Jump to content

Talk:Civil War (comics)/Archive 3

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

No More Speculation

Editing this article has been extremely difficult because of all of the speculation that has gone into it. Now we know that Thor is not Thor, despite a number of editors claiming they knew better before the issue came out. I'm not writing this to say, "I told you so," however; I just want this here as a record of this example for the next time someone wants to add something they don't actually know to the article, the next time someone wants to write about an issue (for instance, Heroes for Hire #1) that hasn't been distributed yet.

If you haven't read it, don't add it. It's that simple. We need to be able to verify it. Now that I am caught up on the story again, I am re-committing myself to deleting all uncited information that is added to this article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

But were you deleting comments here on the talk page?69.221.32.164 19:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)MD
Doing a quick glance at the history of this talk page for the past two months User: ChrisGriswold has made no deletions to this page, only additions/replies. Just mentioning to put that line of conversation to rest so people can focus on the article.
Regarding the topic he brings up, I would agree that speculation has no real place in a wikipedia article. This is emphatically not a fansite, This article (like all wiki-articles) aspires to be the official encyclopedic entry regarding this work of popular fiction. As such, verifiable facts are the only items of interest. -Markeer 00:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
To add something more to this topic - even if you HAVE read the issue but it has not been distributed yet, do not add new information. I've seen people who claim to have advance copies of issues justifying their edits, but that doesn't change the fact that officially that comic has not seen print yet. - Kevingarcia 06:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Damage Control

Following the events of the most recent Wolverine, should there be a section in this article regarding Damage Control's orchestration of the Stamford event, their manipulations of government policy, or their subsequent profiteering from the event? ThuranX 20:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hold on - my reading of that is that they supply Nitro with his drugs to increase the damage of his activities - that stamford got hit by that is a result of that - but that's different from an act of "orchestration". --Charlesknight 20:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Walter Declun supplied Nitro with MGH for the explicit purpose of using his increased power to cause as much devestation as possible in an inhabited area. Even if Declun never specifically stated where to do it, which it's yet to be revealed if he did pick out Stamford, Declun knew full well that such devestation would only boost support for the Superhuman Registration Act, which itself generates tremendous revenue for the company, and to acquire the clean up contract for Stamford, generating even more revenue. Damage Control has basically orchestrated every event that's transpired in the Civil War storyline. That's a pretty important revelation, so yeah it definitely deserves a section. Odin's Beard 00:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Declun clearly planned it, adn the fact that Damage Control was ready and prepared to move on the contracts so rapidly as to get the major clean up contracts, etc., etc., combined with his comments about making things happen show he's complicit in the event and knew what giving Nitro MGH would result in. Although it has yet to be stated overtly, I think it's not unreasonable to expect to see that the 'anonymous tip' that hte new warriors got came from Damage Control as well, directly or through hirelings. ThuranX 16:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we place Damage Control in the Pro-Registration side? They get the contracts for superhuman evaluation and training and whatnot.--Gonzalo84 23:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Secret Avengers

Where does the term come from? and what's secret about them? --Charlesknight 11:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It's used in the comics as the name of Captain America's rogue team of superdudes. One of the newspapers named them that. What's secret about them is their recipe. The secret ingredient is Danny Rand. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
shhhh! this is a secret! =D Bloodpack 02:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"Changing Sides" section

Do we really need this? If someone changes a side, it's recorded in the synopsis and we just move the character name to the appropriate section on the lists after. Do we really need to record every change in its own section like that?164.107.218.14 23:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't need that. It is more cruft. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
You don't need such a section, although to avoid confusion and reduce edit conflicts (oh, yeah, like people could ever reduce those in this article), you might need a parenthetical note like "(changed sides)" after the character's name. I wouldn't be keen on seeing it, but it might help. Maybe. Sorta. Kinda. And if so, it should be something even shorter than that. Doczilla 20:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Either way... the Punisher's a Secret Avenger now, right? For that matter, shouldn't there be a Secret Avengers article? -- Nick Begovich 20:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed "Clone of Thor" to "Cyborg Clone of Thor" because that more accurately describes him. It. You know what I mean. -- Nick Begovich 06:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Spider-man HAS changed sides

Amazing Spider-man 535 is out, he said himself that he had made a mistake and was on the wrong side. He should be switched over to the the registered opponents side

pls sign your post with 4 tildes and yes, most probably, until we see the next issue, btw, cable left together with stature and nighthawk, how come hes still in the secret avengers list? Bloodpack 02:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Cable didn't say he was leaving the Avengers. He also has a country to run. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Amazing Spider-Man #535 is not out yet. Until it is actually distributed and available in stores, we can't cite it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've got the issue, and I'm sure more than a few others do as well. If Spider-man himself admitting that he was on the wrong side isn't "official" enough, I don't know what is. Odiin 02:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

errr, yeah still isnt official, hes speaking his thoughts, what would be official is when we all see steven mcniven draws a comic book panel with spidey already fighting along side with the secret avengers against the government, but yeah, itll probably happen Bloodpack 02:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Amazing Spider-Man #535 is not out yet. Until it is actually distributed and available in stores, we can't cite it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The Problem when dealing with a work of fiction is that nothing is definite "fact." At a certain point you HAVE to assume one thing or the other, or you simply couldn't write about it at all. Spider-man said he had been wrong all of this time, and then Iron Man attacked him, and called him a traitor, at this point it is safe to assume that Spider-man HAS switched sides, otherwise we can't say anyone is on any side. It's possible that Captian America is 100% for the registration act, and is only fighting against it to gather as many unregistered heroes as he can to turn in to the government, but we have to assume, based upon the things he's said and done, that this is not the case. Likewise I believe Spider-man trying to sneak off with Aunt May and Mary-Jane, telling them he was wrong all along, then Iron Man attacking him, is proof enough that Spider-man HAS switched sides. Odiin 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

well, you didnt say spiderman and iron man already had a conflict, if thats the case, then yes spiderman is officially screwed Bloodpack 03:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
No. We will not assume anything more in this article. See above. Until Spider-Man #535 is actually distributed and available in stores, we can't cite it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thats what ive been telling this odin guy here, but he keeps on insisting and also, i read the synopsis for issue 4. someone put it saying its sue richards who stopped iron man's sonic weapon based on her previous actions. i enclosed it with a note in my edit but its reverted. isnt that also an assumption or one's personal POV?, stating that its sue, when in fact it should be left for the readers to decide. i feel its unencyclopedic Bloodpack 22:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
WHY make ANY assumptions? WHY???????????? Just wait till we all have the opportunity to read the dadgum comic. What's your hurry, for Pete (Parker)'s sake? Doczilla 07:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I need your help. I'm in a great depression here. At first, I was supportive of the Super-human Registration Act because Spider-Man, who happens to be my favorite superhero, was on it. Plus, Tony Stark is a friend of Spidey, so that totally fitted me in the side of the act. But now that Spidey has changed sides, I don't know what to do. Should I root for the superhero I've always rooted for? Or should I stay loyal to the side I chose to support? 70.58.211.220

This isn't a discussion forum. The purpose of the discussion pages attached to Wikipedia articles is to discuss the article, how it can be improved, what to add to it, what not to add to it, etc. Getting into fanboy discussions like that isn't what it's intended for. I'm not saying fanboy in a negative way or anything like that. But, let's be honest, lots of editors purposely try and turn these types of articles in particular into a haven for fanboys. That isn't the intention of some editors, it happens sometimes by sheer accident. Try www.superherohype.com if you're looking for a good discussion forum to go over this kind of stuff. Odin's Beard 01:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my God. I feel so bad for Spidey. Oh, well, can't be helped. At any rate, how do we list him? Is he counted as a Secret Avenger now, or just Unregistered? Because, technically, he is registered, although he's had a change of heart. Any ideas, or should we wait until next week's Amazing Spider-Man #536 for more information? -- Nick Begovich 21:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC) 

 Why don't you just put that he is against registration for the time being?  -J. Agamemnon

Why don't you just stop typing in a box? But I totally called it. It says in Amazing that Spidey is, in fact, a Secret Avenger. I'm pretty sure good ol' Mr. Castle is, as well. -- Nick Begovich 06:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

about the synopsis format

ive been wondering, should we narrate each issue's synopsis by paragraph like what we have now (i.e. in civil war #1...in civil war #3...) or should it be as a "whole", compressing them all together into just one whole synopsis, summarizing the whole 1, 2, 3, and 4th issue into one? Bloodpack 22:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It really ought to be condensed. After the event is over, this article will probably be a lot short than it is now. There's kind of a Doppler effect with these articles among editors: Every detail of a current comic seems so very important until after the series when it becomes obvious that those minor characters, etc. are minor. Current details appear to seem more important than old ones, or sections on Infinite Crisis and 52 wouldn't be as long or longer than the entire history of characters that have been around for 20 years (Booster Gold) or even 35 years (Elongated Man). --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thanks for replying, i feel the summary for the 4th issue is still too long Bloodpack 23:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the synopsis needs to return to its previous format. For an issue-by-issue analysis, it sure doesn't provide much information. Thor? -- Nick Begovich 22:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Xavin Dead

Is it right to be listing Xavin as dead? We heard a crack, and the others speculate that Xav is dead, but we don't know anything for sure until they decide to bury him. It is my own speculation that he couldn't possibly be dead, with one of those reasons being his life continues on in the main storyline (although clearly not taking place at the same time). How should he be listed until he is confirmed, without a doubt, one way or another? What about "presumed dead"? --142.167.151.10 01:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that a shapeshifter should not easily be listed among the dead. For a Skrull, a snapped neck is not a confirmed death. Everyone warring over assumptions should re-read WP:NOT and the Wikiproject Comics guidelines periodically. They stress that articles should not include assumptions, speculations, or the like. In light of other issues that come up in the editing of this article, I particularly recommend that people carefully read the section about how information should not be based on solicitations, including examples (Green Lantern, Sentry) of when such extrapolations would have been flatly wrong. Doczilla 07:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC) P.S. You should sign in with a username. Your opinions' credibility will go up that way. Doczilla 07:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, he is very much alive. -- Nick Begovich 21:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Registration Acts

I note that Bill Black, in his comic series The Armageddon Factor starring the Femforce among others, also made reference to a similar superhuman registration act. Not sure if it is sufficiently important for mention here or not, though. Badbilltucker 16:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a pretty common theme in American comics: The JSA were forced to disband by the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the characters in Watchmen were forced to register or quit in the 1970s. It's like how OMACs are almost exactly like Prime Sentinels and House of M is startingly similar to JLA: Midsummer's Nightmare. It's a pretty recycled idea. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
looks like the comic book publishers are just borrowing ideas from one another Bloodpack 01:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
See Registration acts (comics). Doczilla 17:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Civil War: Choosing Sides merge

Civil War: Choosing Sides was recently created with what looks like promotional text for a one-shot related to the crossover that is the subject of this article. The article should be merged because it is relevent to this article alone. A one-shot that is wholly based on a crossover should be part of the crossover's article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion closed. I am merging this article. Additionally, the "wait and see" argument does not work with merge discussions; it does, however, work with discussions concerning the creation of new articles. The article's need does not satisfy WP:CMC guidelines.—Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGriswold (talk • contribs) 18:06, October 23, 2006

