Talk:Emma Frost/Archive 2

"Omega-class"
The fact that Emma Frost "describes herself" as being an Omega-class mutant doesn't make her one. Even the fact that a writer has her describes herself as an Omega-class mutant doesn't make her one. That in-universe "fact" would only be worthwhile if other characters or authorities within the universe or writer's exposition stated so. If say, Xavier categorizes her as Omega-class then it would have more bearing or if a sentinel report calls her Omega class, or even if one of Fraction's captions describes her as an Omega-class, then it should be cited or added. There are too many counter examples in her character history (ex. "I'm not Xavier" from Astonishing X-Men, being unable to host the Phoenix Force in X-Men: Endsong, and easily losing to Jean Grey in a telepathic duel in the first series of X-Men and later in New X-Men) for this to be added based on what is essentially a writer having Emma describe herself. It could even be a continuity issue, such as when in Generation X, she showed that she was a formidable hand-to-hand combatant, but in a recent Astonishing X-Men issue, stated that she could only "feign a dead faint."

Even then, if that is added in as "writers have chosen to have her describe herself as...", it doesn't give the reader an understanding of what that would mean--it just tells the reader that "the character describes herself as..." while the powers section is intended to explain what the character's powers are objectively from an outside perspective of the comic books. Given the numerous other referable examples of her power levels in the character's publication history, this one statement, which is never demonstrated or corroborated in-universe by any other characters, institutions, or by Marvel itself, doesn't give a clearer or authoritative understanding of the character's powers and abilities. Until it's corroborated in some way, it shouldn't be added. Feel free to respond here.Luminum (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, my stupid connection just made me loose like a huge reply. So, I'll try to sumarize. I really don't want to get into a big argument about this at this point in time, but suffice it to say, characters grow with time and I can not only provide contradition to every example you've pointed to as far as Emma's powers, but also have to point out that one writer choosing to have Emma lose to Jean while she was a host to the phoenix is equal to a different writer now deciding to name Emma as an Omega mutant. I sincerely hope you don't have a grudge against this particular character and no matter what arguments are made will always seek to find a loophole, but I just don't think one writer's decisions are particularly determinant forever. Besides, Emma has recently defeated/contained Xavier and had no problem hosting the Phoenix force during the invasion of the Sisterhood of Mutants. Emma is groving as a character and there is nothing that says that she cannot become an omega mutant if she gains full confidence - her confidence and a right to belong on the team has been an issue for her and if her doubts are removed and her confidence is in place, well, that's one line of reasoning. Also, having some other character say that someone is an omega-mutant is a slippery slope. First of all, only a couple of mutants have actually been acknowledged by most writers to be omega, i.e., Jean and Franklin Richards so the argument that more writers have to come on board or more characters need to acknowledge is not persuasive to me. Furthermore, does having Reed Richards say that his son is an omega mutant somehow diminishes that fact because he's his father; and then you get into slippery slope of does having a fellow X-Men acknowledge that a mutant is an omega mutant - a biased opinion as well. So, you're basically just left with either enemies having to acknowledge the fact or goverment agencies. As far as omega-mutant being unclear - most people had no problem with X3's 1-5 scale and omega, i.e., the "last" invokes the same type of visage as calling someone a level 5 mutant. Plus, there is the link right there to what an omega-level mutant is for those who are not clear. I'll spare you more involved arguments for now since this is hardly an issue that's worth rankor, but I'll leave you with the tidbit about the fact that if Iceman can pull himself together from shards and he is called an omega, then a person who takes diamond form and has in the past reasembled herself from pieces definitely is at least omega-level approaching at least and with recent characterization (aside from her saying what she said), there is a definite argument for her being an omega. One writer having her lose many years ago doesn't somehow forbid her ever becoming an omega-mutant or other writers going a different direction with the character.--RossF18 (talk) 01:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually happen to love this character (and if you look in the history, I've been involved quite a bit) so rest assured, I don't question the addition of the Omega label because "I hate her" or something. And I'm not looking to argue, just discuss the issue, which I find healthy and interesting to do.  So nothing you read here is argumentative, just a debate of the issue.


 * Regardless, the point I am making is that all that can be drawn from that comment is that "she says she is this." And in the end, that doesn't deliver any statement of genuine meaning concerning her powers or the level of her powers.  The powers section should draw upon evidence displayed in the comics.  Since no one other than Emma herself has described her as "Omega-level," and no Marvel guide has described her as such, the statement becomes flimsy.  And despite a link to what an Omega-level mutant is, Emma clearly does not meet those requirements (The third X-Men film's description really doesn't matter as far as the comics go, since they're considered completely different canon).  She hasn't been "less than Omega" just from one writer--she's been portrayed consistently as being a weaker and more limited telepath compared to Xavier and Jean Grey since her creation--which outweighs one recent instance where she manages to trick Xavier and later calls herself a mutant with unlimited potential.  In fact, the argument you laid out is easily refutable:  She needed Jean to put herself back together--she can't do it herself.  She's completely limited in her telepathy (despite her enormous power) and her diamond form.  Jean and Iceman have no limits to their powers.  Emma states in Endsong that she's not strong enough to host the Phoenix Force, and what she receives during the Sisterhood debacle is clearly not what is considered "hosting the Phoenix."


