real world content, as hes' been mentioned in pro- and anti-american propaganda for decades, is alluded to in public speeches, and public speech by political and other public figures, and so on. Worrying about how much space to give to Naslund and Mace and other in-universe temporary wearers of the mantle is trivial, in the scope of what we could do with the character, and they can largely be dismissed by saying that "Marvel, in order to get the publication of cap through the postwar 40's and beyond to jibe with the Steve Rogers' story premise built for The Avengers, retconned in other similar patriotic heroes, saying the governemtn asked them to step into the lost Rogers' red boots". Wasting paragraphs and pages on those other characters, and the retconning, seems fannish, not encyclopedic. ThuranX (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
In the multiple mediums that have show Cap (TV, movies, video games, novels) Roger's has been consistently been the man under the mask. The additional support of multiple mediums showing Rogers as Cap, provides additional support as Steve Rogers the Captain America. This article is not about the comic's Cap exclusivly, but rather Cap as a whole, which reflects Steven Rogers behind the shield. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC).
  • ThuranX, I think the thing is that it is Captain America that has the real world impact. Not so much Steve Rogers. Like I said previously I've got a tattoo specifically because I believe alot in what my interpretation of what Steve's version stood for; however, the real world impact is also about the changing face of Captain America. Okay Naslund and Mace are retcons but, John Walker and James Barnes aren't. I could debate with you if you wish the various bits of symbolism involved in the change from Steve Rogers to John Walker both real world and "in-universe" as you say but, that would take up alot of space on this talk page which is really supposed to be about the article. I'm still of the opinion that an article about Captain America needs to be about Captain America and not about Steve (at least to the degree it is. Hence my suggestion that this article concentrate on publication history and other "real world" aspects with only a paragraph or two about the people to use the name. It would be easy enough to explain that "real world" stuff within some of these sections. For instance, even the Grand Director version (which admittedly may be a retcon, my memory is a bit fuzzy as I wasn't born until well after the 1950's Cap had gone bye bye) has real world connections with Cap going from fighting Nazi's to being a commie smasher (like many comics of the time as I understand it). Don't get me wrong I love Steve but, I don't think an article about Captain America should be focusing so much on just the one guy. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You're missing my point. the academic materials, and real world context, is about Steve Rogers as Captain America. It's not about some lame story retcons that are not known to the politicians and public figures who have invoked the character, it's the basic rah-rah patriot who fights for American values that they grew up reading in the 40's and 50's, who was then Steve Rogers. Go look, it's not mace and Naslund when the costume comes off back then, it's Rogers. Marvel changed that in a retcon later. IF the real world context focuses on Rogers as cap, so should our article reflect that. We don't need to cruft up things with a page for each person who ever put on the stars and bars. And again, the urge to diverge is based firmly in recentism. A character with a 65 year history of being Steve Rogers, and a 1 year death, and 4 or 5 months of being Bucky is NOT balanced by splitting it off to talk about Bucky in this article. As for Walker, that entire set of stories was about Rogers being Cap at heart and Walker being a Gov't lackey, and the Hero's Journey back to his rightful place. It's a morality play with a fall from grace vibe, but at its' heart, it's still about Steve Rogers getting back his identity. The article should focus on the real world content, reference the retcon briefly in the publication history, explaining Marvel's storytelling decisions and how they reconciled that with the publication histories, and then move on. The death of Steve Rogers can be covered briefly, noting such things as Quesada speaking on NPR and Colbert about it, and so on. But to split things off is a bad idea, because eit's based on In Universe ideas. ThuranX (talk) 20:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Again, it's Captain America as a concept and the way he behaves that is important. You see the Rogers vs Walker stuff as a morality play. I see it as a struggle between "the letter of..." and the "spirit of..." type thing. Walker reflects the various ultraconservative ideals with Rogers being more liberal. This article should reflect how "Captain America" as a concept has changed over the years and Walker and Rogers death are a part of this. The real world controversies about what Captain America is and should be are a vital part of his history and I think a foundation for some of the "retconning" you speak of. I think you'll find that it doesn't take a whole article for each person that has had the name (though I'm pretty sure they all have one) and I'm definitely not saying dump the Steve Rogers stuff. You are right that he is the definitive Captain America but, why do we need an indepth discussion of plot through the years on here? I would question how "to split things off is a bad idea, because it's based on In Universe ideas" though? What is the "In Universe idea" you are speaking of? Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