    • You couldn't wait two more days to perform a simple request? For someone who pushes the whole ideal of not making a decision of an issue until it's released, you're a total hypocrite. Way to be a total Wiki-nazi. 164.107.218.14 00:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I love you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Very mature. Really showing your true colors of how selfish you really are. Anyway, I was right in the fact that this was also clearly a lead in for other titles, and since that was your only argument for merging this, it never should have happened, so you jumped the gun and violated your own "Not a crystal ball" policy you're so fond of pushing. Way to make yourself a complete hypocrite. Hope you've lost all your credibility. 164.107.218.14 02:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

As I said above, don't merge, because while right now it only appears to only deal with Civil War, that won't be the case for at least a couple of the stories. Several of the stories will be lead ins to other books that are upcoming and spinning out of Civil War, (Venom for Thunderbolts, Iron Fist for Immortal Iron Fist, Ant-Man for Irredeemable Ant Man, and it's believe US Agent for Omega Flight), so there will be much more to this book that it looks like on the surface. It even says so right in the article that it will be the lead in for several new books. Plus, once the issue come out, the article can be expanded so it will be big enough to stand on its own as well. So, again, don't merge. 164.107.218.14 22:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It has Civil War in its name. There is no reason to guess "that won't be the case" for any of them. We have numerous Wikipedia style guides and policies telling us not to speculate and not to trust solicitation information. Doczilla 00:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
And if it was just solicitation information saying this, you'd have a case, but Tom Brevoort has confirmed all that stuff as happening as well in which he says that these stories will lead to future happenings with these characters. [[1]] Here's another that says it leads to other books as well. [2] And I don't know why having "Civil War in its name" is a reason to merge it since several books have Civil War in their names and they have their own articles. So really, there is no reason to merge them. 164.107.218.14 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
All we can really go on at this moment is that "Civil War" is in the title. You haven't read it. It is part of the crossover, and while some details about specific characters may make their way into those characters' articles, the bulk of the information should go here. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Why? The bulk of all those other Civil War tie-ins get their own pages, there's no reason this shouldn't. Again, read the links. It's not a some details "may make their way" in speculation, it's straight up confirmed by the editors and creators in those links that they will. Just because it's not out doesn't mean that there aren't details confirmed by other sources than solicitations, which is another argument that I've shown proof against, that show that it does not need to be merged. And the whole argument for this merger in the first place is it will only tie in to Civil War, when that's clearly not the case. 164.107.218.14 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
What Tom B. has confirmed is beside the point. Comics creators have often released false information. At one early, early point, DC people said Infinite Crisis would have nothing to do with Crisis on Infinite Earths. Also, there have been times that a comic got prepared, then got changed before it saw print. Did you know Jean Grey/Phoenix originally wasn't going to die way back in the X-Men "Fate of the Phoenix" story? Byrne even drew the pages where she survived before their bosses say no way, she has to die. Last week, Paul Levitz commented in a conference call about times they had to make changes after a comic went to print, when they had to decide whether or not to reprint an entire run or at least a specific page. So . . . until it's in print and in our hands, the story event does not exist. Besides which, the whole Civil War storyline is complicated enough without describing stuff that hasn't even come out yet. "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." Doczilla 02:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you even read the links that I put up? The comic is done and going to print at the point of that interview. I don't care what happened in the past, it's what's happening now that counts, and, again, if you'd read the interviews, they're not giving out false information. Tom is the editor, not one of the creators, so yeah, his word deserves to be taken over all others. And if you're going to give that argument, then there's no reason for that page to even exist at all, because by the time you get done nitpicking over it, there will be nothing left to merge, and the article should have just waited to be started until the issue was out. Why is this really even being brought up now? The issues comes out in a little over the week, if anything, this should be suspended until then, and then people will have a reason to give a real judgement as to whether these should be merged. 164.107.218.14 02:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
You don't care "what has happened in the past"? Why would someone who doesn't care what has happened in the past bother looking at an encyclopedia? You're discounting the examples used in the explanation of Wikipedia policy. Have you read WP:NOT and WP:CMC/EG? Wryspy 18:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Good lord, people on this site need to stop taking things out of context. Yes I have read those and they say not to listen to the creators, not the editors. Again, read what I linked. This is not "creating hype", this is the editor of the book giving the basic facts of what will be happening. The issue deals with more books than just Civil War, and yet again, this should not even be up for discussion until the damn thing is out so people can make a real decision over it. 164.107.218.14 19:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
That is hype. That he was not using a lot of exclamation points does not make it any less so. It was promotional material. You are right, though: This shouldn't be up for discussion because the book is not out now. That's also why it ought not to have an article or assumptions made on it until Wikipedians can actually get their grubby, sweaty paws on the books. --19:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Go to the lower part of this Comic Urban Legends page [3] if you want to see how drastically solicited material can differ from what finally comes out (re:Emerald Twilight). Doczilla 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Civil War Files merge

I'd suggest we merge Civil War Files into Civil War (comics). --Mrph 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Decision is to merge Brian Boru is awesome 20:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Not directly linked to the other merge proposal, but along similar lines - Civil War Files is just an "Info Within the Files" list, a cast list stating which character is on which side - there's not much additional text or background. The "Choosing Sides" section of this article already lists who's on which side (and my understanding is that the Files - like the Annihilation Nova Corps files - are mostly there as a reference for people who may not have gathered all this info from other places), so there doesn't seem much point in keeping it as a second article. --Mrph 18:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • since the article is merged do we still need this topic, or is it a waste of space, same goes Civil War:Choosing Sides

Status of Wiccan

Just thought I'd add this here, as to why Wiccan isn't incarcerated, and should be listed under the Secret Avengers.

  • Wiccan is known to be captured after the fight in Civil War #4.
  • Tom Brevoort's blog confirms the timeline of several events, including the fact that Wiccan (And possibly Hulkling and Hercules) were the ones being transported in the "Battle of Yancy Street" issues.
  • In the above issues, Dagger says that "All the prisoners escaped".

Hence, Wiccan, is infact, a free man. Goldenboy|talk|contribs 00:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a link directly to the post about the timeline of events: http://www.marvel.com/blogs/Tom_Brevoort/entry/480 - Brad T. Cordeiro 00:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Civil War Files: Creators / writers / artists?

This was an actual comic issue, right?

Who were the writers/artists? I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the article. (Sorry, this is in reference to the Civil War Files article)

152.130.15.14 17:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Unregistered

Good question. I don't feel like hunting these down. (What? I'm in college. I have just enough time to speculate.) If someone wants to go to Marvel or Newsarama or whatever and dig this info up, it would be a good thing, I think. -- Nick Begovich 20:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a comic as such - It was a collection of fact files and art taken from previously-published comics (Even the cover was the original promo artwork for the series, from months before the first issue launched). I couldn't tell you who the writers of the fact files were, offhand.

Buying the series

Once it's all out, is there any word on whether casual Marvel fans without the time on their hands to order all of the issues of the various titles involved will be able to buy them in one set? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.209.169 (talk • contribs)

Most if not all will be collected in trade paperbacks--virtually everything Marvel prints these days is. The one exception might be one-shots (such as Civil War files), but lately a few one-shots have been included in trades, too. (There will be a Civil War tpb, a Frontline tpb, an Amazing Spidey Civil War tpb, etc.) So, probably, but it's possible they'd have to hunt down a couple of issues here and there. The trades most likely won't be sold as a set. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Release Dates

I don't know how firm they are considering the delays, but the release dates for the remaining issues would be useful. Anybody have them? --Happylobster 14:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Question Regarding the Registration

I heard that part of the Act was that everyone who had to gegister, even if they were not a superhero, had to do missions for the governemtn without question when asked. Is that true, and if it is, should it be put in the article, or maybe the registration article?--Mullon 03:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that no, they are merely required to go throught training regarding their abilities, lest they end up hurting someone by accident. There is a fear among many heroes that the Government may call them to duty, however, but this isn't necessarily the case. Further information on the Act should definitely be placed in the article. And does any one know anything about the Fifty-State Initiative? At all? -- Nick Begovich 19:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I gather it is a plan to send heroes(that agree to work for the gov) to all 50 states. I believe this is because of the Mass quantities of heroes that center around New York. Kinda like a spread the wealth sorta thing.Phoenix741 21:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

So it really is just an invasion of privacy issue and not a draft issue. Thats kind of a disappointment.--Mullon 05:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well not really. They could go togeather. If the goverenment knew who you were they could blackmail you into doing something. Like with wonderman and his tax problems.Phoenix741 12:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. That all makes sense. At least Tony laid the Fifty-State Initiative out pretty well, however briefly, to DareDevil. (That is supposed to be camel text, right?) Somebody should mention that in the article, if it's not already there. -- Nick Begovich 19:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Civil War 5 spoilers?

I was under the impression new information was not to be posted until the day the new issue was officially out. While browsing this article I was EXTREMELY annoyed to have a spoiler for Civil War #5 occur in the 'Deaths' section. At the very least, it should have spoiler tags. I removed the piece in question but I just wanted to clarify- Spoilers CAN only be printed after the comic in question is released and even then should be spoiler tagged, correct?

There is a spoilers tag where the spoilers begin, in the synopsis section. There's an end of spoilers tag after the deaths section. Brad T. Cordeiro 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No spoilers in the article until the issue hits the stands. Please remove any details about #5. Will this article ever stop being a disgusting embarrassment? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No, never........ well not until everything comes out and the facts are straight.Phoenix741 17:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Haha, ouch. But no, I don't see this article looking really good until mid-February, when the series ends and the "Post-Civil War" Marvel begins. In the mean time, hang tight and don't get too pissed. Haha... thirty-one pieces, punk! -- Nick Begovich 19:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


Not really in line with the last question, but also about issue #5, are we really sure that Danny Rand was captured and not the genuine Daredevil? In the panel immediately previous to Daredevil's capture, they show a Daredevil also in the Secret Avengers' current hideout. The timeframe isn't directly stated, but I'd assume from the sequence of events of the rest of the comic that it's either right after or at the same time, which would leave some ambiguity as to who was wearing the costume. Also, Daredevil presented Stark with a silver coin and a Bible reference, which seemed to me to indicate it was in fact Matt Murdock, unless Iron Fist is a much better actor than I'm giving him credit for. Just thought I'd ask. 192.251.125.85 10:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also thinking that, if Iron Fist was captured it bet it would of been shown in at least 1 panel. So yea I think it is the real Daredevil.Phoenix741 13:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It was Iron Fist in issue one with the Silver Dollar. I think it'd be him then. It's almost 100% likely he got caught on purpose though.Goldenboy|talk|contribs 16:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. Also, Daredevil does not want his identity to be public info - the past 12 years of his title have been about that - and so he would not want to be caught and processed. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Mark Millar specifically stated on his site that it was Danny Rand
Uh... reference? I can't find it. -- Nick Begovich 05:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
CW5 confuses me, in regard to daredevil. we see him sitting besides the secret avengers when the punisher arrives then on the last pages, he got caught by SHIELDS? †Bloodpack† 10:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
that gets back to the idea that it might be THE daredevil caught, and not iron fist.Phoenix741 14:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Why? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
well at least in my opinion, time differences. If they would show Daredevil being in custody, they should have at least like 1 page where he(danny) gets captured since he has been a semi-big part of the story, but if it was the regular daredevil then they could show that they got him no questions asked since it would be the first time we would see him in this story. Also wouldn't the mention somewhere in the story that iron man figured it out like him saying "SO where is the real daredevil", or "so your not daredevil" something like that. Or mabey i am just wrong and this is just really bad story telling, I don't knowPhoenix741 17:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's mainstream comics storytelling that's part of a crossover, so yes, there are a lot of examples of poor writing attributable to linwide shenanigans. None of what you posted above says that that is Matt Murdock. Millar most likely had SuperFist playing with the coin in the earlier issue so you would know it was him in this one. But again, these are guesses unless confirmed. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
ok then so we need to find profPhoenix741 20:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And a spelchek program. I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that it's Rand, due to the whole silver dollar thing. I'm not very helpful, am I? At any rate, it's probably explained somewhere else in explicit detail (the next Daredevil, maybe?), but for now, I guess we can say, "a Daredevil." I don't know! -- Nick Begovich 04:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Disparity between ASM and main Civil War title

OK, so I just finished editing the synopsis of Civil War #5 last night, today I go and pick up Amazing Spider-Man #536 and...in ASM the fight between Stark and Parker is completely different! Specifically, in the Civil War title, Stark tries to convince Peter not to leave, Peter says they've gone too far and that locking people up in the Negative Zone isn't right, Stark tells him that the Negative Zone Prison is just a temporary measure until something more suitable can be arranged (despite him stating in ASM #535, after Peter says the prison might be acceptable as an interim solution, "This isn't temporary, Peter. This isn't interim. This is permanent. Get with the program."), Peter wants to leave, Stark asks him what's gonna happen to MJ and Aunt May if he does this, Peter hits him and says they're as far away as possible, fight ensues, Peter tries to break through the window but it's shatter-proof so he merely crashes into it and falls down, then a buttload of SHIELD jerks arrive and unload a couple dozen clips of ammo at Peter and the window, breaking the window and causing Peter to fall outside (albeit with several bullet wounds). How's THAT for a run-on sentence?

