Talk:Captain America

Reality vs. Fiction

Hi. After reading this article, I found it too much on the side of fiction. Most of the article describes the character's "history" by telling the story lines used in the comic books. That is, of course, fiction (and sometimes, as it is common in comic books, way far fetch). I'm not saying that this shouldn't be done, but it should be accompanied by reports of real-life conjuncture that led to any particular developement in the comic books. This is done only briefly at the beginning of the article, but it is not recovered later on, as the text focuses on fiction only. For instance, the early paragraphs state that the character was revived without much success in the 1950's as an all-out opposer of communism, and that when it was again quickened in the 1960's, that segment of his "history" was retconned away. But since the article only describes the stories later on, this procedure is not made completely clear, since the story told is [I imagine] the retconned one. The article should expand on that aspect, tell the story as it was developed in the 50's, then mention the decision to retcon it a decade later and explain the changes made in the character's story line to retcon it. If not for that quick introduction, I would never have noticed that the story had been retconned, and many might not make the connection, not to mention that other nuances might go unnoticed for the uninitiated (such as myself). This article needs some reviewing, in order to be more encyclopedic. Regards, Redux 02:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

The Shield

Khaosworks, it wasn't writer error; unless my memory is fouled up, it came out of the first Marvel Handbook. Adamantium-vibranium alloy was in continuty. Screwed-up continuity, most likely, but in continuity. Anyway, the whole adamantium continuity is FUBAR. Just look at the adamantium entry here (which also has story about the shield in current continuity.)

Besides, the only difference between writer error and retcon, in most cases, is about six weeks. N. Caligon 19:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was definitely writer error - Peter Sanderson got it wrong in the Handbook. There is no way Adamantium could have been part of the shield make-up because adamantium wasn't even named until the 1965 Avengers issue where it was introduced as a new development. The Sanderson error was then picked up by several writers who didn't know any better. Hence, it wasn't a retcon - a retcon is intentional. It was never intended to be a retcon. It sneaked in because Sanderson screwed up and the error was propagated. Busiek set the record straight a few years back in an Avengers annual. So to say "some versions of continuity" is incorrect, as it makes it sound as if they wanted it to be an adamantium-vibranium mix. I contend that my version is a better summation of the state of affairs. --khaosworks 20:00, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Plus, stories overrule the handbook, and I know of at least two stories (one in the mid-340s of CA v1 and the Avengers Annual 2001 backup) which were pretty much written to make it clear that the handbook was in error (the latter one also "fixes" a couple more points) - SoM 20:26, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)