Talk:Captain America/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Death

Shouldn't someone write something in here about his death?

Yes. For example, he'll be back soon, Steve Rogers cannot be dead for too long.


i wrote about it the day they "killed him" on March 7th. but apparently someone reverted it back to its original state. --Mclover08 17:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the death is described in two sections in the entry: the Publication History, and the Character Biography.--Galliaz 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Actually, it's been said that Captain America might return, but Steve Rogers is going to stay dead.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.101.206 (talk • contribs)


In general shouldn't someone be commenting on the lack of manliness of comicbook superheroes since the 1940s? The Human torch routinely burned the flesh off of japs and germans alike. Why do superheroes today have a "sissy girl" approach to enemy infestations? Cap, and the others should be in the middle east exterminating the infestation.

Because there is only a select few groups of people, which are not nation entities nor the majority, and even the real world doesn't know where they are all hiding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.212.175 (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

¶ Bank in the 1960s, when they "revived" Capt. America, he woke up babbling about chasing Baron Zemo, with some reference to a vehicle crashing into the water with him and Bucky (I thought it was a roller coaster). Evidently in the 1960s they created a back story about the Capt's "death" at the end of WW2 - and it's that 1960's backstory that is given in the article. But, does anyone have any direct knowledge of how the Capt disappeared, faded away or died in the 1940's comics??? I'd really like to know. Sussmanbern (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Super serum

super serum has given him many super human traits ( surviving icy colds and in supended animation plus more) one over looked factor is healing factor that is not up to the par of the wolvrine but effective none the less. 202.142.190.245 07:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't have a healing factor. It should also be noted that since the Streets of Poison storyline, Cap's lost his powers and now has to constantly train and work out in order to keep himself in top form.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.126.60 (talk • contribs)

Healing like Wolverine no. But he does heal faster then normal feats like recovering from a beating from Namor, to taking a bullet to the shoulder as Cap states I heal quickly because I'm built that way. To his immune system blocking a foreign agent that affected everyone else in marvel, to even healing from a bullet to the head as a Doctor pronounced him dead in the Cap/Falcun solo series. The Poison storyline he did lose the SSS but then he regained it.Sage99

Google Streets of Poison and Captain America and you'll find plenty of links to use as a citation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.126.60 (talk • contribs)

The above editor's unsigned comments were followed by him editing the section. His edits were reverted for being simply more verbose, more of an issue style summary, nd for removing a Cite needed, instead of providing a cite, which should not be happening whiel adding even more info. ThuranX 05:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Massive Reference Section Revision

I am going to do the hard work of reformatting the references using the: ==References== <div class="references-small"> <references/> </div> & <ref name="refnamegoeshere">{{cite web| url=http://www.urlgoeshere.com|title=titlegoeshere}}</ref> format. I hope nobody has problems with that. I am going to fix the Bibliography section and turn that into references, and the references into external links. I'll have to take a closer look. Anyone have comments or wants to help? (Narkstraws 20:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

Okay I am about to begin. I will save once per edit so it wont interfere with what other editors are doing, or as little as possible. If it ends up looking bad, we can always revert, but at least we'll have something to compare it too. This will go a long way to getting this article into featured status I hope. For more info check out WP:Footnotes. Also I am adding a template message saying major revisions are being done. (Narkstraws 21:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC))


afraid to edit the page while you're working on it, but in regards to your question about:

Current revision (22:21, 9 August 2006) (edit) Btipling (Talk | contribs) (→2000s - ref for ca 1 2002 - different comic?)

It's Cap Vol 4, issue 1 for nick fury recruiting cap. cap reveals he's steve rogers in issue 3. the prologue of issue 7 refers to him moving to Red Hook. Impulse 22:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I'll edit that now. I am going to take a break before I tackle alternate captain americas, because that's going to be a lot of work. I'll take the massive edit tag down while I rest.(Narkstraws 22:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC))
While you're resting i'll see if i can supply any missing dates from my cap collection, i see some issues i have Impulse 22:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right about those New X-men links being off, Khaosworks, but the origin story refers to the 1940s version (vita-rays were a retcon), so someone can link a more relevant origin referance if they find one before me, i've got to take off shortly Impulse 01:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It's probably either from the Tales of Suspense origin or the John Byrne retelling in the 1980s. I'll check those references up when I get home. -khaosworks (talk • contribs) 03:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the Adventures of Cap'n A for now, i skimmed through it and it was a pretty modern origin retelling, but if you see any ToS issues that are better and earlier fits, by all means! =D Impulse 03:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay I am ready to get started again, I'll just work on the alternate captain americas section, and not put one of those tags up again for the whole article. I don't really see many references for the TV sections and what goes after it. Thanks for all your help impulse, those dates look great, and yeah that was supposed to be civil war 1-7 not 77. Thank you also Khaosworks. I better get busy. (Narkstraws 03:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC))
Btipling, let me be the first to say you've done an excellent (and lengthy!) job formatting the article too, before today I hadn't a firm idea on how to do citations, but all those referance links really make the article come together. Impulse 03:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey no problem, I enjoy doing it. I appreciate your help. I wasn't sure people would like the changes, I am glad you do though. I really have a desire to see this article attain featured status. It probably has a way to go, but you guys have been doing great work on this article, I am just formatting it. I don't really have the specific knowledge of the character, I have just always liked it though. (Narkstraws 03:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC))
Also I wasn't sure I could use a self closing tag for second instances of references, or if that was smart if an earlier instance of a reference is later removed, but it did feel like duplication. (Narkstraws 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Okay I think I am done. I don't see too many more places where there are clear references. I think it might be possible to make that references section two columns, and if you like I think we can decrease the size of the bibliography section to make it look more like the references section. (Narkstraws 04:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

looks very sharp, i look forward to tighting up specific referances in the days to come. I was just looking at how Batman was a feature article the other day and thinking "hmmm, if that pointy eared guy is a FA, Cap should be an FA" =D Impulse 05:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, we can still beat Spider-Man, but wait a second, that article could use some reference section cleaning. I might have to jump in on that when I have some more time. (Narkstraws 05:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC))
Spidey is a lot more disorganized, but I suppose they are trying to work in a lot more storylines. 4-5 ongoing series will do that, cap's history is relatively uncluttered next to him. I wouldn't mind seeing the Webhead get FA either though! Maybe we could propose CA as the collabration of the month, might speed along the process Impulse 05:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


Seriously, what's the point? Due to the out of control "retcon" nonsense, any character can be created, uncreated, cloned, resurrected, ripped from the timeline, have their gender changed, etc. There is no continuity anymore and no rationale, save that of whoever happens to be working on the project at the time, and whatever stunt they think will generate sales. The whole gwen stacy mess was really the last straw for me. And, Cap's history is clouded with silliness such as Falcon being a street hoodlum- another retcon that made no sense. The resurrection of "bucky", and the tacked-on crap that he was this ultimate commando, defies the whole storyline. So kill Cap, clone him, give him laser beam vision, who gives a crap? Whats the point?

A

Article Size

I notice the size of the article is about 23kb higher than suggested, ideas how how to shorten it? Maybe make Cap in other media a sub-article, as unlike other comic characters, Cap has always been more well known on the printed page than in movies. other opinions? Impulse 05:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that's more of a recommendation, but I am not sure. I noticed that a few FA are pretty big, but I guess the ideal is to have it shorter. Changing passive voice sentences to active voice generally gets rid of a lot of extra words. It can probably be tightened up a bit more. (Narkstraws 05:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC))


Change to televison sections

An unregistered user changed the televison section to say the cap of the series was the son of the 1940's cap. I'm not familar with it myself, but I just wanted to check that this was accurate. Anyone know? In the first film, the new Captain America was the son of the original Captain America. In the second one, he was the original Captain America, released from his ice prison. Impulse 02:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In the 70s, there were two made for TV pilots about Captain America. The first involved how Steve Rogers gained his powers (which were like the Six Million Dollar Man)... his father during WW2 developed a "super-steroid" which he used, and battled people during the war. His enemies called him "Captain America" and killed him. After Steve Rogers retired from the marines, he was offered the serum developed by his father for tests. He refused, but when a bad guy nearly killed him, the serum was administered. He gained super-strength, agility, and eagle vision as a result. The government rebuilt his motorhome along with a secret compartment to hide his suped-up motorcyle, complete with his shield (bomb and bullet proof) windshield. He fought the enemy's and won as a new Captain America

The second pilot "death too soon" involved Rogers investigating a town which is both unfriendly, and hostile. As it turned out, the town was hostage to an aging compound which was first administered to the town Rogers visited. Rogers found out about it, and as Captain America obtained the antidote. In the second pilot, Roger's uniform was much more close to the comics than the original one.

GA Failing

  • Fair use - all fair use image should have a Fair Use Rationale, see WP:FAIR for more information. To add a fair use rationale to an image, edit the page, and add {{Pokefair}}, details of how to implement this template are on the talk page.
  • Lead - The introduction should be 2-3 paragraphs long. Please see, WP:LEAD.
  • Refs should be laid as such -
<ref> [www.example.com Example title] ''Example.com''. URL Accessed [[September 16]], [[2006]].</ref>

<ref> ''Example Magazine'', pg (number). Example Publisher; Release date. ISBN example.</ref>
    • Refs should be after the full stop, and commas, like this -
.<ref> [..... 