Now, in ASM #535-536, Peter makes a decision and tells Aunt May and MJ to run away. Then alarms start going off in Stark Tower, and he begins moving down the corridors before he gets blindsided by Iron Man. That's how #535 ends. #536 begins with Peter falling several stories onto a hot dog cart (apparently uninjured before the fall) followed by a very angry Iron Man, who rages that he trusted Peter and asks if this is how Peter repays him. Peter punches Stark and lunges at him, but Stark utters a command word and Peter's suit (which Stark built) shuts down. Stark tells him that he wouldn't have given Parker a suit as powerful as that one if it didn't have safeguards to prevent it from being used against him, Stark. But it turns out Peter is playing possum just long enough to lure Stark close enough to clobber him with a sucker punch, that he anticipated Stark's precautions and personally disabled the override command on his suit. By the time Stark recovers, Peter is nowhere to be found, having fled into the sewer.

So here's the question: since Millar and Straczynski can't stay on the same page (no pun intended), which version of events belongs here?--Fingerknöchelkopf 22:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • If it is in Civil War, then it belongs in civil war, granted it is kinda confusing how it is set up, but I think that the fight it civil war and the fight in ASM are completely different, mabey the one in ASM came first, then they fight again in Civil War #5. Anyway back to my point, anything that happened in the Civil War series should be here, anything tie-in related should be be on the series's page.Phoenix741 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it was stated somewhere by someone that it is to be assumed that the Iron Spider armor mostly protected Pete from the bullet wounds. Just sayin'. -- Nick Begovich 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I finally read ASM so I could join this conversation. I don't understand how these two issues would not fit together. In ASM535, Spider-Man tells his family to leave. He and Iron Man exchange words. In CW5, the two exchange more words and Spider-Man's suit gets ripped and he gets to ground leve. In ASM 536, Spider-Man fights Iron Man at ground level and goes into the sewers. In CW5, Spider-Man in the sewers fights a bunch of obscure villain, is beat up, and is taken the the Secret Avengers. In ASM536, he mentions that he has joined the Avengers. None of it contradicts; each issue shows you different pieces of the same chain of events. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 11:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thats so true, but the question is (since this article is mainly about the civil war comic book), should we also include in the synopsis the events that took place in the tie-in titles? or is the synopsis we have here is solely focused in the civil war comic book? †Bloodpack† 12:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Truthfully I think we should have a little bit of info for all the tie-ins(Fantastic Four, Spider-man, Black Panther, and so on) but the way the synopis is being set up as of now, it is only the story in the main Civil War series.Phoenix741 13:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, this article was at one time agreed upon to be about the crossover. Therefore, I am sure the related limited series and tie-ins will all be summed up here once the thing is over. In fact, that's probably when the lists of characters and other bad sections will go as well, and the article can begin to be halfway decent. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Everything gels (so quit your whining, you damn hacks), and isn't an issue. The biggest disparity I noticed was in Punisher War Journal, where Punisher shoots Prankster a few times in the chest, as opposed to the single bullet to the head (the fact that he was using a S.H.I.E.L.D.-issue rifle might come into play in the future, for those of you keeping score) in Civil War. Boo-hoo. One of the problems, arguably, with this crossover is that so much is being filled in by tie-in issues, so it is important to include those. It'll be hard to create a comprehensive plot summary, but it is a crossover. So quit complaining. Goodness. -- Nick Begovich 03:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So what happens when this is all over?

I'm in favor of a "list" of who's one what side, but it frustrates me that people feel the need to constantly update it and give special qualifications as to how they are associated with that side. Honestly, but the time this is all over, there will be no sides. It's been said time and again that there will be a "winner" and a "loser," and I doubt the losing side will maintain their position once there is nothing left to fight over. From an encyclopedic sense however, it would be nice to have a resource that stated "this is what the story was about, these are the characters involved, this is where they stood." From that perspective, Spider-man might be best left with one side and not changed over, because looking at the story as a whole, Spider-man was not soley associated with a single side. Another option might be a list of involved characters with a reference to which issue they "joined a side" or "switched sides" in. The list of deceased characters is also useful, and should include those believed dead as a result of the series (Xavin). What do you guys think about changing the format? - Kevingarcia 10:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Mabey we could show a list of the oringal lineup(from like civil war 1 or 2) then just show issue by issue, who switched sides and who died and stuff. I think this is what your suggesting. Am I right?Phoenix741 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Show how it is from the start, or at least from each character's entry into the "war." - Kevingarcia 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't need an autistic recounting of rosters and roster changes. How about we dsescribe the story; team membership is incidental in this article unless a character plays a part in the story. Whether Aaron Stack is in the Secret Avengers is a detail for the Aaron Stack and Secret Avengers articles. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 15:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The lists need to be reduced, with minor details removed. It may also be more appropriate as paragraphs. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thunderbolt Army (merge)

1. Merge --> Seems kinda useless to me.Phoenix741 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Merge. Unencyclopedic article. This would be more useful as a category for character pages than a separate article. Brad T. Cordeiro 20:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment See List of Thunderbolts members for almost identical information. CovenantD 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Merge or Delete - What the hell? -- Nick Begovich 22:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow that pretty much sums it up,lol. Phoenix741 02:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Delete all of it as it's already in Thunderbolts and won't exist within 5-6 weeks regardless. Listcruft -Markeer 22:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC) 5. Merge I have to agree with number one. Civil War is almost over and this article should just be merged. Skilanky64 03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agent 13???

Why is Agent 13 (Sharon Carter) on Caps side? Just becuase she helped him get away from S.H.I. E.L.D. once doesn't mean she's a Secret Avenger. IronMan54 20:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

She has been revealed by later solicitations to be on Captain America's side (even though it was evident from the comic issue), so she is officially a Secret Avenger. Skilanky64 03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Solicitations don't mean anything. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 05:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, just because she's talkin' with ol' Cap, doesn't mean she's a Secret Avenger. -- Nick Begovich 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC) If I recall correctly, she said something along the lines of her not being conflicted anymore or not wanting to go along with SHIELD anymore and wanted to joing Cap, so yes, she would qualify to be put under the Secret Avengers side.172.166.148.195 14:53, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Batroc the Leaper

So, Batroc gets a panel in the latest Iron Man, depicted in training with Arana and Stature. Since Arana is "Heroes in Training" and Stature is "Registered Heroes" and Batroc himself is "Thunderbolts Detainees" (or was he recruited? More likely recruited), what's your take on summing up their new individual statuses? Personally, I'd like to see Stature under training, since she is underage and the SHRA would probably state that she needs more training before employing her. Batroc, however, is his own man and shouldn't even be categorized. --71.7.134.247 01:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think Batroc should just stay in the detainees and recruits. I, im no way, think that Batroc is really a Trainer. The Thunderbolts had him in the army, right? IronMan54 18:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Thunderbolts

Thunderbolts #110 is out with the new lineup. Should we list Green Goblin, Penance, Bullseye and Venom to the main Thunderbolts list and move the rest to their new status as registered heroes or members of the Commission on Superhuman Activities.--Gonzalo84 01:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversies?

I've been following several online discussions about this, and talking with local folks, and hear a lot of concern over how out-of-characters a lot of the Big Wigs in this affair (namely, Mister Fantastic and Iron Man) are acting in this. Am I alone in hearing this? If not, should there be something in this article reflecting the controversy? Dr Archeville 03:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It exists, but there should be no need to reflect it in the article- every major comic crossover has similar controversies.

The more specific problem is that "out of character" is essentially subjective and I'd imagine one would have a hard-to-impossible time citing any such statement. To date Marvel has said that all of the characters were discussed as to where they would stand, and that's it. Keep in mind that "out of character" can be something obvious that we are meant to notice...or could be a writer trying a new take on an old character, or for that matter it could just be bad writing (e.g. The Wasp and Magneto having an affair in the original Secret Wars, or about a million other examples of weak writing).
Me, so far I would guess "bad writing" on Mark Millar's part, but that's exactly the problem. I could be right, I could be wrong, but there's no way at the moment to prove it one way or the other. -Markeer 18:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, we have to take into consideration the fact that war makes people do strange things. We can assume certain characters wouldn't be able to handle stress on this scale and would do things out of desperation. Take Captain America allying with the Punisher for example. Is it a poor moral choice on his part? Yes. But from a war perspective, having the Punisher on your side is a great tactical advantage. However, there's something else to take consideration, that being that to some extent, a character's personality is defined by whoever is writing said character. There are certain traits in a character you don't mess with, and others with more flexibility.
But the overall point is that there are some situations that a character might not know how to handle, and so they may do odd things that seem out of character to us. You just have to get into the character's mindset and think. Hypothetically, if you had to choose between the law and your own sense of what's right, what would you do? Now wait, add on extreme pressure from your government and peers, as well as loss of sleep, constant fighting, etc... the truth of the matter is that not one of us would know how we'd truly react without first being in that actual situation. --156.34.69.78 08:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

A good point. It should also be noted that many characters taht are being shown in a negative light in the main series (for example Iron MAn) are been given much more sympathetic treatment in their own books. Iron MAn in v4 #13 expresses way more doubt about the SHRA than he has in all 5 CIvil WAr books so far.

