Talk:Weapon Plus

Project: Homegrown and the Black Budget

This could use a little more info about the UK version - if memory serves, at least one of the UK super soldiers (Gog) can be dated back to the Falklands War (1982), quite some time after Vietnam. Although I think most of the others are older...? --Mrph 19:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Weapon XI

A likely candidate for Weapon XI's true identity is the Hound. It is equally likely that Weapon XI is 13 chickens in a steam powered Cow Mecha.

Lucky for us that Wikipedia dosn't do "likely things" with out sources, isnt it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.237.233 (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Weapon Plus and the Camp Cathcart experiments

The Camp Cathcart experiments on the African American troops had to happen after the experiment which turned Steve Rogers into Captain America, and thus can't be Weapon Zero. First, the Camp Cathcart experiments didn't start until several months after Pearl Harbor, as explicitly shown in The Truth. [b]Several[/b] other titles, including notably Giant Size Invaders #2, which has been published by Marvel subsequent to The Truth, show Steve Rogers not only powered, but active, well prior to Pearl Harbor. Marvel's own ruling on this, published in the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe, makes it explicit that Rogers came before Bradley. The comment made on the history page about someone reading a Captain America comic in The Truth supports this; yes, another soldier dismisses it as propaganda, but he's wrong - a false recounting written before Rogers was empowered couldn't have anticipated the identity of the person chosen months later, and we know from other titles that Steve Rogers is not an alias. 84.9.85.228 17:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

When originally planned as a stand-alone, out of continuity story, The Truth could imply that the Camp Cathcart experiments pre-dated the experiments on Steve Rogers. Even then, it didn't explicitly state this - the appearance of the Captain America comic within the actual story makes it ambiguous, because although it is claimed to be a falsehood by one of the participants, he has no way of knowing for sure, and it's highly unlikely they could have retroactively found a "Steve Rogers" whose background matched so well the one shown in the comic. But, again, as a stand-alone, out of continuity title, you might just get away with that. But once The Truth was moved in to fit with the rest of Marvel canon, it became outright impossible for the Camp Cathcart experiments to come before Steve Rogers. The Cathcart experiments all explicitly take place in 1942, by which time Captain America was already active in the Invaders, and trying to change that would affect the timelines of dozens of characters. The recent Giant Sized Invaders #2, published after The Truth, again confirms the Invaders were active in 1941, meaning Marvel still considers Steve Rogers active in 1941. For The Truth to fit, the experiments have to be trying to recreate the formula lost with the death of Professor Erskine (the original scientist codenamed Reinstein, as opposed to his replacement seen in The Truth). Marvel's Handbook entry for Isaiah Bradley's grandchild, Patriot, backs this up, explicitly stating Cathcart was after Rogers became Captain America. 84.12.182.64 02:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The page was reverted because the Marvel Universe entry was incorrect, the most recent Marvel Universes have been wrong enough times that the best source of information for reliable information entered was the original mini-series. --Basique 20:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather arrogant attitude for you to presume that you know better than Marvel does. The original mini-series does NOT categorically state that the Camp Cathcart experiments took place before the experiments on Steve Rogers. They state the Cathcart experiments take place in 1942. One, extremely cynical, character, writes off the Captain America comic which covers the origin of Rogers and which was published prior to their experiments as propaganda. However, that character is making a presumption. You can't take the mini-series in isolation from the rest of the Marvel universe if you also want it to apply to that universe. We know from other titles that Rogers' origins are not a propaganda exercise, AND that Rogers was active well before 1942. By 1942 he had been working alongside several other heroes in the Invaders. This means the cynical sergeant in The Truth who thinks the comic is propaganda is unequivocably wrong. It doesn't make the crimes against the soldiers at Camp Cathcart or their suffering any the less, but it does mean that it didn't happen before Steve Rogers became Captain America, and it does mean that Isaiah Bradley cannot be Weapon 0, retroactively or otherwise. 84.12.26.111 23:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not arrogance in reference to the Marvel Universe guides, they have been horribly edited. But I do see you point about Captain America based solely on the timeline of his debut. --Basique 01:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The World

It seems that The World deserves a separate article where its structure and the social life within the hemisphere can be explored in a more detailed manner, perhaps pointing to its resemblance to the similar habitat portrayed in the famous sci-fi movie Logan's Run (1976). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Univer (talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

I guess I will watch this.. and if I ever have time I will update it, and add its own article. But the history is incomplete, as of Remender's Uncanny X Force. It plays a huge role. I just don't have time yet... but the previous person's comment is right..... anyone able to take this on?--Unclefishbits (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

DC?