,<ref> [.....
    • Not -
. <ref> [.....  

</ref>. 

</ref>,


  • Other issues
    • There are no references from Novels to the end of the article
    • All game and comic names should be italicized.
    • "Appearances in other media" is somewhat under referenced.
    • As is "Alternate Captains America".
  • Not a failable issue, now, but the article seems to have not enough third party neutral references, mainly since nearly all of the references are either comics or Marvel.com. It's not something I will fail it purely on, but people will bring it up at FAC. Just to warn you.
  • The content overall, is good, but there are some stylistic errors, and some referencing issues in the later half of the article. Work on the points, then re-apply. Hppy editing, Highway Daytrippers 09:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay will work on it, thanks. (Narkstraws 06:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

Irish people?

Can we have a cite for Cap's Irish ancestry? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing, please add

  • Publication history from November 1964-present
  • Character biography - very good, but probably needs at least one issue number every paragraph, serving as a cite, and some info belongs in Pub. history rather than character biography

nerdy

hasnt the capt. america picture been on this site for 3 years now.... i guess it is hard to get copyrighted material —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.117.5 (talk • contribs)

What about the golden age Cap?

Having had almost all of the original Timely comics, I was willing to fill it in, there being NOTHING about the golden age Timely appearances of Captain America or his REAL history in the 1940's (instead of all the stuff invented about him from the 1960's onwards.) I had done one piece and was ready to do more but noticed that my earlier information has been deleted. Obviously wiki has no interest in the golden age so it'll have to remain Captain America from 1960's onwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.141.234 (talk • contribs)

Ultimate Cap weight debate

OK, three different editors presumably looking at the same comic are somehow reading (and writing) two different things. Can a couple of other editors pick up this issue and see what's going on? Is it:

1.(he was shown bench pressing 545 lb in Ultimates 2 #4)
or
2.(he was shown bicep curling 545 lb in Ultimates 2 #4)
or
3.(he was shown bench pressing 1245 lb in Ultimates 2 #4)

--Tenebrae 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Intelligence

My understanding of the supersoldier formula was that it evolved Cap's abilites to peak human condition. Does that also include his intelligence, as well? Captain America is often referred to as one of the greatest tacticians in the Marvel Universe, this article cites due to his training, but have there been any references to a change in his mental prowess due to the serum? The Protocide artice cites Rogers having his intelligence increased by the serum, I was wondering if there is any written material to back that claim.

66.109.248.114 23:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Captain America Comics #1 (March 1941):

"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!"

- Marikina

End of civil war

Reverted the vandalism, as per the notice on the civil war talk page Cactusrob 20:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomad, The Captain, "Expatriate"

Something that I feel is sorely missing is better coverage of Roger's alternate identities (Englehart's Nomad, Gruenwald's The Captain and Waid's Expatriate - I am not sure about this last one). The Captain is a significative concept that somehow managed to avoid adequate description so far. Nomad is better, but it still deserves some improvement. And to the best of my knowledge there is no reference to Waid's concept at all. BTW, the current version of the article makes it look like Jack Monroe got better and took over the Nomad identity about eight years earlier than the actually did... Luis Dantas 21:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Jack Flag

I realize he has his own page, but can we get anything about Jack Flag on Cap's page? Could we also consider a list of Cap's sidekick's? Not that Cap's page needs to be added onto or anything. I also went onto Bucky's article, and it had two things involving him and 'sidekickiness'. Would one more thing hurt it? (The two things involving Bucky and 'sidekickiness' were a list of sidekicks, and a category saying, 'Fictional Sidekicks'.) So, just a thought. IronMan54 16:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Did he die?

From what I have seen in recent new articles, Captain America died in the latest issue of the comic books. Can someone confirm this?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.62.28.62 (talk • contribs)

It's nothing -- lead characters "die" all the time in comics. Remember "Superman's deathy"? Cap's been "shot and killed" at least once before -- there was even a memorial service with casket in Jack Kirby's classic #112 (April 1969). Companies don't throw away corporate assets. --Tenebrae 16:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Confirmation at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17499797/ (RossF18 18:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC))

CAP IS NOT DEAD

Please. This is a standard publicity stunt, just like "Superman's death" and the "deaths" of Reed Richards, Nick Fury, etc., all of which were stretched out several months. Cap himself even "died" before (see immediately above).

We cannot report his "death" as an encyclopedic fact. We can't even say Sharon Carter shot him -- her memory might be real or it might be implanted.

We don't even know that it's really Captain America who's been shot. Nick Fury is involved, so this might very well be a Life Model Decoy.

Before putting something into an encyclopedia, which people look to for incontrovertible fact, let's wait and see what significance this may have other than as a typical plot twist. --Tenebrae 17:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

He's not dead. When he lost faith previously with his country he donned new costumes such as Nomad, or The Captain. I would speculate that he will be the new Ronin character, since technically he is now a samuraii (soldier) without a master (USA). Jamal7322002 17:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Cap's death is sufficiently believed in http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17499797/ the story. Editor in Chief confirmed it and the original writer was very displeased. While Cap may be resurected, not saying that he was shot or killed is like leaving out the resurrecting part out of Jean Gray's article. (RossF18 18:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC))
The issue in which he dies is reportedly on the stands today. We have confirmation from several news sites: http://www.wsmv.com/entertainment/11192918/detail.html http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2930749 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/07/state/n103706S66.DTL We even have reporting from the Editor in Chief of Marvel, saying that he's dead. We should report it, and leave the current event tag up. To0n 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps though, due to the nature of Comic book death (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comic_book_death) we should mention that the story is ongoing, and that the death may not be final (with a link to the article I provided). 64.218.89.101 19:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course he won't stay dead. But we cannot state in the article that his death may not be final. That's speculative. Report the facts and let them speak for themselves. Leave the readers to make their own inferences. Doczilla 12:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Methinks that Cap is like the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail AndreasKQ 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a link to the comic book death article while saying that for the moment at least he is definitely meant to be dead 80.47.8.246 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No. We don't know what is meant. Don't link it to the comic book death article because that's about characters who die and come back. He hasn't come back from this death. Heck, he only died yesterday. Doczilla 18:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that "on a personal note" should be included on a wikipedia article, so I am going to remove it. If you think I am mistaken. Please comment here and explain why. Well, nevermind someone got it.Stetsonblade 21:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

If you notice when marvel talks about captain america's death they say "Yes,Captain America,Steve Rogers,is dead" Notice the fact that they specify that it is steve rogers.Meaning there could be a new Cap on the block.I think we should add this to the article.Why did someone take out the quote anyways. Parralax 23:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

We're making this a lot more complicated than it has to be. Marvel Comics says that Captain America is dead so, until they say otherwise, the guy's dead. Its Marvel's official position on the matter, so what's the problem? When and if more info is given concerning this from Marvel and/or in various comic book issues in the coming weeks and months, then the article can be adjusted appropriately.Odin's Beard 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is where keeping the Publication info and the fictional bio becomes especially important. Any comments by Marvel Comics employees belong in the former; what is known from the stories themselves belongs in the bio. CovenantD 02:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a real good way to do it. For Publication info, it is a verifiable fact that Marvel has claimed, in press materials, that the company has killed "Captain America, Steve Rogers."
I believe the fictional bio, however, needs to specify that someone or something that appeared to be the Steve Rogers Captain America was shot (and was he formally pronounced dead?). That it's an LMD or a clone or some other impostor is a distinct enough possibility, historically, that it may not be Steve Rogers. --Tenebrae 03:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, it makes it sound like that Marvel has killed him off but then again they haven't. Stating that he's dead in the publication info and hinting that he might not be dead in the fictional bio section is conflicting. Also, coming up with a scenario to explain why he may not be dead is pure speculation at this point. Marvel has stated that Captain America is dead. They can always revive the character whenever they please but, for the time being, if Marvel says he's dead, then the article should reflect that and not two conflicting statements. Odin's Beard 04:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This is a tough one, all right. Even today's NY Times is saying (paraphrase), "Marvel says it has killed off Captain America, but he's not really dead and they're going to bring him back." Oy, why can't the dead stay dead?!   :-)   --Tenebrae 04:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I just took a line-edit pass and the Pub hist section, with details in edit summary. Didn't change any facts or footnotes, just made the writing a little more formal and less magazine-y. What does everyone think? --Tenebrae 04:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The comics has been out for less than 48 hours, so I think it's a little too soon to be treating it like old news. Neither do I think putting it in it's own section with a spoiler in the header is a good idea. It seems to place too much emphasis on a very recent events. CovenantD 05:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Kudos to my colleagues! Just want to say, the way the article is right now (at least at this particular moment!) seems pretty good: States things in a straightforward fashion while taking the particular conventions of comic-book deaths into account. I'm feeling pretty proud of all the Comics Project members' work to make it it read this well -- at least, as I said, at this particular moment! --Tenebrae 00:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
You can't kill a spirit. Captain America has always fought against the forces that threaten the liberties and freedoms of the United States. Rogers is immortal in spirit, he served in war and in peace, and always stood by the ideals of America. Sure he was Nomad for a time, but that was because of a high-level betrayal of the spirit of America. As to who is worthy to his legacy... well, he has a HUGE reputation to live up to. I'd like a novice Captain America, trained by Taskmaster (if they can get him). The shield is probably military classified, but I think if they want to reboot Captain America, they need an independent. I figure a few screw-ups by the military and the shield goes into civilian hands with somebody who knows how to use it.