VERY arguable, there's a strong case to be made that the main Civil War book has portrayed him more sympathetic (Doesn't want to attack Peter, extends a hand to Cap, etc) than he has been in most tie-ins- like New Avengers or Frontline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.130.122 (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Deadpool

On the official Marvel website, Deadpool has been listed as anti-registration. Should he be moved to registered opponents? ToJPhantom 09:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


Iron Man/Cap

I'm removing all the stuff from related pages about this. Civil War 7 is not even out yet. Cactusrob 20:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Villains from Civil War: War Crimes

Where should we place characters like Kingpin, Underworld and Hammerhead?--Gonzalo84 22:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler removed (Hap)

In the Subsequent Casualties list, we see "Happy Hogan; put in a coma by Spymaster; killed in an act of euthanasia by Tony Stark". Thing is, this is just suggested. We do see Happy Hogan getting flatlined, but whether Stark killed him or not, we will probably never know for sure. I think that part should be reworded.--Kaonashi 01:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

In the Happy Hogan page it claims "Tony Stark digitally interfaced with and shut down Hogan's life support (Iron Man vol. 4 #14)". I have not read it, so someone with first hand knowledge would be useful, but that sounds like decent grounds for the statement you mentioned Cactusrob 13:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that issue, Pepper (Happy's girlfriend/wife) asks Stark to use the new abilities he received from the Extremis treatment to remotely deactivate the devices connected to him in the hospital, since he turned into a vegetable, and that's something he said he'd never want in life. At the time, Tony said he didn't want to, since it would be murder. He thought it'd be a wrong thing to do. Also, he said Happy's vital status were stable. In the end of the issue, we see Tony on his appartment, thinking about several things, after Sue Storm, the Invisible Woman, met him. Then we see Happy's life support in the hospital getting flatlined.

We can't be 100% certain Stark did it, but it would make sense, considering he probably wouldn't have simply died so early. Iron Man became very powerful after the Extremis mini-series, so it's possible.--Kaonashi 00:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How is that a Civil War death? The injuries, yes, but unless/until it's definitively stated that he died directly of those injuries it's speculation. The above comments by Mackeriv seem to cast some doubt on the actual cause of death. If Tony did kill him, that's a separate reason. CovenantD 02:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds about right to me. I think it should be removed. Cactusrob 16:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
On a side note, it also seems that the Happy Hogan article should be reworded to reflect the actual events depicted, rather than definitively state that Tony killed him. CovenantD 20:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

Do not use spoilers in subject heads. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Plunderer

Why remove him from the opponents? He was opposed to it, and was going to join the Secret Avengers until, um, you know...just because he's a villain is no reason to remove him. Thanos6 11:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

He was removed because he's dead, and put under the deaths category, where he belongs.76.214.174.71 04:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge for the SRU

I started the discussion for it over at Talk:Superhuman Restraint Unit. Just thought I would let you all know.Phoenix741 21:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the Superhuman Restraint Unit should be merged in the Registration acts (comics) article, not here †Bloodpack† 14:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistencies?

Over at [url=http://www.comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg]LITG[/url] a list has been compiled featuring all the contradictions in the Civil War series. Should it be featured here?

600 died at Stamford, mostly children OR 900 died at Stamford, 60 children.

Sue Richard leaves the Fantastic Four quietly, slipping away after giving Reed a seeing to and a nice meal, leaving a note. OR Sue Richards has a big barney, smashes the Baxter Building up and storms out. No note is referred to.

Iron Man tells Spider-Man that the Negative Zone prison is temporary. OR Iron Man tells Spider-Man that the Negative Zone prison is not temporary.

Iron Man and Captain America have a Final Meeting. OR Iron Man and Captain America have a Totally Different, Superfluous and Contradictory Final Meeting.

The Black Panther has the Ebony Sword OR The Black Knight has the Ebony Sword

xx As I recall it, BOTH are true. There are TWO Ebony Swords...

Solo is in Prison OR Solo is in the Six Pack

Spiderman escapes from Iron Man, get chased down and attacked by Jack O'Lantern until he is rescued by the Punisher and carried to the Anti-Reg HQ. OR Spiderman escapes from Iron Man, goes on Matt Lauer's show, making a speech about how he's changed his view on the Registration Act, and then joins the Anti-Reg group after meeting Captain America on a rooftop.

xx Again, BOTH are true. Spider Man escapes from Iron Man, gets chased down, attack by Jack O'Lantern and rescyed by Punisher and carrier to Anti-Reg. Joins the group and goes home to see his wife (he talks to MJ and she says 'You're okay unless you do something crazy like join them. Wait, you already did, didn't you?' and he just nods), goes on Matt Lauer's show, makes a big speech then joins Cap's ATTACK on the Baxter building.

GW Bridge is pulled out of retirement to hunt down the Punisher OR GW Bridge is in the Six Pack

Captain America gets codes for the Negative Zone Prison from Ryker Island OR Captain America gets a key for the Negative Zone Prison from Baron Zemo

Typeface gets sent to prison. OR Typeface gets killed.

xx Again, BOTH. He gets sent to prison, he gets freed by Cap (seen in a group shot in Civil War 6), big fight with Anti-Reg group spills into the streets (seen in Frontlines) and Typeface dies.

Captain America doesn't try to make a deal with villains before the Punisher shoots them OR Captain America makes a deal with villains before the Punisher shoots them

Cable leaves Captain America's side OR Cable stays on Captain America's side

Later, Sue Richards begs Namor to join Captain America's side and is rebuffed OR Earlier, Namor begs Black Panther to join Captain America's side

Scarecrow and Molten Man are working for the Government OR Scarecrow and Molten Man are working for The Chameleon. Marcantony 08:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Innnteresting... and further proof (it'd seem) that there are no working Editors at Marvel. --Dr Archeville 16:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Skrull Spoiler??

Ok, I'm reading about this Summer and Winter event in 2008 on the Civil War Wiki. Doesn't this just provide a big arse spoiler right here as to what's up with Mr Fantastic and Iron Man, that they're really Skrulls in disguise??Shin-Goji

ok um can i get a link to that, o and there is no prof so we can't say that.Phoenix741 03:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Hoax. A lie. The Skrulls are mostly dead anyways from Annihilation. Have been for weeks before Civil War started (Tom Breevort mentions Stamford happened about a month ago, the Skrulls were all mostly dead over 100 days BEFORE the Wave beats the United Front and Nova goes to Earth and sees Civil War).

That would be a terrible way to end it as well. Thelaststand3

It's definitely a hoax. I've taken the liberty of removing the Skrullocaust section from the article. I follow Newsarama very regularly and I'm positive I would know about anything like this. Additionally, "Skrullocaust" produces no results on Google at all. If this had been announced, it should produce at least a few. -Chickencha 07:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

So, I see that Max Keeble was warned to stop adding the "Skrullocaust" info at 19:55, and last added it at 21:05. Should he bee blocked at this point?--Bltpdx 21:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Max Keeble has been blocked so hopefully this hoax has stopped. Thomas lyon 21:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: Didn't work, it seems. Taniwha 21:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Overlapping?

What should be done about overlapping in the lists?

For example, Black Panther and Storm are both listed under "Foreign Opponents" AND Secret Avengers. Now yes, technically they are both but surely it is more prudent to simply list them under "Secret Avengers", since they are now in the USA? Likewise, Namor is listed as an "opponent" but in the main civil war book itself- which is what this article is based on- he has definitely staked out his neutrality.

Likewise Vulture is under "Thunderbolts" AND apprehended- but surely it should only be under one or the other, otherwise every member of the Thunderbolts Army would be under Apprehended Criminals as well.

Finally, the "Expatriates" category comes beneath "Opponents of Registration." However, The Thing has clearly stated he neither supports nor opposes it- surely he should only be in the neutrals section? And I hardly feel Doctor Strange is an expatriate- firstly I'm not sure about his American citizenship and secondly he's only in seclusion in his Arctic Lodge and is returning to America regardless of the victor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.158.100.107 (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC).


Civil War Comic List Entry

I was wondering if it would be appropriate to take the current list of Civil War comics on this article and rearrange them into a cronoligical order that they appear or they are supposed to occur, does anyone have a similar idea on this? - RVDDP2501 18:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Thelastsand3

Ok then, hmmm... so how should one go about doing that, i mean, I'm guessing one can't just go around and edit something like that, you have to get permission or something, right? also does anyone have one of those comic book checklists where it gives you the order? - RVDDP2501 19:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You can get it from Marvel.com on Civil War Gallery. They have the covers to each issue in the order they came out. Right from The Road To Civil War to now. 

Thelastsand3

Um... could you give me the link to the gallery, I can't seem to find it, sorry. So how do you think I, you, we or anyone for that matter should go about in terms of re-arranging the list? - RVDDP2501 00:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know Thelastsand3 link is right here[4]Phoenix741 00:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah! thank you Phoenix, hmmm.... yes, this appears to have every comic but sadly I can't get a clear idea as to the order in which the comics appear (sorry, I'm a little dyslexic), does anyone have a better understanding as to the exact order the comics appear so we may go about changing the page's comic listing into a cronological one? I have been hearing that the releases of the comics are NOT in the cronological order that they should be in comparision to each other, is this true? - RVDDP2501 00:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

They ARE in cronological order. Why would Marvel lie and put them wrong?

They go like this

  • 01. Amazing Spider-Man #529
  • 02. Amazing Spider-Man #530
  • 03. Amazing Spider-Man #531
  • 04. Fantastic Four #536
  • 05. New Avengers: Illuminati Special
  • 06. Civil War: Opening Shot Sketchbook
  • 07. Fantastic Four #537
  • 08. Civil War #1
  • 09. Marvel Spotlight: Mark Millar and Steve McNiv
  • 10. She-Hulk #8
  • 11. Wolverine #42
  • 12. Amazing Spider-Man #532
  • 13. Civil War: Front Line #1
  • 14. Thunderbolts #103
  • 15. Civil War #2
  • 16. Civil War: Front Line #2
  • 17. Amazing Spider-Man #533
  • 18. New Avengers #21
  • 19. Fantastic Four #538
  • 20. Wolverine #43
  • 21. X-Factor #8
  • 22. Civil War: Front Line #3
  • 23. Thunderbolts #104
  • 24. Civil War #3
  • 25. Civil War: X-Men #1
  • 26. Cable & Deadpool #30
  • 27. X-Factor #9
  • 28. New Avengers #22
  • 29. Black Panther #18
  • 30. Wolverine #44
  • 31. Civil War: Young Avengers & Runaways #1
  • 32. Daily Bugle Special Edition: Civil War
  • 33. Civil War: Front Line #4
  • 34. Amazing Spider-Man #534
  • 35. Fantastic Four #539
  • 36. Ms. Marvel #6
  • 37. Civil War: Front Line #5
  • 38. Thunderbolts #105
  • 39. Civil War: X-Men #2
  • 40. Heroes For Hire #1
  • 41. Wolverine #45
  • 42. New Avengers #23
  • 43. Cable & Deadpool #31
  • 44. Civil War: Young Avengers & Runaways #2
  • 45. Civil War Files
  • 46. Ms. Marvel #7
  • 47. Civil War #4
  • 48. Wolverine #46
  • 49. Civil War: X-Men #3
  • 50. Amazing Spider-Man #535
  • 51. Civil War: Front Line #6
  • 52. Civil War: Young Avengers & Runaways #3
  • 53. Heroes For Hire #2
  • 54. Cable & Deadpool #32
  • 55. Captain America #22
  • 56. Fantastic Four #540
  • 57. Civil War: Front Line #7
  • 58. Ms. Marvel #8
  • 59. Civil War: X-Men #4
  • 60. Wolverine #47
  • 61. New Avengers #24
  • 62. Civil War: Choosing Sides
  • 63. Captain America #23
  • 64. Heroes For Hire #3
  • 65. Black Panther #21
  • 66. Civil War: Young Avengers & Runaways #4
  • 67. Civil War #5
  • 68. New Avengers #25
  • 69. Iron Man #13
  • 70. Amazing Spider-Man #536
  • 71. Civil War: Front Line #8
  • 72. Wolverine #48
  • 73. Punisher War Journal #1
  • 74. Black Panther #22
  • 75. Captain America #24
  • 76. Civil War: War Crimes #1
  • 77. Iron Man #14
  • 78. Iron Man/Captain America: Casualties of War
  • 79. Fantastic Four #541
  • 80. Civil War: Front Line #9
  • 81. Winter Soldier: Winter Kills
  • 82. Black Panther #23
  • 83. Civil War #6
  • 84. Civil War: Front Line #10
  • 85. Amazing Spider-Man #537
  • 86. Punisher War Journal #2
  • 87. Thunderbolts #110
  • 88. Blade #5
  • 89. Fantastic Four #542
  • 90. Civil War: The Return #1
  • 91. Punisher War Journal #3
  • 92. Moon Knight #7