All the stuff you mention about the concept is what belongs here. All that stuff involves Steve Rogers. NONE of it involves Mace and Naslund and so on. That was all IN-UNIVERSE refitting of the story to allow Marvel to use the 'frozen at end of war; found by Avengers' narrative. They said, oh, it wasn't Rogers in the 40's and 50's, it was these other guys. But they made that revision decades after the issues were published. Thus, all the scholarly stuff is about the lengthy career of Steve Rogers, not about Naslund and Mace. When political folks drop comparisons to Captain America, they're not referencing Naslund or Mace, but rogers. The other Caps were short term, or relatively non-notable retcons. They hardly need lengthy articles, nor splittings. ALL that stuff about Naslund anad Mace is IN UNIVERSE stuff. It's completely non-notable to the real world. Frankly, I doubt there's particularly great amounts of coverage of Walker either, and Bucky only more so due to the more pervasive and 'any-news' hungry media. Unless sufficient real world notable content can be found for it, keep it all here. ThuranX (talk) 20:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Real world I've not heard reference to Steve Rogers. The reference is to the best of my knowledge always to Captain America. Captain America fought the Nazis, Captain America fought the Commies, Captain America would be for/against the War on Terror, etc. Maybe I missed the references to specifically to Steve somewhere (other than the Captain America is dead bit)and if so I apologise but, the references to Cap and not to Steve is what my thing about splitting the article down is about. I'm not saying give these others full blown pages of their own (though as I said I'm pretty sure they already have one) and I'm not saying lose all the Steve Rogers stuff. I'm just saying that we don't need to go as indepthly as we have with the Steve Rogers plot stuff and that some consensus needs to be reached on how articles of this nature should look (generally). Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe what we do is edit the article to more accurately reflect the retconning and rename some sections to more accurately reflect the "real world" stuff. Take out references to Steve Rogers in the section titles or something. The late 40's to 50's bit for example. If in the original publications for instance it is "Steve Rogers" under the mask during the Commie Smashing era than we can make the article simply read that during that time Captain America moved onto the newest "real world" enemy of the United States (Communism). It was later revealed through "retcon"/additional stories that this person was in fact ... Either way I think we could probably cutdown on some of the section lengths and get it to reflect more the "real world" stuff that ThuranX wants. Perhaps the "retcon" stuff gets used as examples of it in a article on the subject but, doesn't get included as fully in this article as it currently is. I don't know really what definitely needs doing I just know that the article at the moment doesn't "feel" right (and yes I'm aware I'll get smacked for using that word). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Me Again, How is this for a sort of compromise... why don't we work on editing this article and removing the large amount of "in universe" content. Keeping the article about Steve Rogers and the comic book character("This article is about the original Comic Book Character Captain America".. - or something) for other uses please see Captain America (disambulation) - at this disambulation page we can have the Jimmy Buffet album, the movies, the nickname of Peter Fonda's character from Easy Rider, etc. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
That sounds good. That said, some mention of he album and movie belongs here too. Bradford WRight, in Comic Book Nation, points to Fonda's character as an example of counter-culture appropriation of the Marvel ideas and characters. But yes, you're getting my point now. Let's get to work! (That said, I may be making only smaller edits for the next couple weeks as real world eclipses onoline time). glad we've got a direction in mind now! ThuranX (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
ThuranX - was going to drop you a line on your talk page but, it doesn't seem to be editable (no tab at the top). I've started the subpage so if you want to help get the edits together just popon over. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
    • ==IMPORTANT FOR ALL (further to the above Steve Rogers titled section==