Not Really Sure how Editing the Wiki goes...but I adde something new to the death section cna someone modify it and make it look better?

Wow, you all are acting like this can never be changed or updated or anything. The official position as of now is he was shot and is dead. It comes from primary sources. That is that. This isn't going to be printed or anything, it is just going to be here and able to be edited in a heartbeat if he comes back to life, or info about his funeral, or if his dog commits suicide because it can't take the loneliness, or .... 198.133.139.5 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Steve Rodgers is dead. Captain America will live forever. Captain America is the spirit of America... he fights the forces that threaten the liberties of America... free speech... free religion... free press.... he represnted everything America tries to represnt. He died for it. There is no better way for a hero to die than dying for the values he most stongly valued. Rogered died the way he wanted to die. We should honor his soul by thanking his sacrifies and willingness to both live and die for his country. And yes... he was not unwilling to die. When faced with a choice between his shield and uniform... he picked the values he lived by. He was willing to say to his country that there was something more. He surrendered his weapon and his costume... with honor ... he said they were his country's not his. Captain America 332 was the greatest issue ever. Rodgers picked his soul over his costume and weapon.
Yeah, like the last statement. Steve Rodgers is dead, but there is a new guy taking on the role of Captian America.--CommanderWiki35 05:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

1602 Cap

The 1602 Cap (Rojhaz) didn't suffer from amnesia. He got dropped into the New World before the Europeans arrived and lived with the Native Americans because he didn't have another choice. When the Roanoke colony was founded, he chose to keep his identity as a Native American in order to protect Virginia Dare while not revealing himself as a time traveler or directly interfering with the molding of the country. He was quite aware of what had happened and what he was doing when he was confronted by Clea Strange on the deck of the Virginia Maid. Dyinath 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

picture in the spoiler section

seeing as that whole business is flagged as a spoiler, would it not be prudent to leave it without a spoiling image complete with spoiling caption? either that or just not have spoiler tags at all seeing as the news is all over everywhere anyone with eyes can see...80.47.8.246 17:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

er yeah, and if it's still in spoiler tags, isn't it even stupider to call it 'the assassination of steve rogers'?80.41.34.174 17:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I was disappointed to read this page right after reading a story on ABC news and recognize whole sentences lifted directly. Article is here: http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2934283&page=1

And at the very least, this entire bit is lifted: "was gunned down by an assassin in "Captain America Vol. 5, No. 25." The "Sentinel of Liberty" was perhaps at his lowest point — he had become an outlaw while fighting and ultimately losing a war against his fellow superheroes to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. At the time of his death, he was facing a life sentence in prison."

There's perhaps more, but I'll leave it to the Wikipedia-addicts to find. Still, I thought it was important to mention.

The plagerized passages have been removed. CovenantD 22:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Reaction to Death

With several news outlets responding to the "death" of Captian America, I think there should be a section dedicated to the mainstream media's reaction to this event. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.246.173.235 (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

That's not a bad idea. Maybe a smattering of quotes, like in the "Reception" section of movies (e.g., X-Men: The Last Stand#Reception. --Tenebrae 00:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Caps powers

The article says that captain America has no powers but is at peak physical condition, which is currently true but he originally had powers namely super strength it was not until the nineties ( I think) that he lost his superhuman abilities. The series avengers forever is the most recent mention of it I can think off. 63.3.21.1 03:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fallen Son: The Death of Captain America

A head's up. An article I created. Do with it what you wish. WikiNew 17:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikinews

Captain America's death is current, on going event. An encylopedia should report it dubiously, and leave wikinews to it. Mathiastck 19:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but... it's not a real world event, it's a comic. Some version of the same problem, although usually without the media coverage, applies to many of Wikipedia's articles about ongoing comics and their characters. I'm sure that the same issue applies to many TV articles - especially anything dealing with current soap operas. Although we can't comment on the outcome, Captain America #25 has been published and isn't an ongoing event - I think we can certainly comment on that, on Marvel's statements regarding that, on the media coverage it's attracted and (with suitable caveats) on Marvel's announcements about what happens next. --Mrph 20:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
More to the point, we update real world people's bios when they croak, and tag them appropriately to reflect that it's a fluid situation. The media has been all over this (as you can see by my post at the bottom of this page). At the very least, the media's reaction should be documented. Jeffpw 08:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reason for reversion

I've reverted the "grammar and clarity" edits (which actually went a lot further than that) since saying that something "appears" to contract something else is an interpretation, and Marvel's statement that Ms. Marvel's comment "isn't exactly what it seems" (my emphasis) conversely says its partly what it seems. I think it might be better to just report the indisputable fact, that "dialogue between two characters in another Marvel comic released the same day...indicated that Captain America was still alive."

Ms. Marvel didn't seem to indicate that. That's precisely what she was indicating. We don't know how true or not that is -- all we know, factually, is that Marvel's issue press statement in response and here's what it said. --Tenebrae 05:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, Joe Quesada has already said it's not true, and it will be revealed in future issues of "The Initiative" that Ms. Marvel was lying to attempt to confuse and sway Spider-Woman. However, until that's actually printed in an issue, it's not really something we should be throwing onto the page, I figure. So we'll wait for her lie to be outed before we cite it. --Bishop2 09:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, Tenebrae. As I see it, the fact worth reporting in the entry is simply that Marvel issued a press release to clarify the ambiguity introduced by 2 characters talking about Captain America in a second title. The sequence of what happened was that readers noticed the ambiguity, and Marvel reacted (almost immediately) by issuing an unambiguous statement. I apologize if you perceived that my "grammar and clarity" edit went beyond it's advertised scope; it wasn't my intention to obfuscate or mislead. One last stickler-ish grammatical point: a press release can't actually "say" anything. A press release states something, or an individual comments in one (although quoting the one cited here is difficult, since the individual commenting is not identified). A release clarifies something, conveys information, or contains certain information.--Galliaz 13:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, apparently people are going to keep on editing the article to add the "Ms. Marvel says that Cap isn't dead" information until we finally stop them from doing it permanently. So in response, I've finally added my own version which cites the Quesada interview where he said it was a lie. That should stop the madness for the time being. --Bishop2 18:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Bishop! I actually think we ought to hold the line on this one. However, I made the change before commenting here, though, so if you feel strongly the other way, let's replace the information.--Galliaz 20:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I fear that without it, people are just going to keep on adding the bit about Ms. Marvel claiming he's alive. However, we can wait and see. If it happens again, I'll go ahead and re-add the info. Until that occurs, however, I'll defer to your judgment and leave it out. --Bishop2 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Captain america in the 21st century

CovenantD removed a few lines I had added. Perhaps the format of the post was slightly off but what I stated was factual. >>>In a television interview with ABC News Joe Quesada stated "I don't think it (the Marvel Universe)is going to be without an Captain America, the question is who will become Captain America?"<<<

Is a fact. I have seen the interview. It is up on youtube if you want to look. >>Leading fans to speculate that a new character will take up the costume.<< another fact - fans are speculating that.

I would like you to either restore my post in a format you think would be more appropriate, or prove me wrong.

User: Wordforge(82.42.51.139 19:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

You need to provide more information about the interview; when it aired, at the very least. I don't know what licensing arrangement ABC has with YouTube and a link to that clip wouldn't be appropriate unless licensing were known. It could be a copyright infringement otherwise.
Fans speculate, on the other hand, is almost never an appropriate entry in this encyclopedia. Read up on attribution for more on that. A relative handful of people on some message boards somewhere doesn't rise to the level of a Reliable Source.
Finally, even if you did have appropriate sources, you've been placing it in the wrong section. Fictional biography is for what is known from the comics. Publication info is for what people in the real world have said or done about the character. CovenantD 20:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the link to the interview. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQO9xk7bxNk

It is about 2 thirds in. I don't know how to get the date from it but I would apreciate it if you could find out and then put my Joe Quesada quote back in the appropopriate section. Thanks(82.42.51.139 20:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

No additional edit is necessary, I think, because this information is already present in the Publication History section of the entry. Here's the relevant paragraph: Marvel Entertainment Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada commented, however, that a Captain America comeback wasn't impossible. The character's death came as a blow to co-creator Joe Simon, who said, "It's a hell of a time for him to go. We really need him now."--Galliaz 21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

>>No additional edit is necessary, I think, because this information is already present in the Publication History section of the entry<<

The difference is that my quote explicitly says that someone else will become Captain america. The above quote merely states that a comeback is not ruled out. (Wordforge 23:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC))

Heroes Reborn

Sorry if I've missed a discussion of this, but with all the attention on Cap's latest death some mention of the previous one, facing Onslaught, would seem relevant. Granted it was undone not long after but was surely the most significant CA story of last few years prior to recent? Happy to put in but wanted to pitch first. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ravcasleygera (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Assassination/"D.O.A."