Thelastsand3

Hey thanks for uploading the list, I really appreciate it but osomething else is bugging me, I fond a picture of a check list for the civil war and it doesn't quite follow the list on marvel, could you give me you e-mail address so I could send it to you or would you suggest I upload it here and paste the link here in this discussion page? - RVDDP2501

Just upload on to here, and thanks for sorting out the list. So much easier to read. Thelastsand3

thumb|left|Civil War List

here it is - RVDDP2501 22:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah at the end of some of the Civil War books they put in a checklist but due to delays, that's not correct. Thelastsand3

OH! there were delays! I did not know that, huh... so with later check lists, It should be corrected and the list you have here from Marvel itself is correct, ok thanks really for clearing that up, so now thats been settled, so should we insert this list into the main page due to it being in order? I'a asking cause I don't like to anger people - RVDDP2501 17:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey something some one just showed me has be confused, you say the list on marvel is correct but someone just showed me their books after looking at the list, the list has Civl War 6 (83) before Punisher 2 (86) but in punisher, he shots some villians and captain america beats him up, then in civil war 6, the beating continues, so does that mean the list is wrong?! (I'm really confused :-( ) - RVDDP2501 18:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Those are only in release order. As I recall, CW:YA&RW occured all before Civil War 3. THey just couldn't relase them all at that time. While this list is mostly in order, somethings do need to be moved around. The Placebo Effect 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok so the main question is which order is correct the one at Marvel.com, the checklist or something else I have failed to mention? what do you think Placebo? - RVDDP2501 22:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

unfurtunently, many of the issues happen at the same time, or depict the same event. Sadly their is no officallist of the order but if someone Buys ALL 100+ (including road to Civil War and Casualties of War) and spends a weekend finding out the order, we won't know for sure. The Placebo Effect 22:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah... I see, hmmm.... any clue as to when the event will come to a close or when all the issues will be avaliable cause I understand what you are saying, I just think it would be easier for those who are now beginning to experience this event for the first time (myself included) can be able to know how and where to start and continue. - RVDDP2501 01:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A torrent group called Royal Scanners tried their best to create their own checklist but like even the official one from Marvel, that went tits up when the delays kicked in. Not only that but additional hired writers, their contributions, the inclusion of new titles into the mix (Blade, I'm looking at you) and the apparent deletion of others (...that goes for you too, Moon Knight) has made it impossible to track the release of any title, especially the smaller, less popular ones, accurately. If anyone knows of the most current checklist out there, it may be worthwhile either creating a link to it or uploading a gif to print alongside the wiki. I'll give it til the end of the week for someone else (er, youse guys!) to decide - else I'll go ahead and do it. Nuff said.

As for when the series comes to a close, provisional dates are saying March with a Battle Damage Report issue due in February. However, Joe Quesada has stated in interviews that if sales continue, the writers keep coming up with the kinds of storylines they have been doing and if the big conclusion Marvel has bigger ramifications than expected, then he's more than prepared to carry it on through til the summer. My advice? Start buying now cos otherwise you may be waiting a long while for 'the end'. And don't just torrent the lot in one go when its all done - that's cheating. And quite sad, actualy. Out. Thumbsucker-UK 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

redundant linkages

this article needs major clean up, especially the repeated links of the artists given in the footnotes †Bloodpack† 21:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about those, but one way to clean them up would be to insert <ref name="fill in with a name"> to the first citation, and then <ref name="fill in a name"/> for all other citations from the same source. But, why I'm here is because citations 31 and 32 are dead links. They have no source, but have several common sources listed. Someone may have deleted the original. They need to be removed or corrected. Also, I don't see a need to have a citation for everyone that was in the comic, that's overly redundant. Common editors for the page are probably familiar with the comic and can verify if someone adds a wrong name. Bignole 02:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
the reason why i brought this up because i repeatedly see red links for "mark morales", and then steven mcniven, dexter vines, etc...arent they already mentioned (and linked) in the first part (above) of the article? plus i dont want to touch the coding for cite/referencing, i dont know how to do them †Bloodpack† 14:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposition

I propose that a page be created for all the Civil War One-Shots, such as The Return, War Crimes, and The Initiative, so that readers can catch up on the plot of these pivotal comics without having to go through multiple articles. It would also unclude New Avengers: Illuminati and Civil War: Opening Shot.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 20:00, 22 January 2007 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 22 January 2007

I'm not so sure. Once this article calms down, some of those might be better incorporated here, with the one-off titles added as redirects? --Mrph 20:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Molten Man

Is there really any reason to believe that Molten Man is a Thunderbolt recruit rather than a typical registeree? He hasn't been a criminal for some time, so it's not like he would have been arrested and forced into it.

I dunno - he was 'maimed' by the Punisher...SaliereTheFish 19:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's more the fact that he was clearly said to be working with Scarecrow, who was a T-bolt recruit, and they've all been only working together with SHIELD soldiers.75.13.53.50 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The Number 42

Is this really what the comic has lsited? it seems a little out there, but, as I do not have access to the comics, I cannot say. Is that a joke, or actually what the storlyine has?TheGreenFaerae 07:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Civil War 7 will explain what the number 42 means. It's actually just a random thing. Brand Eks 07:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"Non-existent" Howard the Duck

ok once again we see another edit war on wikipedia.

all the useless stuff on howard the duck has been removed at least 2 times(once by me and once by an IP address). So since this guy has decided to change it back again, not to mention vandalize my user page(although i did get a quick laugh out of it). SO what do you all think, keep or remove?Phoenix741 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Leave it off. No one else has explainations like that on this page, and someone can visit the page of the character in question if they want to know the details, just like everyone else on the list.75.13.41.237 16:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
All characters are Non Existent in the real world. Howard has been judged non existent by the government. Unless you clarify the title, all superheros should be listed under this category. James1961 17:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
When we say who is on which side we are talking about in the marvel U, so what we are saying when we put Non-existent is that he doese not exist in the marvel U(as stated by the amrvel U Gov), then when people see that they will wonder why that is, and then look up additional info.Phoenix741 19:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Without the context of a short explanation of a singular "non-existent" status, it becomes fannish "babble talk" which unfortunately, describes the majority of comicbook articles in Wikipedia. No one is going to click on the Howard link to read up on his status unless he/she is already a fan or is already familiar with the character. It all depends if you intend to write sort of Wikipedia articles (The Civil war (comics), 52 etc.) - walled garden type articles for fans OR for the general Wikipedia populace (Featured article status). Frankly, Howard is completely superfluous to the Civil War storyline (short of a surprise appearance in Civil War #7); you might as well remove him now rather than clutter up the article with obscure non-contextual fannish trivia. --Eqdoktor 08:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed him completely from the article just now. The very definition of "non-existent" indicates ZERO importance status to the Civil War storyline. --Eqdoktor 08:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Having us argue about his status like this is very much in keeping with his character (laughs). I used to have some of his original comics from the 70s- the one in which he is in an insane asylum (and KISS shows up) and the appearance of Dr. Bong. Its been ages (I'm old). Cheers - looking forward to CW #7. --Eqdoktor 08:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
trust me, when this series is all over, all the "not so important" characters will be removed (not only howard duck for that matter). this article will get a major clean up, leaving only the main plot of the story. the rest will be removed and the associated external links will be the only main point of reference for additional reading if the readers would want further informations, because having too much details in this article and having multitude external links all at the same time seems kinda redundant and a waste of wikipedia space. amen †Bloodpack† 22:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

amen?? anyway yea i am glad that the clean-up will happen, but since this is something that is supposed to affect the entire marvel U, i think we should keep the list of who was involved, just to convey that pointPhoenix741 23:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

lol, uhm...yeah, i mean, those who really had "major" participation in the civil war should remain, and the rest who didnt do anything notable to the war shouldnt have a broad coverage †Bloodpack† 00:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. It's comics nerd minutiae and it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It will most likely be deleted once this is over. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Final Battle

Should the Final Battle of the CW get it's own article? Normally I would say no but "The Battle of Metropolis", the final battle of DC's Infinite Crisis, got it's own article despite changing a lot less. I think either the Battle of Metropolis article should be removed or one should be created after Civil War #7 for The Final Battle of Civil War, given it's massive importance to the future of the Marvel Universe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.129.24.252 (talk) 12:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Yeah I think it should be given it's own page. Thelaststand

lets see what happens with the last battle, the battle of metroplis have almost every single super powered human in the DC universe. The final battle here may not be as big, i say before we decided what to make we should see what the writers have planed.Phoenix741 19:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

-The Final Battle here has almost every single major super hero in the Marvel Universe as well as a lot of villains- not to mention that Frontline #10 clearly shows that it spills into New York. It may not be quite as big a scale as the Battle of Metropolis but it will probably have at least as much impact. But it's true we should read the upcoming issues about it first.

-As lame and as horrible a "battle" as that this one was, no way should it get its own page. I think most people would like to pretend this never happened!


-Well think away, but I'm afraid "lame and horrible" doesn't classify. This was a giant battle in the middle of New York by several hundred super-beings, with many losses and which changed the Marvel Universe. It has at least AS MUCH of a right to an article as the "Battle of Metorpolis", which had virtually no impact whatsoever.

You're right'; I will take a look at the Battle of Metropolis article and see if it actually should be an article. Good points. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I questioned the validity of the Battle of Metropolis article almost 9 months ago, so you have my support to remove any extraneous info and merge it into Infinite Crisis. I don't think any battle within a storyline deserves it's own article. CovenantD 21:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And so, the clean up begins...