Morrison's We3 has been listed on this page as a "possible" part of the Weapon Plus Program, without citation as to the source of the rumor. Shouldn't the fact that this book was published by DC be enough to shoot that down? Hewinsj 04:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the purpose of that We3 statement wasn't to show We3 as a possible Weapon Plus project, but rather it was meant to note that Grant Morrison established the concept for Marvel during his New X-Men run, and then wrote a similar book based around said concept for DC. I personally found the note rather informative as I had never noticed that link before, even though I had read both of the series mentioned above. --156.34.86.50 12:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to write that out more clearly? Something like "Morrison introduced this element of the Weapon Plus Project during his time writing New X-men and later carried the theme into other projects, such as the DC published We3"? I may have just been confused, because I read the original note to mean that WE3 was potentially a part of Marvel's cannon, even though it was printed by a different publisher. Hewinsj 23:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, that should work. Definitely. --156.34.95.214 04:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I re-added it to be a little more clear that We3 isn't an X-men story. Any good? Hewinsj 14:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That should work fine, I re-worded a bit of it, but nothing major. Good work. --156.34.69.169 05:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

stepford cuckoos

someone should add a pic of the stepford cuckoos--Cerebra 09:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Wolverine (comics).PNG

Image:Wolverine (comics).PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Captain america4.jpg

Image:Captain america4.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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Xmen143.jpg

The image Image:Xmen143.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

DEADPOOL

The stuff on the back of the Deadpool Superhero Squad action figures reads:

"WOLVERINE ON THE RUN

With the ultimate mutant, Deadpool, on the loose, Logan and Victor Creed are forced to team up--or be destroyed."

"BATTLE AT THREE MILE ISLAND

The Weapon 11 program has created the ultimate mutant-DEADPOOL! As the mutant menace rampages across Three Mile Island, Logan and Victor Creed are forced to team up--or be destoyed."

from 4chan anon

Weapon XI in the new movie

To Friginator and others who keep reverting new edits to the Weapon XI section about his appearance in Origins: Wolverine. Could we please discuss this?

Friginator, Why do you say "regardless of what people might interpret"? If people are continually misinterpreting that section as talking about more than just comic books -- and I say this because 1) nothing on the page says it's limited to the comics, 2) Weapon 0 talks about the novel, 3) Weapon X links to its own cross-media article, 4) there have been multiple edits by multiple editors attempting to compensate for the lack of info on Weapon XI -- what harm would come from pointing out that he exists in other mediums?

How is it going to create confusion by explicitly stating that he does not exist in the comics but does in a movie? It doesn't get any more clear-cut than that. It's certainly more confusing to leave mention of the movie out altogether, because at that point it just looks like the article is out of date and nobody bothered to integrate anything from the movie.

If this is a matter of what's considered canon, a simple note to that effect would suffice after pointing out the movie character.

As it is, the article presupposes some sort of omniscience on the reader's part, unreasonably expecting them to understand that when they look for information about Weapon XI, they're only allowed to know about his absence in the comics. Why do we have that place that limitation when a very simple, straightforward note could satisfy both hardcore comic fans and a more general audience?

Thank you.

-Clueless (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I strongly feel that the Weapon XI section is for the comic book only, and that it needs to stay that way. There's already a section for the films, and there's nothing wrong with putting the info there. Also, the update tag you added doesn't seem appropriate for that section, so I hope it's okay if I remove it. The important thing is just to keep the movie and comic info separate. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, Friginator, but did you read what I said at all? Why do you feel the rest of the page is reserved for comics only? And even if that were previously the case, why do you insist it needs to stay that way?

Your continued reverts supply no explanation and I would like to understand why you feel so strongly about this topic so we can see if something can be worked out that preserves whatever it is you feel it's important to preserve, while at the same time aiding readers who may not understand that the page is divided by medium. Is there something particular to the X-men universe -- which, as an outsider, I'll admit I wouldn't know -- that necessitates such a clear separation between the comics and movies?

Thank you again. -Clueless (talk) 01:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

It's entirely necessary to keep comics and other media separate. It gives the impression to some that the comics and films share continuity in some way, when they don't. If a person wants info on the movie version of Weapon XI, they can just scroll down. That's why the "In Other Media" section is there. Letting the two bleed together doesn't do anything but make the article more confusing.

Thank you. I didn't realize that was the case. I'll go ahead and make that clearer in the article and move the other stuff (i.e. the novel) out into the other media section as well.

I just reverted the "versions as seen in the comics" header. It should go without saying because this article is about the comics only. Friginator (talk) 20:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Weapon XI

In X Men Origins Wolverine it is revealed that deadpool is weapon XI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bozo33 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it is. But that's in the movie alone. The movies don't take place in the comics continuity. Friginator (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me Friginator. Bozo33(talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.250.109.51 (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain America

Shouldn't Captain America be listed in the movies section as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.90.172 (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Sym-soldiers program

Should we add the symbiote soldiers program on this list? Penguin7812 (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Image deletion nomination(s)

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 30. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)