"He is declared DOA after being taken to a hospital." I removed this sentence from the Assassination section because nowhere in Cap 25 does anyone, doctor or otherwise, declare Steve dead, nor is it indicated that he was dead on arrival. I am being bold with this edit but honestly this sentence is just false. STFmaryville 15:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, so I've got no problem with the edit, but I added a sentence describing what occurs in the hospital. Here's Brubaker's own description [1] from the script:
And in a room in the ER, Steve Rogers lies on a gurney, one arm hanging down, his Captain America glove visible on its hand. A white sheet has been pulled up to cover him, and blood soaks through the sheet from his belly and chest. We just see part of his face, where the sheet didn’t totally cover him up, and we see one eye, empty of life.--Galliaz 18:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Shield edit

I just added a small edit to the description of Cap's skill with his shield, mentioning that he could also perform boomerang throws with it. If it is deemed that this addition is unnecessary then kindly remove it with my apologies, but I thought I should mention the change here for completeness's sake, esp. with all the other talk going on here about the recent "death". 64.218.89.104 17:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Punisher Info

When a comic in which the Punisher dons the mask appears in print, then it'd be appropriate to add the information. Up until then, it's speculative — even though Marvel itself is the entity making the Punisher/Cap promotional art publicly available. (My reasoning being that sometimes what's inside a comic can be radically different from what is depicted on the cover.)--Galliaz 19:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We have no context for that costume right now. For all we know, it's an outfit Frank dons in tribute to Cap as he goes out and attempts to kill the people responsible. Doesn't mean he's going to start calling himself Captain America. All we've got is one piece of art and the text "Is this the new Captain America?" Which is a far cry from saying "This IS the new Captain America." --Bishop2 19:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
With the recent Punisher War Journal, Frank has apparently adopted Captain America's name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.121.145.234 (talk) 20:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC).
So did Johnny Walker (now USAgent). While Castle is a worthy wartime Captain America, Captain America always stood for the rights Americans have, like due process. Castle's history precludes it.

Castle is a good man... he had a troubled life though. His wife and children were murdred. His life is now dedicated to stopping people who destroy the lives of others. He can't kill his own pain except by taking revenge at other killers. He wants his life back! And I think he deeply wants to be Captain America. He's dead inside... but he wants to fight for what is right! Captain America is his ideal! He's also the Punisher... but he would give anything to have his life back... and be Captain America... a hero who fights for the right thing... killing is very easy... justice is hard.

Media storm

Should there not be mention in this article of the media storm that erupted upon the news of Captain America's death? It is not every comic book superhero who has his obituary published in the New York Times, and articles about the meaning of his life and death published in newspapers around the world. His death was even a newsflash on CNN. The media (and public) reaction to this tragedy (however manufactured) certainly seems worthy of mention in this article. Jeffpw 13:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Describing the assassination

The current description is:

Orchestrated by the Red Skull, the assassination involves Crossbones deployed as a sniper.
In addition, Dr. Faustus, posing as a S.H.I.E.L.D. psychiatrist, has manipulated Sharon Carter and implanted in her mind a hypnotic suggestion that she believes caused her to shoot Rogers at the crucial moment.

The first sentence seems unnecessarily non-direct. Under orders from the Red Skull, Crossbones shot Cap. Why not just say so? Granted there was apparently more to the plan than just Crossbones shooting him, but why the soft "involves Crossbones deployed as a sniper"? Makes it sound like maybe the sniper never actually fired. He was just deployed.

In the second part, has it been established that Carter's shooting of Cap is just her belief? As I read it in the latest issue of CA, after the assassination Carter remembers that she was the one who pulled the trigger. Perhaps it will turn out that this memory is false, but from what we've seen so far Faustus manipulated Carter into shooting Cap, not into just thinking she did. -- Sean Martin 17:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The paragraph preceding the one you quote actually provides the info that CA has been shot and killed; the one you quote informs the reader who organized the plot, and who was deployed as the shooter. So, I think the sentence works as it's constructed. The Sharon Carter sentence construction is admittedly a bit awkward, with the "she believes" insertion breaking the flow of the sentence. There's discussion of this point in the "Reason for the reversion" section of this Talk page.--Galliaz 20:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

But WHY did Marvel kill him off?

That's an issue that the article could and should address IF appropriate sources can be found to back up a given explanation, such as an interview with one of the writers (Brian Michael Bendis, ideally). My personal view is that Bendis and the other writers at Marvel painted themselves into a corner with Civil War and then offered up a Big-Time Death as the only way out. Being assassinated is (in some ways) better than rotting in prison for the rest of your life, which is what Rogers was heading toward. I mean, look at what being assassinated did for JFK in the popular imagination. My guess is that powers-that-be at Marvel will allow Steve Rogers the dignity of remaining dead, rather than having him dragged before a judge and hauled off to prison (after all, that's been done -- with Daredevil -- already). RobertAustin 12:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but after the first sentence this is original research and essay speculation that doesn't really belong on this talk page. --Tenebrae 14:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
In comic books, there is ALWAYS a way out. I give you to the count of 10 to name 5 Villians who have escaped from the Vault. Count up? Thought so! Rogers actually turned in his costume and shield, as well as his back-pay as a solider in the classic 332.
Heroes die forever... Villians find a way out of death. Captain America noted it once. However... Steve Rodgers is dead. However, the spirit of Captain America is always alive. Maybe I'm crazy, but I'd like to see Peter Parker - Spider-Man take up his title. He is a worthy replacement. Frank Castle is Captain America at war. Spider-Man hates violence and war, but will fight for what is right.

Request for comment: "Purported deaths of CA" section

As per Wikipedia dispute-resolution policy, User:Tenebrae is asking for a formal Request for Comment regarding rvs and returns of section created by 194.46.22.91 on March 27 in Trivia section, moved by Tenebrae to its own section on April 3.

Statements by editors involved in dispute
  • Numerous editors have created, maintained and agreed on the validity of this section, which adds historical subtext and necessary perspective to worldwide-reported news of Captain America's death. To general public unfamiliar with comics' stylistic conventions, this puts his death/"death" in context. Other editors who have worked on it include 69.156.48.250, User:UltimatePyro, User:Sean D Martin, and User:Galliaz. Only one editor has disagreed with this consensus. --Tenebrae 03:29, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If we are going to start about every time a marvel character dies, then we are going to have to put it in ever single page liek that, which is going to be alot of space. This is the marvel U, people(at least they did) die and come back to life ALOT. I will agree that we do need something about the part with world wide media coverage, but going down a list about every time he has died it just wastefull.Phoenix741 17:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

COMMENTS

  • The section seems worthy of inclusion, to me. (I just wish we had citations to issue numbers for each occurrence.)--Galliaz 10:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The section is worthy of inclusion. In fact, I wanted that very information just a few days ago and wish it had already been in the article then. It helps put the current death into context. It can always be removed later when Cap's death is no longer a current topic, but we can't look into that crystal ball right now. He's dead right now. This is relevant right now. Doczilla 19:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The section should be dropped. Some of these 'deaths' are admitted deceptions instigated BY Cap, and others are simple cover hypes. If we include this here, we'd have to include one for every character, and that gets crufty fast. Those 'deaths' which are notable are demonstrably so, as seen in external media coverage, or by a long-term in-universe belief that the character is dead (Jean Grey in the 70's, for example.) To include every single time cap may have 'died' for a panel, or appeared to die in the last panel, only to hop up on page 2 of the next issue, is absurd. Marvel's revolving door of death's ridiculous. Even Uncle Ben and Bucky are back. Count me as opposing the section as non-notable cruft. The entire section could be summarized as 'Although Cap has appeared to die in previous issues, none of theese earlier deaths has stuck, being revealed inthe next panel, page, or issue as a trick of some sort.' ThuranX 03:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Why the HELL is this section still here? As said above, it sets precedent and is insane to include deaths that were undone on the subsequent page or the 1964 death which was a retcon death proven false in the SAME ISSUE.
Cause the majority of the people who voiced their thoughts wanted it to stay, if more people said to remove it, then it would be gone.Phoenix741 22:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Adventures of Captain America

I've noticed that some of the information is referenced to the Captain America: Sentinel of Liberty mini-series. However, the Marvel Continuity Project, and many fans actually don't accept this series as within the general continuity of Captain America as it contradicts information found elsewhere (and yes so does Winter Soldier, and most accounts of how Cap got frozen, but that's by the by). So should this mini-series really be being cited for proof of things in the generally accepted continuity?