Well, this should be interesting to say the least....Goldenboy|talk|contribs 17:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGriswold (talk • contribs) 22:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

the TPB list, external links and the sprawling list of members of each side should get an overhaul/trimming †Bloodpack† 06:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just making sure of this, i know that every one who had a cameo appearances (ie:someone who you see in 1 panel and that is all) should be cleaned out, but what about beyond that, what is going to constitute being cleaned out, like howard the duck, is he going to be gone, or because he was in that one shot, should he stay in the list?Phoenix741 18:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Kill the personnel lists. They are autistic in their detail, and they discuss characters in a very perihperal way, in that characters are only listed by their status at the end of the series. This article is about the entire story. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree remove all the lists. Whatever purpose they have had to provide overview information to those following the series is now over. They are now massive uninformative space hogs in this article. This weekend in New York is the New York Con, and Joe Q and company are starting it off Friday (Feb 23rd) at 5:30 with information about what happens after Civil War looking to the future. Let's follow their lead and bury the past :-) -Markeer 01:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

what about the sprawling list of TPBs? arent they also kinda autistic? its like wikipedia is a bookshop with it, plus the redundant external links †Bloodpack† 07:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing. Yeah, I think those need to go. The section's big enough to make splitting it off a question, but an article version of that section just would be deleted. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
(In best Picard voice) "Make it so."
Seriously, I've long been against the inclusion of TPB listings in articles, and it's even worse in this case because a full bibliography of the original run comics is just above the TPB list. This is nothing more than collector-cruft. CovenantD 09:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
My other issue with the TPB section is that all of them are scheduled for future publication. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it is always possible that Marvel may decide not to print one or more of the planned books. I've removed that section as of [this edit] -Markeer 12:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
with regard to the external links section, i think most of them already refers to the reference section given which is why its redundant to have the reference section and then duplicating these infos with these external links. also i would like to comment on the linkages of this article, (i.e. mark morales or steven mcniven), when a person's name is already given and linked in the first part of the article/paragraph, i personally believe that it shouldnt be linked again when its mentioned again in the succeeding sentences, because we tend to see repeated red links (especially when theres no available article for it) all over this article. what do you guys think? †Bloodpack† 10:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Both of your suggestions are in line with style guidelines. If a source is used as a reference, it shouldn't also appear as an external link. Wiki-linking should usually only happen the first time a word, phrase or name appears in the text of an article (names in picture captions are usually linked regardless). CovenantD 10:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You have GOT to be kidding me. The whose on which side is incredibly important and a very interesting an informative research. I am infuriated by this decision. There is no other place one can get this sort of information anyway, if there was, and there was a link here to it, that would be satisfactory. But until there is, that information is completely relevant and necessary to the storyline. Madhackrviper 23:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the best way to get that sort of information about the storyline is to read it. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
So, every time I need that piece of information I am to 1. Shell out the cash to buy every Civil War related book and 2. Scan through it to find who's on which side? I don't think so, I mean, if this was true, what's the point of even HAVING this article? I could learn the plot by picking up the books. Easy access to useful information, this to me is the point of the Wikipedia. But hey, I'm a hardcore inclusionist fighting against the terrible deletionist majority. I don't quite understand how deleting information and being more concise makes sense in a Wiki... it's electronic, we aren't printing this thing. I will never understand deletionist philosophy. To me this seems like useful information that lies at the very center of the Civil War conflict. Madhackrviper 23:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The lists should come back. Thanos6 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
As the information I wanted was specifically what were the tie-ins involved in the event I'm pretty pissed about needing to root through the history of the article to find a bibliography. I thought encyclopedia articles were supposed to be encyclopaedic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.29.203.145 (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

I think the list's just should come back too. They were very helpful to me. Thelaststand3 19:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The current up-to-date list of participants can be found here: http://www.marveldatabase.com/Civil_War#Notable_Participants -24.224.227.20 11:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be good enough. As long as the source is out there. Is that link in the article. Madhackrviper 04:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC) Sorry, that's not the right date, I forgot to sign the first time around.
I find the list of all comics or trade paperbacks involved to be quite helpful because if you are an avid collector like myself I want to be able to track down all the books involved in a given story arc. Marvel or DC are not always the best place to find this stuff and Wikipedia has done great so far by allowing that. I've actually started adding the list of books involved back to the Civil War page because it was such a cosmic event that people will be curious about it for time to come. HEdwards2007 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Earth 616?

This is probably the dumbest question in the world but, please bear with me. Does does this entire conflict take place on Earth 616, the main Marvel continuity? Just curious. Please don't crucify me for not knowing. --- Me 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Unlike the House of M, where there is a bit of ambiguity (blame Exiles), the Civil War very definitely happened on 616. 80.176.4.125 11:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Some heros

Where is Ghost rider, deadpool, and Blade in this?--Yowiki 16:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Rider and Blade are not involved, and Deadpool verges on irrelevant. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Where is The Fantastic Four, Ms.Marvel, Thor, and Electra?--Yowiki 01:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the story??
Right on Fantastic 4
Ms. Marvel became a soldier and a patiot. Calling her a fascist is like saying police and firemen are fascists.
Thor clone was destroyed by Hercules. Thor himself is back on the scene.
Electra is still dead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.132.24 (talk) 06:58, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Being a soldier and a patriot is two of the main condition for being a facist. Like the german or italian in the 30s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.250.134.242 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because dogs have four legs doesnt mean everything with four legs is a dog. Although fascists are often patriotic soldiers, not all patriotic soldiers are fascists. Also, you really dont need to be a soldier to be a fascist.

You all are confusing. I'm of the opinion the pro-registration 'heros' are fascists. That doesn't mean I think all soldiers are. Lots42 00:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Punisher's new souvenir

What is the importance of the Punisher picking up Captain America's soiled mask? If you cannot answer without a "maybe", it doesn't belong in the article. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to show what happened to the punisher.Phoenix741 22:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

How is that relevant to Civil War? CovenantD 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. Punisher is there for like two seconds. Nothing he does really affects the plot of the series. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Didn't he save spider-man?Phoenix741 23:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, but his involvement was so small that it could have been anyone without affecting the story much. His killing the villains and bringing Spider-Man is pretty inconsequential. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Yea well I don't think to writers would put it in there unless they were going to to do something with him. I know that is close to the line of "maybe" but it makes sense.Phoenix741 23:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, the series is over and it never proved significant. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
So what if something happens that makes it significant, out of the series, like in the war journal or something? Then would it be added in, cause if that is the case then i will drop the disscussion till that happens.Phoenix741 02:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
If we eventually do a section about the series' lasting effects, then if that becomes important, it will go there. I think that a lot of people misunderstand the purpose of synopses; they are there to give a general explanation of the plot. Character moments, planning scenes, etc, do not belong in these, among other things. Any sort of detail deemed important that does not pertain to the actual plot of the series needs to go in another section for cited analysis. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
okPhoenix741 03:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

remember waht i said before about something significent happening? wel........ look at this. Even if it is just a costume change I think it is significant.Phoenix741 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

True, but t doesn't actually affect the storyline of this already published comic series. Like I said, if anything, it would go in an "effects" section. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reactions

Is there going to be a section for reactions to Civil War? There's one for House of M. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.186.131.65 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

I believe it may be too early to gauge reactions. While I hated the series, I'm not a qualified source! Once legitimate sources (that can be cited) give their opinions, then the section could be added.

I'm listing below a list of on line comic book critics, please gauge as to whether or not they are legitimate:

http://www.thexaxis.com/misc/civilwar7.htm http://www.popcultureshock.com/index.php?p=41030 http://whedonesque.com/comments/12541#163927 http://www.wizarduniverse.com/magazine/wizard/003625615.cfm --Roamingwilderness 16:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Whedonesque is a fansite, so no. I can tell you what Wizard will say: "Yay, Marvel! We love our advertisers! The Wizard Store has lots in stock, and our price guide says these are valuable, so you should buy them!"--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

-Why those sites any more than the likes of IGN are Comixfan which gave it very positive reviews? I mean, of the two non fan sites you listed, both BLASTED it but certainly are no more high profile than IGN, comixtreme or Comixfan! If there are any, they must be well listed.

Okay then list them. Wikipedia is set up so that every one can contribute positive and negative information.

Reasons for Spider-Man swapping sides

The current text reads: "After realizing the fortune Tony Stark is making from the armaments used to capture unregistered superhumans and realizing that unregistered heroes are being denied their rights"

However, this is msot definitely inaccurate. Firstly because he gives neither reason when telling Tony Stark while he's leaving in the main series (He cites the death of Goliath and the idea of keeping people in the Negative Zone) and secondly because it is based off a conversation in an issue of Amazing Spider-Man which has been retconned. The "fortune" Stark was making is contraversial since the entire war profiteer storyline has yet to be resolved, and did little to influence Peter. Also, the heroes are NOT denied their rights- since said conversation was the only source of this and it has been retconned. When I attempted to edit this, it was edited back.

I suggest text more like "After considering the implications of Goliath's death at the hands of the Thor Cyborg and keeping unregistered heroes in the Negative Zone..." since this is definitely true, is the reason he himself gives, and is not shaky in terms of whather or not it still holds after retconning.

What do you mean it has been retconned? It just came out. Peter Parker reacts negatively to Stark's profits, the NZ prison, and the revoking of prisoners' rights ASM 535. Bill Foster is not mentioned. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I mean it has been retconned. When Spider-Man swaps sides in the MAIN SERIES, he definitely mentions Bill Foster and the NZ Prison. In this self-same issue, it is stated that the Negative Zone Prison is a very temporary measure, backed up by the editors and writer and confirmed in civil war #7. The latter is a direct contrast to Amazing Spider-Man #535, ergo at least some parts of that conversation have been retconned, throwing all of it into doubt. It is a safer option to go with the one given by the main book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.210.73 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Civil War: The Initiative

is this a one-shot or a mini-series? i noticed that this is also included in the civil war tie-in section †Bloodpack† 19:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a one-shot, and Avengers: The Initiative is a mini, don't quote me on that though.Phoenix741 19:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
okay, so i guess its also part of the civil war article, right? but what about this upcoming "Initiative" arch and its tie-ins, should it be a separate article from the civil war? (i.e. Avengers Disassembled to Decimation to House of M) †Bloodpack† 20:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Well since it is not part of either Avengers title, i think it should get its own page, cause it is a big deal with that whole 50 state thing going into affect.Phoenix741 20:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

absolutely, but the problem is, "The Initiative" is just a caption title for the comicbook titles involved, theres no definite comicbook for it †Bloodpack† 21:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yea there is, [5] check April, May and June.Phoenix741 21:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think The Initiatve should get it's on page. It's going to have such a massive impact on the Marvel Universe which will change it for ever. A superteam in each state? That's pretty amazing. Thelaststand34

It's only amazing if it happens, if it lasts and if it actually plays a major ongoing role in Marvel's comics instead of being discreetly ignored. There are all sorts of amazing features in the MU which don't get mentioned terribly often these days. All we can do is wait 'til it sees print, then judge its importance from there. The current storm of hype makes it relatively notable, as Marvel are putting a lot of effort into it - but whether it succeeds and/or lasts is another matter. --Mrph 21:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A quote we ought to use somewhere...

Writer Mark Millar describing Civil War as "a story where a guy wrapped in the American flag is in chains as the people swap freedom for security"[6]... opinions? It's a nice soundbite (as you'd expect from Millar) and I think it'd be very useful in summarising the author's perception of the crossover. --Mrph 19:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Definitely. A lot more relevant to out-of-universe perspective than the entire rest of the article. In fact, in looking the article over, I see that there is no mention of how it has any real world relevance - a big oversight for something this laden with themes. His work in the industry gives him a perspective that could be considered notable. CovenantD 22:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the Civil War over?