I'd like to begin trying to edit the article to reflect the compromise reached. In order to do this without being disruptive I would like community consensus that it is okay for me to copy and paste the page to my userspace (as a subpage if I can figure out how to do it). I wish to work on the article and will of course invite comment on the edits I'll be making there but, want to make sure not to break any "rules" about userspace. If anyone has any problems with me undertaking this effort in the above way please let me know. I'm going to wait for a few days to gather comments if noone has said otherwise I'll do the above. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

      • Additionally, I've never set-up a disambulation page so if someone wouldn't mind undertaking that it would be greatly appreciated. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] revamp

overall the article looks solid as reworked, but I do notice a number of creative team citations are gone, let's find a way to reincorporate them, as those are a part of the real world context we're looking for. ThuranX (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updates, etc

Do we want to be including Updates and such about people that might be Steve Rogers? For instance the latest update to this page and the Secret Invasion stuff. My opinion is that we shouldn't include it until things are confirmed that it is THE Steve Rogers. I'm still looking to cutdown on some of the long narrative history in this article and this just seems to add to that. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

- I was under the impression that we wanted to wait until plotlines resolved to avoid the "breaking news" style entries. If we want to put a line in that suggests he might be returning, I think that would be better than the teaser content that's there now (that either spoils the comic for those who have read or confuses those who have not). My $.02. Jrichardstevens (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  • More on this. Many of us think this will be the resurrected HateMonger (the Cap from the 50s), or the resurrected clone body of the Red Skull from earlier in the series. And in the Secret Invasion line, h could be a Skrull. I think we should just wait and draw whatever significant events occur in the two storylines featuring potential Steve Rogers (Secret Invasion and the current Cap books) and stop posting Marvel's promotional buzz. Jrichardstevens (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
All of the above is speculation, which is why I, among others, keep trying to remove one line plot building style writing, which often ends with the stupid caveat 'This storyline is ongoing'. IN a serialized form, the story is always on-going, and issue by issue summaries, or even arc by arc summaries, are poor form. Frankly, since there's a reasonable chance among all the wild speculation, that Rogers will return, I'm in favor of just chilling the plot for a year before saying that Bucky's takeover's at all significant beyond being a plot device. Consider the return of Sue and Ralph Dibny as ghost detectives, for example. At one point, the DC editorial staff were discussing Sue as the next Barry Allen, a verboten resurrection. And now? 'well, technically, since she's dead, we're NOT bringing her back...'. A wait and see attitude serves us well on the comic articles, where there's never going to be absolute urgency to including plotlines. ThuranX (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with both Jrichardstevens and ThuranX. There's no deadline — to be encyclopedic means to have all the cold, hard facts in hand. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and one of the biggest policies, as big as NPOV, is no original research, which includes synthesis and speculation.
There's no rush. This isn't the Wizard Web site, or Newsarama. It's not even WikiNews. Let's not succumb to the temptation to be newsy — that's not what Wikipedia is about, with the very rare exceptions of things like real-world deaths. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bucky "retcon"