82.35.186.27 16:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)JGN 13 April 2007


Yes. At the time of release, AOCA was not solicited as being out of continuity (unlike DC comics' Elseworld titles). There is an ample amount of conflicting information found in the entire history of Captain America (e.g., Winter Soldier as you have already mentioned) and most comics, which is unfortunate, but fan outcry generally not prevent this from happening or remedy past mistakes. The responsibility falls on the writer, in my humble opinion, to carefully examine continuity and to have a certain level of respect for the title he/she is working on, predecessors (i.e., authors) who have contributed to the character and of course, the fans. If Winter Soldier can be used as a proper reference, so too can AOCP. Since when is "by the by" a valid excuse for breaks in continuity?

--ArmsHeldOut 19:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Screm them. Steve Rogers is the real Captain America. Despite his being born of World War 2 he hated violence. His weapon was a shield... an instrument of protection, not a weapon of violence. He was the true spirit of America.. he hated war but was willing to fight because good people have to sometimes go to war. He hated war. He was just very good at it...

Fictional artists

A big part of cap's idea was that was was a scrawny art student who turned super solider. Also he did try to do art in the NA Civil War arc. And there were ideas that he drew his own comic book. Wouldn;t that mean he is a Fictional artist, and thus he needs to be in the cat?Phoenix741 00:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Marvel Milestone

The thing is, we don't know which is the original cover, or if, like Marvel Comics #1, there were two covers. (MC1, an original copy of which I had the privilege to hold in my hand and look through a few months ago, had two printings, one dated Oct. 1939, one Nov. 1939.)

The cover of Cap #1 comes from an unknown source. (See here.) Unless someone who owns a copy scanned it in, there's no way of knowing if this is an original cover or, more likely, that of a reprint itself. I've seen scanned covers of Fantastic Four #1 with no police officer in the background -- yet the comic itself, which I own, and other copies of which I've seen, does have a police officer in the background. Scans of covers are tricky things.

The big point is the official postal indicia inside the Marvel Milestone comic. It says it was reprinted from issue #000. Marvel Comics is in a better position than anyone to know how that first issue was registered, and since it wasn't uncommon for early comics publishers to release an issue without a number on the cover (like Marvel Comics #1, or the first issue of The Human Torch) so that it can could then gauge demand before publishing another.

The Milestone Edition may actually be the real cover, and until collectors and historians can definitively say which — or both — both possibilities need to be in an encyclopedia entry about Captain America. --Tenebrae 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this out. Until someone can definitely debunk the given first edition cover, this reads more like bad bookkeeping on Marvel's part, with regard to the milestone edition. It's inclusion smacks of Original Research, because we're making assumptions about the images and our comparison of the image with the interior text of the reprint. I'm not faulting anyone, nor accusing, like it's crazy conspiracy OR, it's just simple unverifiable OR. The best solution is to validate the ORIGINAL cover image, and go from there. a lot of those Milestone edition type things are more or less promotional pieces, run from time to time as novelties, not as major collectables, and the dept. handling that sort of promo is less likely to pay full attention to it. Certainly, they didn't ACTUAALLY number it 000, but rather, if anything it was 'unnumbered' or 'unenumerated', so to call it 000 seems like some sort of redactive numbering system. Until we can be clear about the differences and document them, this has elements of OR, and probably TRIVIA too. ThuranX 05:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the Marvel Milestone edition may actually have gotten it right — just as Marvel Comics #1 came out cover-dated Oct. 1939 and had a second printing dated Nov. 1939 (I once held a copy of the latter in my hands, and leafed through it — an incredible thrill), it's quite possible that the cautions Goodman released an unnumbered issue of Captain America to test the waters, and then a "#1" issue when he'd committed to an ongoing series.
The postal indicia is too specific, and Marvel too big a worldwide conglomerate with a vast legal department, to assume they'd make such a glaring error. Where did the Milestone cover come from, after all? It's unlikely someone at Marvel deliberately went in to remove the "#1" and make other changes.
The reasonable conclusion isn't that all those lawyers and editors and art directors all made the same series of mistakes somehow, but that that was the original cover — and that creates an historical distinction that can't go unaddressed in a reference source. --Tenebrae 17:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, drawing such conclusions is a definite violation of OR. Like I said above, I'm not looking to lay blame, break AGF or anything. I simply believe that there is enough problem here that we need some better citation to solve this. Like I said above, the Milestone imprint is a reprints gimmick, and is the sort of place where such foul-ups would occur. I also note color changes between the two in the banner. the 'original'(presumed) has blue stripes, the 'reprint' (Milestone) has all red. To my mind, it's much less likely that they'd have retooled the cover back in 1941, when the industry was smaller, and costs for such things higher. (I am aware the same argument works in reverse, vis-a-vis storage of plates and so on), and more likely that in order to avoid confusion about the date of issue of the reprint, that was obscured in the reprint. I'm going to try to find some info on this to settle this either way. (I'm not particularly rooting either way, but I want anything we put up there to be clear and unambiguous.) I'd ask you to try for the same. I'll leave it up for the time being, but if we can't find anything supporting your contention by Sunday evening, I ask that you accept my taking it down. This gives both of us about 5 days to work on solving this with citation. ThuranX 21:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's cool, and I can appreciate the request for substantiating documentation. I don't believe it's OR since we're citing published postal indicia that's factually at odds with established information, but what you ask for is certainly reasonable, as is the timeframe. You're very good to work with, and I'll all for handling this the way you suggest. Cool collaborating with you, man! --Tenebrae 21:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Good to work with you too. Here's what I've got thus far:
  • A fan site image which includes date. (But could easily be our image source, so may be moot?).
  • This Marvel publication challenges the 'Marvel knows best' idea, or at least their consistency. (also, not our source.)

That's three with some google time. Thoughts on these? ThuranX 22:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

My thoughts? I'd love to have an 8.5-grade Captain America Comics #1!
Good finds; that's part one of the search, confirming the blue-and-white cover with the month and issue number. I still need to nose around and see if there's an authoritative source anywhere for that being a second printing. It may very well be as you said — a reprint screw-up on the cover image. That indicia, though ... if I were Ralph Dibney, my nose would be twitching...!
Thanks for your time and effort so far on this! --Tenebrae 02:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Glad to, I'm going to leave this in your hands for that part, my Real life's going to be full for a few days. And did they do much second printings back then? ThuranX 02:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
All I know for sure is Marvel Comics #1, but then, record-keeping for what were considered the equivalent of Bazooka Joe bubblegum comics were spotty at best!
And indeed, I've found nothing about two printings at the [Grand Comics Database], The Unofficial Handbook of Marvel Comics Creators, or the [Jack Kirby Museum page for Cap Comics #1. This follows your thinking, though I'd like to check out some print sources, too.
Oh, I know about taking time from Real Life. My Real Life's threatening to never speak to me again if I keep Wiki'ing....! --Tenebrae 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Toys

Why is there no mention of Mego Captain America? If I'm not mistaken, this was the first toy of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haven13 (talk • contribs)

It's probably worth mentioning, but we'd need a citation. The character was popular for years before MEGOs though, and might not be the first. ThuranX 02:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Cap Picture

This has annoyed me for awhile now, I'm not sure why a picture showing Ultimate Cap looking his most 616-like was chosen but is there any way we can get a new picture? Personaly I vote for a picture of Cap jumping out of that chopper to go beat up pym or perhaps a picture of Cap walking away from his fight with Pym victorius both of which are from Ultimates 1 vol. 2. Whatever replacement picture is chosen is perhaps an argument for another time but the current picture just wont do imo. I mean the picture thats up right now isn't even of the mask-helmet variety which is what we see him in most, its the plain mask variety. Aside from the missing head wings you would think your looking at a picture of the 616 cap, The picture thats up should better convey the visual differences between the two. I'll give it 3 or more days if no one objects im just going to change it myself. Bushido Brown 07:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Irony:

The irony of the transformation of an art student into a Nordic Übermensch fighting Nazism and Fascism, may have not been obvious to 1940s readers.

While I agree that irony exists, I'd like a citation for demonstration that the creators knew it, and then we can avoid the specualtion about reader awareness. For now, I'll leave it in, but can we get to work on this? It's the sort of speculation WP avoids, and could help get this article up to GA. ThuranX 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Finally laid to rest

I have the news that Captain America is buried in Arlington National Cemetery. An issue of his funeral, called Fallen Son, will be released the day after the 4th of July. To find out more, click on this link: Captain America to be buried at Arlington. Man, it has taken a few months to come up with a burial scene not unlike the Anna Nicole Smith case, right? --Angeldeb82 19:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

citation for use

regarding the film: http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?id=41910

ThuranX 15:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Done! --Tenebrae 15:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

I'm moving this here unless someone is able to properly intergrate this. This article is very good: let's not spoil it. Alientraveller 21:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Peter Fonda's character in the 1969 feature film Easy Rider is nicknamed Captain America. According to the "making of" feature on the DVD edition of the film, director Dennis Hopper described the two motorcyclists of the film to actor Robert Walker, Jr., who said "they sound like Captain America and Bucky", and Hopper liked the name.
  • In the 1997 film Men in Black, Will Smith's character refers to an overzealous Army lieutenant as "Captain America".
  • In Armageddon, Rockhound refers to Colonel Sharp as "Captain America", saying: "Captain America here blew the landing by 26 miles!"
  • In Master of Disguise, the title character punches the main villain at the end of the movie while disguised as Captain America.
  • In Jingle All the Way, Jamie's bedroom wall holds a mural of Captain America deflecting bullets with his shield.
  • In The Pursuit of Happyness, actor Jaden Christopher Syre Smith carries around a MEGO Captain America doll for the majority of the film.
  • In Cannonball Run II, Victor Prinzim/Captain Chaos (played by Dom DeLuise) impersonates "Captain USA" in the film, but in the blooper reel during the credits calls himself "Captain America".
  • In Talladega Nights, a young Ricky Bobby wears a Captain America T-Shirt.
  • In Fun with Dick and Jane, Jim Carrey is seen wearing a Captain America T-Shirt while at a buffet.
  • In Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker, scenarios entertained for the Joker's return include "suspended animation due to floating around in a frozen block of ice," an homage to Captain America's method of revival.
  • On Stephen Colbert's show The Colbert Report he has a replica of Captain America's shield behind his desk.