After the issue of Civil War #7, does this mean the civil war has come to an end or can we expect this to continue for a long, long time? - RVDDP2501 21:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

well the main war itself is over (although there will still be some resistance as per New Avengers #28), but its effects will continue to span through the entire marveldom for the years to come †Bloodpack† 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Who's Who and genral recap

Is there an article listing which characters are on what side and that kind of thing? The whole story is so messy, and complicated by the fact that you can't really follow all that's going on unless you get all the crossover comics involved, that such a recap would be welcome... Actually, I think I saw one once, but can't remember it it was in this article or another, related one. so, is there one? --Svartalf 22:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It's an unreliable mess, and it's all spoilers, but yes, it's here. Check the history. How is it difficult to keep people clear? I felt McNiven did a good job of representing which characters were on which side. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I miss the two lists of which heroes were on which side, is there a way to get that back? JackalsIII (talk) 18:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Publication history/Critical reaction

Now that the article has been trimmed, anybody want to put together a Publication history and Critical reaction section(s)? CovenantD 07:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd be up for having a go at that. I know that this won't be an exact match for the WP:CMC/X format, as it's not really a single series, but would we want to put critical reaction under an Impact heading? That way we can put the things using Civil War as a model/springboard - Spider-Man's current woes, the upcoming Initiative crossover and the various new series - under that too. --Mrph 19:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Just putting in something is a good start; the material that comes together will determine the exact wording of the header(s). Thanks. CovenantD 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Civil War

My contribution regarding the similarity between the Superhuman registration act and the cards therein with those of City of Heroes/Villains is valid. Please do not remove it in the future. Warwolf 05:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis "spoiler" template

correct me if im wrong but since the series is all over, should we remove the "spoiler" template? †Bloodpack† 14:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

not really, just because it is all out does not mean that everyone has read it.Phoenix741 15:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

i understand, so when do we get to remove it? when i was browsing some films and comicbook related articles i noticed that they still have spoiler templates in them even when theyre 3 already years over (pardon my english) †Bloodpack† 15:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
well think of it this way, even if it is 10 years old, people still may not of read it, and there fore when they read the article it will be a spoiler to them. I have not read the Maximum Caranage Storyline, so what ever i saw about it on here would be a spoiler.Phoenix741 15:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
gotcha ;) no wonder its called "spoil"; in foods when its 10 years older its definitely "spoiled" =D †Bloodpack† 15:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
well yea, but the difference between comics and food is, good food goes bad after 10 years, good comics after 10 years are worth over 200$ 8-P.Phoenix741 15:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
...and Watchmen (last issue published in Oct 87) still has spoiler warnings in place, for example. Things to consider for this include whether or not the spoiler leads into other things, I'd imagine. Watchmen stands alone - whereas the new status quo at the end of Civil War will be repeatedly mentioned throughout Marvel's books for the next few months (at least) and will be an essential part of the background for some stories. --Mrph 18:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Variant covers and second printings

...does this really belong under the Bibliography heading with the full list of issues, or should it be covered as part of the History section? Or some mix of the two? --Mrph 19:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it does.Phoenix741 23:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

well, i think it does since the bibliography section comprises of the books that were published and the related tie-ins. as for the history, i find it odd looking at its content, where its all about the scheduled delays. correct me if im wrong, but isnt that supposed to be "the history" of civil war from its first inception? that should contain production notes from the writers? the "history" title doesnt fit with the corresponding content, should we amend it to the "overview" section? †Bloodpack† 14:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal - Civil War: The Initiative

It's a one-shot epilogue bridging the gap between Civil War and the various series spinning out of it. I don't think it deserves an article in its own right. Possibly The Initiative does, as an event, but that's not what this one is (and it's probably too soon to say, anyway...?). --Mrph 00:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Discussion

I think that the two pages should be merged for now, until it's made clear how big of an event that this is. If it's big enough to continue as its own page, then it should be. For now, there are only a few issues out dealing with the Initiative, so I think it's too early to make a decision. It feels like more of a denouement to CW right now. MikeBC 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge - It's time to merge all of the minor CW limited series articles here. The Initiative section might be split off again later, but for now, it's still part of Civil War, and I don't believe that crossover is officially over. Don't these books still have the CW trade dress? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
are you also saying that the Avengers: The Initiative and Mighty Avengers should also be merged here because they both have something to do with Civil War? †Bloodpack† 00:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I think what he is saying is that, anything with the words "Civil War" in the title should be merged, well any one shots at least.Phoenix741 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
and with the word "Initiative" should also be together? Point is, when marvel announced this civil war event, they have also released (May or June) all its related books (through the Daily Bugle July issue) including their scheduled releases (we even have delayed schedules). Civil War: The Initiative is not part of that release. Now, theyre planning this "Initiative" story arc as a post civil war event and the one-shot called Civil War: The Initiative is part of it including the Avengers: Initiative, Mighty Avengers, etc. so theres a difference between the "actual" war and the "post" war arc. just because the book is tagged as "civil war", doesnt mean its also part of the whole civil war bibliography. My argument is based on the Daily Bugle issues they (marvel) have published with the list of books and its scheduled releases †Bloodpack† 01:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Ask him, not me.Phoenix741 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
=/ thats why i used a single colon, if i used 4, its directed to you †Bloodpack† 01:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
o........... my bad.Phoenix741 02:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

In itself, The Initiative one-shot isn't much, and I'd probably vote to merge, or even merge to Avengers: The Initiative, but what about the upcoming Civil War: Fallen Son 4 issue series, or Civil War: The Confession? Are these also to be included in the Civil War article? -- NYArtsnWords 23:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

like i said, the main "scope" of this main Civil War arc can be found in the checklist of Daily Bugle: Civil War Edition (July 2006 release). It has all the tie-ins and titles related in the Civil War arc. Now, Civil War: The Initiative is not in that list and it was only later released now (February 2007) as part of The Initiative post war arc. If you want to merge this article, fine. But merge it to The Initiative titles (which the checklist can also be found in the Daily Bugle February issue), but not here...This title belongs in the post war arc, not here.
As per the Civil War: Fallen Son 4 issue series and Civil War: The Confession, they all belong in the post war arc, including Civil War: The Initiative. Doesnt mean theyre labeled as "civil war" they already belong here. It should be clear that this article is about the 7-part series with tie-ins related to *duh* 7-part series. I kept on removing synopsis thats not part in the 7 issues including Capt. America's death. (god!). Do you guys intend to branch this arc up to the World War Hulk? (which can also be said related to the civil war when the illuminati exiled him) †Bloodpack† 01:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Result

Discussion closed, with a decision to Keep No Consensus to merge. --Mrph 06:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooops - sorry about that. With votes so evenly split, I think 'No Consensus' is the more appropriate summary. --Mrph 06:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoilers

I suggest the spoiler tag be extended... There was info, particularly about Captain America, that some people may not be aware of yet. 24.159.210.124 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tag extended. 134.29.6.7 15:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ghost Rider?

I noticed a couple of new Ghost Rider comics have a Civil War banner on the top of the cover, but after reading the comic I have no idea if it actually had anything to do with the Civil War storyline. Is there any good reason for there to be a Civil War logo on there? Did this happen for other Marvel titles too? 24.159.210.124 22:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he fights Jack O'Lantern, who was killed by the Punisher in CW. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

List of TPB's

It would be really good if someone could put a list together of all the tie-in's like on the page for House of M - a very useful resource. I have got a list of 20 by trawling amazon but not confident it is complete.

I added a list of TPB's that have been announced by Marvel so far. Cross-checking against the tie-ins listed here I believe it to be complete. Now if we can just keep people from deleting it twice a day  ;)

Vandalism

i discovered this text: A new group of New Warriors emerges, however it bears little resemblance to the original group and will likely be another subpar Marvel title released for the sole purpose of flooding the market with unimagitive storylines so they can take more money from gullible comic book fans who enjoy having their intelligence insulted. (Weaponbb7 01:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC))

I've found that this entry, for some reason it doesn't display when I try and edit it, it reverts to the older one when I try and change it. After the publication of Civil War #7, Mark Millar was interviewed by Newsarama and described the event as "a story where I took a giant piss over everything that the superheroes in the Marvel universe have ever stood for." ",[15] agreeing that a "certain amount of political allegory"[15] was present but that the real focus of the book was on superheroes fighting each other. Contrasting it with The Ultimates, Millar stated that Civil War was "accidentally political because I just cannot help myself".208.248.33.30 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
That's been removed a couple of times now. Hopefully it won't be changed back again. --Mrph 06:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
dang, i thought that word "piss" is part of millar's statement thats why i didnt remove it †Bloodpack† 13:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you got rid of the vandalism and it is all good. right?Phoenix741 22:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

SHRA status of major characters

didn't we agree to get rid of this?Phoenix741 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

yup, should we remove it again? †Bloodpack† 13:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I think it should be removed, too.--Galliaz 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And if not removed, it should at least be done accurately. This one is WILDLY inaccurate- for one thing the number of remaining non-registered characters is miniscule.

I don't see why it should be removed, since it bears relevance on the article. As for its accuracy, I based in on the information from Civil War and Civil War Battle Damage Report. If there are characters who were non-registered by then changed their minds after the miniseries, then feel free to update the article by listing them in the Converted Rebels section, with a notation that they registered after the miniseries. :-) Nightscream 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

a concensus has been reached ---> [7] †Bloodpack† 18:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't know that. Which section on that page is it? Thanks. Nightscream 00:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I consider it strange that the site has this information, but doesn't have the list of Involved And Listed comics. 24.141.134.4

Event vs. limited series

If the consensus is that this article is about the limited series, not the entire event, shouldn't the intro paragraph be amended? From "Civil War is a Marvel Comics summer 2006 and winter 2006/2007 crossover event, based around a core limited series of the same name" to "Civil War is a Marvel Comics limited series, published as the core of of a summer 2006 and winter 2006/2007 crossover event of the same name" or something similar? --Mrph 07:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

"Civil War is a Marvel Comics summer 2006 and winter 2006/2007 crossover event based around a core limited series (7 issues) of the same name"
errr...i think the initial sentence is just fine (for me at least). It means that this 7-part core/main limited series is Marvel's summer 2006 and winter 2006/2007 event along with tie-ins supporting the main 7-issue arc. †Bloodpack† 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Reaction

I've removed the following recent addition:

"Though a success financially for Marvel, Civil War generally received overwhelmingly negative reaction from top to bottom. The book was criticized from top to bottom, from the senseless deaths of the New Warriors, to the outright villainous transformations of Mr. Fantastic and Iron Man, the countless delays in publication of the main mini-series (leading in turn to several of the main tie-in books, most notably "Amazing Spider-Man", "Punisher War Journal", and "Fantastic Four" being delayed due in order to prevent the tie-ins from spoiling the main book), ignorance of past continuity (most notably Mr. Fantastic supporting super-hero registration, which directly contradicted a previous storyline in Fantastic Four, where Reed Richards outright states his disdain for the concept of forced registration, citing the fact that it was both impossible to carry out and to impliment), to the fact that Millar's main script for the storyline featured numerous plotholes and omitted scenes (most notably, the series turning scene where Spider-Man decides to betray Iron Man) from the main mini-series that made reading the storyline outright impossible without having to read the tie-in stories."

The paragraph is unsourced (for example, providing no citations to the "overwhelmingly negative reaction"), is subjective, and contains statements of personal opinion pretending to be substantiatable facts. (For example, "ignorance of past continuity" and "plotholes".)--Galliaz 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Do I need to go about providing links to the vast litany of discussion pointing out the discussion the various plotholes, Millar ignoring established continuity with the various main characters, and such? BakerBaker

Millar the bold face liar

Millar's already in ass-covering mode regarding Civil War and his comments should be ammended with the truth, IE not only did he write Stark in a manner that was universally considered villainous to everyone reading the book but that also that Millar wrote the Civil War with so many plot holes that writers like JMS had to use their tie-in issues to fill in major holes in the narrative, making Millar's excuse redundant since he wasn't doing his job as writer and had to have others do his work for him.