Is the Bucky thing really a "retcon" or just part of the story that wasn't told until recently? I think it is only really a retcon if it contradicts something that counted as canon earlier and I don't think the operative to do things Steve couldn't be seen to do fits. I'm asking here for consensus of somesort. Also, I'm thinking if the answer is yes it is definitely a retcon that we need to clean up the language a little. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Winter Soldier, it's a ret-con, yes. Bucky was presented as dead for over 40 years, without any 'hints' otherwise. He used to be one of the big three, even. Barry Allen, Bucky Barnes, and Ben Parker were the three peopel they couldn't bring back. They've brought back two now; only Barry's still dead, though he does get used in flashbacks (sorry) occasionally. ThuranX (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • No, not the Winter Soldier stuff. I get that. I'm talking about the bit about undergoing jobs that Steve wasn't meant to do. Even if he had stayed dead (as opposed to being retconned as Winter Soldier) it is possible in my eyes for the other bit to be just "untold" story but, is it? What defines the difference between "untold story" and "retcon"? If the agreement is that the whole thing is part of the same retcon than we should present it as one thing, whereas at the moment it reads as two separate retcons. Is that clear enough or do I need to rethink my wording? Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And off topic, isn't Uncle Ben still dead (at least the Earth-616 version?) Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, the recasting of Bucky as this like... secret agent intended to do the stuff that America's Symbol couldn't? Yes, also retconning, designed to add a new and deeper backstory to what started out as a kid sidekick, and set up for WHY he was able to become the Winter Soldier. it's all a retcon. ThuranX (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arnold Roth

there is a link about gay guy named Arnold roth says issue dealed with homophobia. can someone write an article up about him? i know nothing about him so plz helpEdaldren (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There was an article about him, but it was turned into a redirect, as the only Real World notability was that he was used in a story that touched on homophobia, and it was felt that the character lacked independent notability. As such, I've removed the link, since it just feeds back here. If you can find notable real world information about the character, you can access his page from an older version of this page, and then examine the edit history there, and build on what is there, but I recommend having good sources before you edit there, because you risk a quick Articles for deletion debate if you just tidy up grammar and try to start relinking it. ThuranX (talk) 02:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening

Looking for somesort of consensus on this. Is he "a comic book superhero character, published by Marvel Comics." -or- "a fictional character that appears in comic books published by Marvel Comics." -or- some third option? Is there a precedent set somewhere by one of the projects to help answer this? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMIC has some info on this, as I recall, there were two preferred intros, one of which was here. DCIncarnate prefers the other, based on the fact that he's edited a number of article to the other in the last couple days without consensus. I prefer the 'comic book character', as in the great majority of situations, comic books characters are fictional; even most which aren't pure fiction are dramatized or heavily modified (see Maus). I see no reason to arbitrarily change styles. ThuranX (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer "a fictional character in the Marvel Comics universe." RC-0722 247.5/1 22:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
The consensus-derived WikiProject Comics intros appear at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/exemplars#Comic book characters, and, following Wikipedia fiction standards, uses a real-world approach that stresses "fictional character" as a primary attribute, and various phrasings for "in comic book published by XYZ Comics Company," rather than the less concrete "XYZ Universe". That said, the MOS gives several examples to help account for particular distinctions and specifics that may arise regarding a particular character — there's no one correct way, but variations on one correct template.
Wikipedia's overall take is to make everything as clear as possible to a general audience that's as unfamiliar with comics as we might be going to an article on heart disease or the Pre-Columbian era or what have you. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tenebrae. We roadtested about six different variations and the clearest for the layman seemed to be: "X is a fictional character that appears in comic books (or publications if the characters has also appeared in magazines) published by Marvel Comics. This way, we've established from the get-go they are fictional and appear in a certain company's comic books. That's fairly clear.

Asgardian (talk) 04:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Current Events"

I've removed a bit from the death and aftermath section. My reasoning is that the "current events" need not be covered (especially if it is just because someone in a costume happens to be about. This article is about Steve Rogers and nothing supports that the Captain America in any current comic other than Avengers/Invaders is actually THE Captain America that this article is about. I am more than open to discussion on this page with people that agree or disagree with my action. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Do we actually need an External Links section in this article? If so why? Thank you. Personally, I don't think we do as it doesn't add anything to the article and is very much open for spam and other nonsense additions but, thought it better to discuss here than to just BOLDLY remove the section. Thanks Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

One's to another wiki, which is generally supported as an EL, another's to marvel's official character page. the other two i'd see no problem in dropping. ThuranX (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)