Music

The phrase "Captain America" has been used to refer in various ways to American patriotic values, especially in rock music.

  • The 1978 Kinks song "Catch Me Now, I'm Falling", about the ailing U.S. economy in the late 1970s, refers to "Captain America calling".
  • The jam band moe. composed a song called "Captain America" which deals with Captain America as an authority figure.
  • Jimmy Buffett recorded a song in 1970 titled "Captain America," offering a tongue-in-cheek tribute to the hero, replete with a kazoo solo and the phrase, "He wears a mask, his clothes are weird, and some folks call him hokie. But he is hip, and just can't dig the Okie from Muskogee."
  • The Guns N' Roses' song "Paradise City" also contains a reference to Captain America ("Captain America's been torn apart, now he's a court jester with a broken heart.").
  • The Roadrunner United album features a song titled "I Do not Wanna Be (A Superhero)" written by Michale Graves & Matthew Heafy. It contains the line, "They came from sea and they from the sky, Captain America is going to die."
  • The 2003 album Cyclorama by the rock band Styx features a song called "Captain America"
  • Down By Law recorded a song "Superheroes Wanted" on their WindwardTidesandWaywardSails album, which opens with the line, "Captain America, can you come clean up this place?" and ends with the line, "Steve Rogers, where are you?"
  • The blink-182 song "Feeling This" from the band's 2003 self-titled album opens with Captain America saying "Get ready for Action!"
  • The MU330 song "Captain" on the band's 1994 album Press relates the return of Captain America from retirement to battle the Red Skull.
  • Daniel Johnston references Captain America in much of his artwork and early recordings.

Other

image change

I'd like to revert to the older image. It's a tightly rendered piece, with a good, iconic style, reflective of the patriotic nature of the character, and far more clearly shows the character's uniform in a very classic way. The new image instead obscures his star nad stripes, as well as the shield. Thoughts? ThuranX 03:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

suggestion to reduce the article

Bring together the creators instead of separating by title. We already have the chronology of the titles above. No ther charcater has that kind of overlong creators section. What's the cut-off point for a "regular" creator? There are a number of three issues run (John Warner, Tony Isabella, Mike Friedrich, Gil Kane) Is that enough? --Leocomix 08:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the Other versions section be placed back in the article that has been created for it, but has been nominated for speedy deletion. I also think that other pages like that could be created as well to help reduce the main article. The {{toolong}} suggests making a series of articles, and this is just the beginning. Wolverine and Spider-Man both have this set-up, and it works well. We should strive for that set-up with Captain America, and the first step would be to not delete that article. -Freak104 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Current Cap

I know its been discussed to death the issue of recentism vs iconicism (did I just invent two words?) but an issue that has been missed is the issue of accessibility in these articles. The simple fact is, if someone picks up an avengers book and looks at it and thinks 'hmm, i've heard of captain america but i know nothing about him' and they hit up wiki, they are instantly going to be confused. I'd just like to put an argument out there for an italicized comment at the top of the article (below or above the link to the disambiguation page) which states something like 'This article is about the original, and most frequent, holder of the title Captain America (Steve Rogers), for the current holder, see Bucky.' Because at the moment, you have to read a fair bit into the article to even pick up on a link to bucky with reference to his role as cap, and skim reading really would leave you empty handed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.81.45 (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Creators

Regular writers
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 from the 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)

No superhuman abilities?

The one section dealing with powers and abilities seems to contradict itself. Running at close to 60 mph (Cap can outrun a lion) and bench-pressing 1100 pounds (the current record, with bench-press shirts, is 1070 lbs) qualifies as "superhuman".

71.245.4.27 (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

You're trying to assert real world determinations of measuring physical capabilities with those of the fictional Marvel Universe. The various Marvel handbooks have always measured strength by how much weight a character can lift above his or her head, not how much they bench. Writers will occassionally take liberties and place him in situations now and then where he demonstrates superhuman attributes. However, Marvel's position is that, by their fictional standards of "superhuman", Steve Rogers doesn't qualify.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It could be argued that the usage of the SuperSoldierSerum confered upon Captain America abillities he wold not have obtained otherwise. By all accounts, he was rather a runt prior to it's usage. He is not like Batman, whose entire physically abillities are the results of hard training. Whippletheduck (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

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)

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).

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)

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)

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)

(redent) I reiterate the importance of civility. Although, I fully agree with User: Sage99, the consensus formed from that user's argument and mine are a bit separate. If there is opinion that between the projection of intelligence between, Golden and Silver age representations against the Modern versions, this should be articulated. There is evidence pointing to some editors interpretation of an intelligence increase. This salient point could be discussed and does not need to be a polarized point in strictly include or leave out all together. But to make judgement calls of inclusion and not based on multiple materials from the source is original research (synthesis). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC).

I reiterate, drop it already. Invoking Civility to overturn Consensus is absurd, but nice try. The key phrase "some editors interpretation of an intelligence increase" isn't enough. ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I am invoking civility, because you are not being civil. Additionally, I am not trying to overturn consensus, I am bringing up salient points for a new but related discussion on the same topic; however, same topic does not equate into same arguement or same consensus. Some writers, particularly Jurgens interpretting an intelligence increase is a salient point, as it Lee placing in dialoge intelligence increase by the creator of the serum. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
You've got a citation for the Jurgens story? Let's see it. You've got citations for the intelligence in the modern run? Let's see it. So far it's all WP:ILIKEIT. ThuranX (talk) 19:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with ThuranX that there is no consistent agreement about or depiction of increased intelligence as a result of the super-solider soldier serum, and that this discussion long ago achieved consensus that we are not listing it as one of Steve Rogers' powers & abilities. I can see where it might be frustrating to longtime editors to have to go through this again, and I can only add here that it's important we all keep the discussion civil and un-snarky all around, and that newer editors please read the archived discussions. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Captain America v3. #33-38 is the Protocide storyline written by Jurgens during which they discuss that Cap's intelligence was augmented. I agree, too that there is not consistent depiction of the gauge of Cap's intelligence by various writers throughout time, but that does not mean we should exclude the topic all together. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
You know what? I don't care anymore. You don't care about the extant consensus, so why should I bother defending it on and on? You're never going to let up, or listen to fucking reason. Go add whatever you want. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

{redent) What is the opinion of the Protocide storyline? I believe this would address some of the concerns from the previous discussion as it is a relatively current 616 storyline that refers to an intelligence augmentation in Rogers. - 66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC).

I told you already. Find us some reasonable sources. You've got multiple editors now reinforcing the extant consensus. But as I said, and as you continue to show, you don't care about the consensus. So go add it, someone else can fight this battle. ThuranX (talk) 06:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a different storyline that wasn't previously discussed. I will add it at this point, and if there is concern about this previously undiscussed storyline and new consensus surrounding the 616 storyline written by Jurgens, those concerned editors are welcome to discuss. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC).
I was thinking about placing it within a less fictional framework, showing the progression of interpretations by writers over time, similar to Superman's powers description. I didn't think the normal intelligence needed to be quoted and I used to Jurgens storyline the bookend. A wording something like as follows:

-66.109.248.114 (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC).

  • I think if you are going to mention it at all it would be a side effect of the "physical augmentation" (lack of fatigue poisons, etc allows Roger's brain to operate at an increased efficiency). It isn't really heightened intelligence just allows more efficient retention of knowledge gained through normal means. But, I think it needs to be consensus and not just added by one editor (It should also be sourced appropriately like adding information to any article)Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I was aware of the contentious nature of such an addition, that's why I brought it to the talk page first. Are there anyways in which the Jurgens storyline does not address the previous concerns for a source from a current Cap. storyline? -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC).
Yes, it's still not a citation from outside the comic book. I asked for that before ,and no one can provide it. However, you're going to add it anyways, as you've made clear that consensus is simply not an issue for you. ThuranX (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
All of the previous discussion's consensus in regards to fictional sources discussing Cap's brain power (Cap v1, Young Men, Chosen, OHOTMU). At this point how bout this:

There is now an inclusion of article from the San Fransico Chronicle which includes mention of Cap's powers which includes intelligence. This should address both the original discussion's concerns about current fictional examples of intelligence augmentation and provide a third party source as well. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC).