1) Post new comments at the bottom of the page, not the top. 2) Sign your comments. 3) No personal attacks. 4) The talk page is for discussing the article and how to improve it: it is not a bulletin board for posting your opinions about the subject of the article. Your post is almost vandalism. Richard75 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed the entire section of "Millar's comments". The quotes from the overview section serve the purpose better than those inflamitory comemnts Millar gave (which have already been denounced by many on the internet as being Millar shilling his own hype) from that section......... BakerBaker

Yeah, but what you wrote is totally POV. I mean, considering I know at least one fan who was on the Tony Stark side of the issue the whole way through the series (me), I'd say "universally considered villainous" is a very POV statement.HXcGeek 07:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems like most (though not all) people who read the whole series do find it difficult to believe that Millar thought he was giving the pro-reg side a "better rep." I think this is relevant information and should be included, if an NPOV source can be found. Do any surveys of fan reactions to comics actually exist?Jefepato 17:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis Cleanup

The Synopsis section needs cleaning up. It's really long and wordy and disorganized and is just a retelling of it all, and is not encyclopedic. I'm putting on a cleanup tag. --zandperl 16:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and this is *after* I spent a half hour reading the section and fixing a billion copyedits. Many more still need to be done. --

zandperl 16:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the whole dang Synopsis section should be wiped clean and rewritten, if that made sense. The synopsis as it is, is uneditable in my opinion.

Lots42 05:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I edited the synopsis down by cutting out info from the ancillary titles: this follows the example the entry for DC's Infinite Crisis.--Galliaz 12:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The synopsis is ridiculous! I clearly reiterated previously that the contents in the synopsis basically should focus on the events that happened within the 7-part series. People are including events that didnt happen in the 7-issues, incorporating synopsis summaries that happened in the tie-ins. Keep in mind that this 7 issues is the main Civil War story arc. These tie-ins are just supporting events to the main story arc †Bloodpack† 14:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Hulk

Where the hell was the Hulk during this mess? --User:Atomic Religione

He was in space. Little thing called Planet Hulk.

Ahhh I see, even if he was there doubt he'd side with anybody and just beat everybody up. --User;Atomic Religione

Civil War tie-ins list

There seems to be quite a number of duplicate entries scattered around, for example, Civil War Files, which appears in #3 and #5. Does anyone have a more up-to-date list so that list can be arranged better? Marvel did a checklist by month, before they gave up on it due to being late with books, although they've released a trade paperback checklist, which doesn't really help with individual issues... Sera404 13:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Stamford, Connecticut

Should we add something about the Civil War on that page seeing how important it is, like add in to the triva section or something?Phoenix741 15:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

what are we going to add? †Bloodpack† 17:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Just like "Stamford was also used in the fictional marvel universe as the start of the civil war, during which the super vilian nitro belw it up" or something like that.Phoenix741 21:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
err...well in that case, it should go to the stamford article †Bloodpack† 21:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That is what I was asking? If it would be ok to do that.Phoenix741 22:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
i think its ok, feel free to add a trivia section to the stamford article, lets just hope editors there wont bombard you with so many blah blahs †Bloodp</shpan>ack† 13:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like some one already beat me to the punch, o well.Phoenix741 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Collections List is ugly

The collections list looks stupid, there is far too much information there and it's listed with the author first. I know for normal novels author comes first but this is a comic book series, it would be much more aesthetic to have the title of the book listed first. Also there seems to be so much information there, if it is all necessary wouldn't a grid make it easier on the eye so that all the information is broken up nicely. Tony2Times 17:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

In late November, Marvel announced another delay:Civil War' Yanni Papas' #6, originally scheduled for release in December 20, was pushed back two weeks and released in January 4. Unlike the previous instance, only The Punisher War Journal #2 was delayed.

If someone could edit that because, as far as I know, there is no Yanni Papas book. And yes, I've read the "Be Bold," but I haven't familiarized myself with everything yet, so I'd rather not edit it myself. 134.68.175.249 15:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Uncited Information

"The end of Civil War had a polarizing effect on Marvel's readers with the majority expressing severe displeasure with the rather anti-climactic way it was presented."

This is followed by a citation link that actualy goes to site where information on the Tom Suprgon quote is from. Since this seems to be highly speculatory and contains Weasel Words, I'm going to excise it till we can find the source.MaxusDarte 18:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This information was added back in, with the same citation that contains NO evidance that the majority of marvel fans were upset with an anti-climatic ending. The source itself is somewhat questionable since besides having no relevant information, the PDF used for the quote above it actualy is made up of a few repeated paragraphs. MaxusDarte 21:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

POV and Deaths

Although the series can be read as allegorical commentary in the wake of 9/11 and The Patriot Act,

Point of View text that should be deleted, yes or no?

And why does Spurgeon get his own section to criticize the story?

Wasn't there something about a lot of civillains dying in Civil War #7? If so, can someone detail it? Lots42 22:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Read Order of Civil War + tie-ins

As I've been reading Civil War and the tie-in comics I've been taking notes of events and placing the comic issues in a timeline. I've been searching everywhere for read orders and only found half complete read orders, guesses, and conflicting Marvel checklists... Would it be worth while for me to add a section for a read order followed by a section of small summaries (under a spoiler label) to explain the reasoning for the ordering?

Derekofminnesota 18:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)DerekOfMinnesota

I dunno,but placing your own read order would violate NOT a guide rule and your original research. †Bloodpack† 22:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, that makes sense. I'm new to adding to wikipedia and didn't know there was a guide page. From what I've read, making a time line would make more sense and would follow wikipedia's rules, but the Marvel Civil War's tie-ins have some discrepancies that I've noticed and would make creating a time line a lengthly, difficult, and probably disputed amount of work. Derekofminnesota 14:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A timeline for the graphic novels would be really useful - listing all the individual comic issues is less manageable. 86.16.173.153 (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CIVILWAR-07.jpg

Image:CIVILWAR-07.jpg 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 09:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Civil War: Graphic Novels

This is a simple one, I've been away from comics for about ten years which i can handle but I want to get into the Civil War era and subsequent stories. So I would really appreciate a list of the graphic novels in 'Read first to last' order. Maybe also including some of the stories that were happening on the periphery...Snowboy 1976 (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Read the "Road to Civil War". Then the core series "Civil War" then you can read all of the other series in any order you want.(i recommend "Civil War: Spider-Man" great writing by JMS). Also, this is not a forum, the Marvel.com site has plenty of forums for this kind of thing. Rau's talk 16:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Iron Man/Tony Stark

Introducing the character as Iron Man and then suddenly switching to referring to him as Stark without explanation the hero:secret identity relationship there makes this article rather confusing. As I'm not a comic book fan I'll leave it someone else to figure out how to fix this. :) --Steven Fisher (talk) 07:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Captain America and a Sniper

Now unless there was some sort of retcon I missed, poor ol' Captain America was -not- killed by a sniper. Lots42 (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The initial attack was a sniper, which led to his death at Sharon's hands. Rau's Speak Page 18:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! Lots42 (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The version in the article is right, but it is misleading. I'll rewrite it. Rau's Speak Page 23:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Check List

Do we need a checklist? It seems like something that belongs on Marvel.com, not on Wikipedia? I'm removing it, if you object, revert and bring it up here. Rau's Speak Page 01:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also removed "Collections" and "Involved but not listed". Again, if you have problems, revert and bring them up here. Rau's Speak Page 01:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I, for one, find such checklists highly useful as a reference, and don't really see any logic behind your removal of this one. I'd like to see the checklist added back - rst20xx (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. Though I would agree that it needs a tidy-up, and should be presented more like this - rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed it because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of knowledge. Like I said in my first post, this seems like something that belongs on Marvel.com, or perhaps a fanwiki. Rau's Speak Page 22:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe that WP:INDISCRIMINATE is designed to stop people from adding giant lists of facts which whilst being true are otherwise useless. I would call this list highly useful, and I don't see why you think it should be "relegated" to somewhere else - rst20xx (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's trivial. Devoting that much space just to say that book was involved doesn't make sense to me. And if there is an official checklist, we can have an external link to it. Rau's Speak Page 14:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, is that really what you think should happen? Then why when you first deleted the list did you not replace it with such a link? rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Because I did not know there was an official check list, but your section title leads me to believe that there is. Otherwise it could not be official. Rau's Speak Page 15:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
.....Okay, I propose this compromise: If you can find sources for the 3 lists (I *think* there is an official checklist, but you might need separate sources for "Involved but not listed" and for the paperbacks), then I won't object to you swapping the lists out for the sources. But if you can't find lists for any of them, I'd like them left in the article. And also let me point out that Avengers Disassembled, House of M, Secret Invasion, Secret Wars, Secret Wars II, Crisis on Infinite Earths and Final Crisis all contain similar lists, so it seems to me to be more standard practice to INCLUDE such lists - rst20xx (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Move to "Civil War (comics)"

Because "Civil War" refers not only to the title of the comic book, but also the events it contains (i.e. in-continuity, characters refer to the events of Civil War as the "Super-Hero Civil War" or simply the "Civil War"), the page should be moved "Civil War (comics)".--Darknus823 (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the book, not the event. Rau's Speak Page 05:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you are talking about two different topics: 1) a comic book title; 2) an event occurring in comic books (not necessarily "Civil War" comics (see sense #1)). I would oppose any move under those circumstances. Instead, these should be separate articles. The "Civil War" comic book (see sense #1) should be at Civil War (comic book), and the event (see sense #2) should be at Civil War (comics). This is consistent with naming conventions, which name characters and events "XXX (comics)" and reserve "XXX (comic book)" for comic book titles. Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The Comics Project Naming Conventions are pretty clear on this. The disambiguation used is a classification not a description, and the first level of disambiguation for comics is "(comics)" - so this should be at Civil War (comics), although not for the reasons given in the first post (which is also taking a descriptive approach to the issue). If there is only one Civil War in comics then it has to be at "Civil War (comics)", if for example Marvel and DC each had something called Civil War then we'd call them "Civil War (Marvel Comics)" and "Civil War (DC Comics)". Only if there were a lot of Civil Wars would we need "Civil War (comic book)" to try and differentiate between them and I can only think of one case where this applies: Trinity (DC Comics).
On the other point this doesn't need separate articles for comic and the event - there are a lot of such "events" (crossover story arcs) with a core, main, eponymous title and in every case I can think of works just fine with the title/event in one article. (Emperor (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC))
  • After taking a fresh look at this, I see that there is no actual Civil War comic book (at least not mentioned here) and that this whole discussion is not at all about a comic book titled Civil War, but only about a crossover event between characters from various other titles. For that reason, I agree that this article should be at Civil war (comics) and there does not appear to be any need for a Civil War (comic book) article. If there were such a comic book title (presumably that would be a comic book set in the American Civil War), then I would still say there should be two separate articles, but that is not the case here. It seems we agree, but perhaps for different reasons. Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It's about the comic book. That is blatantly obvious with sections like "Behind the Scenes", "Delays", "Reactions", "Publication History". How anyone can say it isn't about the comic book is beyond me. And Emperor provided good rational, so if no one objects... Rau's Speak Page 01:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this should be at "Civil War (comics)" too, as I think this is about the Civil War crossover, of which the Civil War comic book is only the central element - rst20xx (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
...and I make that 4 votes to 1 - rst20xx (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I moved it back. WP:NCC clearly states "In general, when naming an article, use the name itself, without further disambiguation (e.g. Jack Kirby) unless that leads to ambiguity, in which case, follow with "(comics)" (e.g. Ralph Macchio (comics))." It only suggests using "(comic book)" when "...disambiguating between a proper name (a character name, a group name, a location, etc.), and another related eponymous work" - rst20xx (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_War_(comics)/Archive_3&oldid=785096981"