This article is within the scope of WikiProject G.I. Joe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.G.I. JoeWikipedia:WikiProject G.I. JoeTemplate:WikiProject G.I. JoeG.I. Joe articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Toys, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of toys on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ToysWikipedia:WikiProject ToysTemplate:WikiProject ToysToys articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles
I've again removed the chunk of text below. User:Horkana's selective restoration of the material excised the most important line: "it is unknown if [the movie character and the subject of this article] are the same person," and no substantiation other than fanboy wishful thinking asserts such a connection. If anyone can back up the claim, by all means cite it. In the meantime, the material is below and in the edit history. --EEMIV (talk) 04:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are entirely missing the point. This is a toy line, this is not a real person. There is a toy called Lt. Stone. Sgt. Stone is another incarnation of that toy and the information should be kept with the other incarnations of the Toy even if this incarnation is quite different from the others. To be consistent you would need to go to the page for "Breaker" and delete his information too as his character in the film has a different name and nationality from the previous incarnations. Putting up the question about them being the same character is irrelevant and only creates a point of contention that needs to referenced/cited that only a fanboy would bother to argue. The whole section should not be deleted based on the irrelevant speculation, only the speculation should be removed. I question the notability of all these GI Joe character articles but if you're going to keep the articles you should keep the information about the film too. You should add the text back in, it improves the article. Readers will just be left wondering why there is no mention of the film. -- Horkana (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that, then, it sounds instead like the other GI Joe articles needs substantial trimming and clarification about what characters are intended to be "reimagingings" of one another. If there's no evidence that similarly-named characters are intended to be the same as, or based on, each other, then they shouldn't be lumped in the same article.
Really, all these GI Joe articles probably should just be amalgamated into a giant List of GI Joe characters or some such; from what I've seen, they're all laden with plot cruft, speculation and trivia.
However, "all the other articles are a combination of tenuous speculation and hodgepodge of information" doesn't warrant restoration of this material. In the absence of substantiation that this iteration of a character name "Stone" is intended to be connected to other iterations, then it doesn't belong in this article. If there's no evidence that the characters still in the article are intended to be "the same" or even related, then they, too, should be excised -- that, or the focus/scope of this article reworked in the lead.
Are you an active GI Joe character article editor? I'd encourage you to make the bold step of amalgamating these wholly needless separate articles and start redircting/selective-merging them into an appropriate List of GI Joes, List of Cobras, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From your talk page you've got several people who aren't pleased at your deletion of this section. This is a perfectly reasonable place to group together any GI Joe characters called Stone, who's who is an entirely seperate issue that you can request a citation for. I'm pretty sure you've fallen foul of the 3 revert rule. I'm going to reinstate it one more time. -- Horkana (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stone action figure was released as a sergeant instead of as a lieutenant; it is unknown if they are the same person. His action figure file card indicates he is a special operations instructor who trains the G.I. Joe team in combat tactics, marksmanship, survival techniques, and other commando skills. He battles the Neo-Vipers who drill their way into the G.I. Joe 'Pit' Headquarters.
Brendan Fraser plays Stone in the 2009 film . At first, it was reported he was going to play Gung-Ho in the movie, but it was later revealed by director Stephen Sommers to be otherwise.