All the info in the articles are supposed to be accurate right? If Marvel Comics doesn't consider Captain America's intelligence to have been enhanced along with his physical attributes, then shouldn't that really be the end of it? If his intelligence were heightened to the peak of human potential, then wouldn't he rival the biggest big brain characters on Marvel's roster? I'm no expert on the character, but when has that degree of intelligence ever been shown in him?Odin's Beard (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Marvel Comics DOES consider Cap's intelligence to be enhanced, just not in all circumstances. The character's intelligence is reflected differently by different writers. The most evident case is that of OHOTMU. As we are describing a fictiional character, we can discuss this point and not rely strictly on the current or most popular interpretations, similarly to Superman's waxing and waning of powers and Batman carrying a gun. Currently with the citations above there is evidence of an intelligence increase; however, I have avoided making the argument of "peak" levels, as neither really states that. Additionally, I don't believe we can use other fictional characters as our gauge of intelligence, due to the arbitrary nature. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 03:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC).
I'm looking at an issue of the OHOTMU that came out in 2006, the second of four issues put out that were updates to many characters that had already had profiles in past editions. It has about an eight page profile on Captain America and nowhere does it mention he has enhanced intelligence. While the OHOTMU is unreliable at gauging the limits of a character's powers, the listing of a character's intelligence has always been consistent. His intelligence in every profile I've run across, at least within the handbooks that first began using the power grid system, lists him as having above normal level intelligence. Even past editions don't make mention of his intelligence being enhanced. While there is a consensus among regular and fairly regular editors to this article opposing your view, you might have more luck by taking it to the project discussion page and try making your case. It really is the proper place to settle a disagreement that's gone on this long anyhow.Odin's Beard (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like you're saying that the books indicate that he's a smart guy who got physically enhanced, not a normal guy whose intellect AND body were enhanced. I don't think anyone here was arguing such couldn't be the case. But whatever. This is clearly going to go on until the IP gets his way. I gave up days ago, I recommend the rest of you do the same. He doesn't respect consensus, reason, logic, demands for non-comics citation, or anything else, really, that doesn't get him his way. Give in, and give up. He's not going to stop until he can include it, he's been clear on that. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, we may all be getting tired and a little passive-aggressive because of that tiredness. Regardless, I would say to 66.109.248.114 that the consensus of editors here goes against any definitive statement that Cap's intelligence was increased to peak human potential. It may have been mentioned once or twice by writers, like the Sub-Mariner in a couple of early Silver Age issues being able to speak to fish, but that's simply an anomaly unsupported by the overwhelming bulk of the oeuvre.
We work by consensus here on Wikipedia. I would ask on behalf of this issue's consensus editors that you, 66.109.248.114, either call for a formal Request for Comment from editors throughout WikiProject Comics — we have an RfC Notice Board here — or, conversely, please drop the issue. If you choose not to follow the normal arbitration procedure, which begins with a Request for Comment, then we really would have to seek admin intervention, which would most likely go against you, as admins, and Wiki policy in general, give much weight to consensus.
It's up to you now, 66.109.248.114 — three choices: 1) Accept consensus, 2) Request an RfC or other arbitration, or 3) Ignore consensus and face likely censure. At this stage, after so much discussion that began months ago and has continued now for three weeks, those are really the only options. --Tenebrae (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

(re-dent)

I just wanted to reclarify some points before I made a note over at comics project. My understanding is that the previous consensus a.)there was no evidence of peak human intelligence, b.) the examples provided in the previous discussion were weighed on their canonocity, but all cites of his intelligence were from fictional examples. The current conversation, my purposal for re-examination is a note of "intelligence augmentation" not "peak human intelligence," and have provided canonical examples not previously cited (or addressed) and an independent 3rd party. Please note that a discussion on "augmentation" is seperate and from "peak." Thank you for your continued patience as we continue to clarify this issue. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 04:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC).

Just let the IP add it already. I gave up long ago. He's not going to stop till we all give in or stop responding. either way, he'll take it as consensus. Just give in and go play a game, that's my plan. Less Wikipedia, more other stuff. ThuranX (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus isn't with him, so it's pretty much over. It won't be added against consensus because he'll be the one facing possible sanctions. Just let this post be the end of it. If User:66.109.248.114 reitterates his position again, then let him do so. He knows what the options are to fight it if he doesn't agree with it. Otherwise, this is over.Odin's Beard (talk) 22:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please bear with me on this... I was asked to take a peek here and I'm trying to sift through both the older and newer threads.
A few things jump out at me:
  • "Retcon abuse" - One of the in story quotes that was presented looks like it was shot down because it was from a 1950s story. Frankly, if we are putting forward how the character was presented, that quote was made about Rogers, since that was the character being used. The writer and editor would not have known that their stories would be attributed to another character 15-20 years after the fact.
  • Project level guidelines hold that the Marvel Handbook, RPG, and video game guide material isn't reliable. More so when dealing with "power levels".
  • Consensus can change, especially when there are a small number of voices in the discussion that set it. Looking at the old thread, the consensus cape from the back and forth of four editors. Others may, and in this case one did, come across this later. They have every right to say "But..." and add their voice.
  • Civility — That took a few hits in the later thread, especially with the dead horse and glue factory quips. Yes, that does look like resorting to name-calling to shut down a conversation.
  • Badgering — On the flip of that though, the editor re-opening the discussion should be aware that consensus can also stay the same. If there isn't a swell of voices saying the old consensus is wrong, or those supporting the old changing there minds, it's time to let it drop. Pushing it doesn't help and can create ill will.
  • The last thing is a question of "Why?" I've never seen it portrayed as Cap's intellect is integral to the character. His military knowledge and skill yes, but his over all intelligence... not really. It doesn't seem to be something that needs to be touched on, and definitely not as solidly as the P&A hits the physical.
- J Greb (talk) 00:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
As another requested observer, I'm happy to second all of the above by J Greb.
In addition for all those who complained concerning the statements to WP:OR, I'll paste some relevant text:
  • "To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source."
So, for example, in reading the primary text, does a a logical interpretation need to be assessed? If yes, then it's probably WP:OR. - jc37 06:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
As another editor asked to give an independent look over all this I second what J Greb and jc37 have said:
  • Consensus is always up for re-examination and there seemed like reasonable grounds to have another look at the issue - even if it was shaky we still need to be civil
  • Powers can change at the stroke of a pen to suit the story (and they can be retconned) and to pick up on Tenebrae's point above about not being able to disprove a negative - it could be shown in one issue that Superman can fire pebbles out of his behind like a cannon (you'd hope this hypothetical story would be a humour title but who knows??). If he is never shown doing this again it doesn't mean he can always do this but he never has the right shaped pebble to hand - other writers might have decided to quietly pretend it never happened and he never did it. The thing is we shouldn't mention it as it it gives undue weight to it. Equally, while some might mention he has higher than normal intelligence (for the sake of the story that day), if this is rare, then it may be other writers are just ignoring it and writing him as being of normal intelligence they aren't going to drop in a line like "Wow that Cap is really only as smart as us!!". So a lack of sources contradicting this doesn't make it true in every case. So if something is shown again and again then it is clearly an important part of his abilities that is worthy of note, something mentioned briefly and rarely picked up on is bordering on the trivial but, more importantly might give this undue weight that it doesn't deserve. Sorry I've rather gone on a bit - to summarise: his being mentioned as being smarter than the average person in one story doesn't mean this is so for the bulk of his appearances and lack of contradiction doesn't make it true. In fact that lack of this being a factor in the majority of his stories suggests we shouldn't give it undue weight by mentioning it.
So I think it is OK as it stands - his age, experience and lack of wear and tear are more than enough to give him a tactical edge over an opponent of equally (or even higher) IQ.
This doesn't mean we can't return to this if something important turns up. (Emperor (talk) 15:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC))
Not sure if this helps much. Cap v1 # 59 is in the 1940's if I remember right and thus is the original Captain America. And its writer also references its mind boost as seen here.

http://img67.imageshack.us/img67/7420/captainamericacomics059gg1.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sage99 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Want a more recent example? Last month's Mythos Captain America (the series to designed to give an origin retrospective of primary characters from classic Marvel lore) mentions intelligence. Page 11 - "My newly augmented brain began to soak in knowledge -- I learned and implemented military tactics derived from thousands of years of warfare." This is a Paul Jenkins story, so one surmises it fits into Marvel's current bible.
Personally (and I have published actual research on this character in academic journals), I don't think that this debate is particularly important to the nature of the character, but I understand why some want to make this point. I think it is consistent with the character's lore to suggest that his intelligence is above human norms, but that it has been applied almost solely to military strategy (as many things in the wartime 1940's were). There were several comic books in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s that reflected this in the comic narrative, both in writing and in the scripting (Cap is a physical character, so writers and artists often show this by having him throw his shield and catching it after 13 caroms without looking. The idea is he instantly calculates all the angles and acts).
However, this high level of intelligence is extremely specialized. Certainly in the "Casualties of War" book following the Civil War storyline, there was an exchange between Cap and Iron Man about whether Cap's inability to use computers made him an anachronism in modern society. And there are other statements through the years about Cap's deferral to Reed Richards or Tony Stark when it comes to knowledge of science or technology.
For the sake of the article, is there a compromise here? His intelligence WAS enhanced, according to several sources. But the outcomes of that enhancement seem only to affect military strategy, because that is what his training has applied it to. So (as I believe has been stated above), Cap is certainly a tactical genius, but struggles to operate a personal computer. The question is whether when a character whose primary subplot is personal sacrifice (he never has time for a personal life, those around him die, etc.) displays ignorance about other things than military application, that display is a reflection of his intelligence or simple lack of experience. In other words, if Cap decided to retire and become a computer scientist, could he indeed display the same high levels of intelligence in that field as he does on the battlefield? Or did the army chemicals somehow only stimulate one part of his brain, so he would be incapable of transferring this potential intelligence to other fields? Or do we even care about "potential intelligence" in areas of inexperience?
My vote, were I to submit one, would be to avoid all of this in the article, but mention his is considered a genius strategist. The character has demonstrated this in his books, and there have been external mentions of this quality.
Sorry to butt in. This discussion just raised interesting questions for me about what "intelligence" actually is. If one is a genius in one area but inept in others, is that person intelligent or ignorant? How would we categorize someone who had a near-perfect I.Q. but couldn't tie his or her shoelaces?
Cap is not this extreme an example, but it does raise some interesting issues.
I, for one, have enjoyed this discussion. I understand that some might be frustrated with it. But I think at the foundation of this disagreement are some competing assertions about what intelligence is, what it means and how it is measured. Jrichardstevens (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that new reference and its current. Now we have Cap v1#1, v1 #59, and the mythos Cap #1 and is current at that plus all the minor statements of mind. I agree to a lot with what you said on the subject. I also agree that this minor detail that Cap's brain is enhanced isn't the be all and end all for what makes him that character there's his fire and unyielding will. IIRC I even remember in volume 4 it mentioning from his hearing/eye sight being even enhanced, to even his "cells" meaning even his brain cells are enhanced. He is enhanced to be the peak of human potential, in all categories IMO. But used them in the fields required for his development. Some say he can't be peak-human brain because he isn't as smart as say Reed or Parker. But that logic doesn't work since by that he can't be peak-human strength since Kingpin is stronger or Ox. Anyhow thanks for the new reference.Sage99 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Also something I forgot Cap actually has hacked into secret government files via computer in the Nuke arch that occurred in the Daredevil run. So he has shown how to operate computers to many avengers and shield equipment alike, to even fly top advanced planes. I think what he wouldn't know is the repairing of them or creating of that technology, as that is what he hasn't focused on to my knowledge or his lack of updating himself with current trends like the "myspace" issue or on repairing or creating tech. But he certainly how shown many times how to operate much advanced technology.Sage99 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes "another" reference pretty current too. In Cap Theater of War:To Soldier on, Cap say's " My mind was enhanced to the point that I could remember any military tactic and apply it to any situation". He also says because of that, he will never forget any soldiers name that didn't come back from WW2, because he can thanks to his enhanced mind.~Sage99

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)Sage99 (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Buckys Body was never found, this was particularly stressed, but it is retcon, as it is continuity created in the past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doeswhateveraspidercan666 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The body wasn't found, but Bucky has appeared in some issues set in the afterlife (although quite a few such "dead" characters have been since revealed to have not been dead at all). Timrollpickering (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

My edit summary

...got cut off, then when I went to insert a comma, I got a "file conflict" notice, so the progression of editing got confused. The full edit summary should have read, "Subbed 'the uniform's mask' for both 'Captain America's mask' (parallel construction, but word echo) or 'Steve Rogers' mask' (potentially confusing since it's part of the same uniform)."

But I can see ThuranX's point that saying only "the uniform's mask" suggests it might not be real.

The clearest thing, word echo or no, is "Captain America's mask."

Sorry for any "file conflict" confusion! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a big deal, however, Punisher got Steve's cowl, and his giving it was like him saying he was giving the legacy to someone he respected as being more worthy of it than himself, let's see if we can't get a bit mroe of that in. ThuranX (talk) 23:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you came up with a good phrase -- clears up any potential confusion, and avoids the word-echo. Nice! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance

Resolved
 – tantrums demonstrate that the talking is over. ThuranX (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Captain America belongs in top importance. He was Marvels first largely successful superhero, and still remains among their top. I'm only willing to knock this down to "High" importance if Wonderwoman, Fantastic Four, and X-Men are demoted to high. Until then, I will keep it at Top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.232.14 (talk) 06:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The first successful one for Marvel was Fantastic Four(1961), then Spider-Man(1962, March 1963[Amazing Spider-Man), then X-Men (Sept. 1963), THEN The Avengers(Sept. 1963). Following that, Captain America wasn't a part of Marvel until `64, three years after FF, two after Spider-Man and X-Men, and four issues after The Avengers. He was not the first successful superhero for Marvel. *SIGN* 06:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Timely= Marvel. Captain America was their first huge success. I know my comic book history. Unless you're going to change Wonder Woman, X-Men, and Fantastic Four to High, I will keep changing this back. Why should DC have 3 solo heroes as Top and Marvel only one? That sounds like DC Fanboyism to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.232.14 (talk • contribs)

I know my history too. But regardless, you said Marvel, so I latched on to it. Why should we change X-Men and Fantastic Four to high? What possible reason is there for making this top and them high? Success? Please. X-Men have had three blockbusters, and Fantastic Four has had two. X-Men and Fantastic Four have had ongoing series longer than Captain America, both reaching the 500 mark. They are more important than Captain America. End of story. *SIGN* 09:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Although, I'm extremely biased towards Cap I have to agree with Rau J. There really isn't a valid reason for Cap to be rated higher on the importance scale than the X-Men and FF. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:36, 28 August 2008

I didn't say Higher, I think Cap should be as high as those two. Cap has had as many issues as F4 and X-Men, his series have just constantly been rebooted. Putting Captain America at High implies he's only as important as Daredevil, Dr. Strange and others. That just isn't true. Captain America is not a b-lister.

Look at Captain America's death; The only other comic book death to ever get more press was Superman; Captain America's death was picked up by 400 news outlets of all sorts; network news, front page news on major sites like MSN and AOL, and news papers. If Captain America wasn't Top importance, there wouldn't have been a HUGE deal made over his death. Any other "High" importance character could die, and not get a fraction of the press Captain America did.

Also, it's worth noting that Captain America routinely outsells Spider-Man, Fantastic Four and even the X-Men in comics. This is NOT a small time character. He was also listed in Wizard as the 7th greatest comic book character of all time, listed only behind Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, Wolverine, Joker and Rorschach. According to Comicvine.com, the only characters in comics who have had more appearances than Captain America are Superman, Batman, Spider-Man and Wolverine. In addition to his solo comics, he was the cornerstone of the avengers for years. He basically fulfills the same role in Marvel as Superman does in DC; when it comes to big events, Cap takes charge of the heroes. I know importance doesn't often reflect in universe importance, but that can't be ignored.

And if we're going by hit movies, why isn't Iron Man top importance? He had a movie that grossed more than the two Fantastic Four films combined. The answer is that movies alone do not make top importance. (UTC)

One good reason for Captain America to not be 'TOP' is because he lacks the real world analysis seen for Superman, Batman, Spiderman, and so on. There are books about the histories of those three, superhero books give them chapters, they're examined heavily during TV shows, or get whole shows analyzing them. Captain America gets very little of that. They've had numerous successful films and shows; responsible for carrying a studio's summer, which represents serious realworld profitability info. Captain America can say very little of that. I've called for more RWC for Cap before, but it was ignored. If you can get us a lot more RWC, and slice and dice the in universe history down, this could warrant TOP. For now, it should stay 'HIGH'. As such, I'm returning it to HIGH. Your imperious declaration above aside, there's simply no support for it. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
The IP editor went on a tantrum today. As such, I think this is resolved. ThuranX (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

weapon plus

How exacatly is "canon" the informations in this article - Weapon Plus#Weapon I? If it's canon, why it's not included in CA article, possibly in "origin" section? thanks :) --89.24.67.231 (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Mostly because it's a retcon which hasn't been much commented upon since the introduction of the idea. ThuranX (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Death and Aftermath

This is what the article currently says: "Stark receives a letter containing Rogers' final requests: Stark should "save" Bucky, and that despite his demise the world still needs Captain America.[58]"

How are those 'requests'? I would fix it but I'm not a drooling superhero nerd fanboy so I didn't bother reading the teenage soap opera. Someone fix it please. Faethon Ghost (talk) 14:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's "requests" because Steve wants Tony to both save Bucky and continue the mantle of Captain America... *SIGN* 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Captain America Comics #1 (March 1941)
  2. ^ Captain America vol. 3 # 33
  3. ^ Captain America Comics #1 (March 1941)
  4. ^ Captain America vol. 3 # 33
  5. ^ http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2007/03/07/entertainment/e055217S16.DTL&type=printable
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Captain_America/Archive_2&oldid=1151639308"