 * This wouldn't be an issue if another character with authority and background in the Marvel Universe identifies her as Omega--If Norman Osborne/SHIELD/the O*N*E*/Tony Stark/Reed Richards were looking at files on her (see Storm, an example of a character possibly being canonically upgraded to "Omega-level"), or Charles Xavier identifies her as one, or any institution that is supposed to have authority identified her as "Omega-level," then this would have to be accepted canon (despite all evidence to the contrary). But she's the one who says it and no other authority backs it up, so that basically puts it to question.  This isn't to say that she couldn't be written to be an Omega mutant later (even as she is now, she's beefed up considerably from her initial appearances) but that will require more than her just saying that she is...an in-universe "profile," an in-universe authority, an official Marvel canon description, but not her own statement.  A writer could have Psylocke say she's the strongest mutant telepath in the Marvel Universe, but there's clear contrary evidence for that to be considered a "fact" or "pseudo-fact."


 * There's no question of whether the label itself is unclear--it's not. The problem is that the statement ("she claims she's Omega level") is unclear.  A reader is left to ask:  So..is she really one?  There's a wealth of comic depiction evidence from several writers and other characters since her introduction that she's not.  At the same time, she "says" she is  in this one instance and characters get "powered up" all the time as they become more popular in the Marvel Universe.  However, until it gets established in a more authoritative manner (acknowledged by other characters, described by a third party, written in her latest Marvel Guidebook Profile) then it's only a weak and confusing statement.Luminum (talk) 04:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

'Tis mentioned again oi: http://comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=2290786.40.28.15 (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it flies in the face of what Fraction demonstrated in the story himself, but his interviews are sanctioned by Marvel in some way so it's a better source than the comics themselves.Luminum (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have voted against someone adding that to the powers section a few weeks ago, but now I won't since it happened twice...same goes for Xavier it happened 3 times now. 86.40.28.15 (talk) 11:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Happened again:

http://marvel.com/news/comicstories.9525.Tuesday_Q%26A~colon~_Matt_Fraction 86.45.2.203 (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

And again:

http://ie.comics.ign.com/articles/102/1024730p2.html 86.40.16.235 (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources. Again, these interviews lend credence to the concept, though you can read the Omega Class debate on the Comics Project page as well.  basically, it seems like the classification of "Omega" is a loose definition and that even between so-called "Omega" mutants, their abilities are inconsistent to the original definition.  Anyway, all that aside, these give more reason to add it justifiably to the article.  Also bear in mind though that these are all interviews about the same thing with the same writer just between different companies.  It'd be a lot stronger if other writerseditors were saying it too (though again, the definition still seems to mean really little anyway).Luminum (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Another citation:

http://www.newsarama.com/comics/091103-Word-Balloon-Fraction.html89.101.34.91 (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay thank you, one is enough.Luminum (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Sexualization
I dont want to sound wierd but should it be noted on the page how many artists and writers like to draw a "certain" way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.23.78 (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we be a bit more direct with our language here? If you're going to suggest a "sexualization" section, it helps to be comfortable with the subject matter.


 * To respond to the suggestion: It's pretty clear since the character's inception, what with the Hellfire Club, her explanations of why she enjoys dressing scantily (as it makes psychic manipulation even easier), etc. that she's a sexual individual.  The way she's drawn is not one of these, given that in general, her body is about as hyper-sexualized as any other female drawn by the artist of that issue (ex. all female characters by Greg Land).  The only difference would be her characterization and her costumes.  But in general, the request would be drawn on original research and speculation.  If you can find some good third-party sources that discuss Emma Frost's as a unique example of sexuality or gender in the realm of comic book media or something, then a section might be warranted.Luminum (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * (Note: The above text was not written by myself. It was left unsigned previously)


 * This was directly addressed in a special story. There was a segment written by Ann Nocenti in an issue of Classic X-Men wherein Frost and Mastermind (Jason Wyngarde) play a telepathic game of chess in a heavily implied sexual dominance game. Emma is extremely contemptuous of a hired maid who asks her about the manner they have to dress and how uneasy she gets about the manner Wyngarde looks at her. Emma states something along the line of that an inferior creature such as the maid debases herself, but she is the White Queen, she uses her sexuality to conquer and debase the men who lust for her. The maid asks "But why play at all?" and says that the entire place is horrible. Emma calls her an idiot and asks why she thinks that it is called the "Hellfire Club?" In the end of the game both players are destroyed by each other.


 * Pretty heavy symbolism no?Dave (talk) 18:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, that was my comment. Given some recent discussion in the Comics Project, it seems like regardless, it's still OR from a primary source.  But if you can find character development or some other statements, then I think the section which is generally non-incidentally associated with the character sounds worthwhile.  (Of course, this assumes it's handled appropriately.)Luminum (talk) 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not particularly interested in in as a standalone piece, as it is a minor note at best. However, lots of mentions on the page are 1st level sources, and it would be very hard to find any serious article dealing with the topic. Possibly an interview? Using her sexuality as a weapon, by referencing the story in question, could be an idea as a sentence or two in the below proposed section though. Dave (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A logn time ago, I encountered a thesis exploring gender roles in New X-Men that described men as having the dominant dialogue, minor characters being male, and female characters lending supporting roles in action or speaking passively or in deference to their male counterparts. The thesis found, however, that Emma Frost's dialogue was dominant and more equivalent to male dialogue.  Similarly it described the idea of Emma Frost being a sexualized character who fills dual roles as being "equivalent to male characters" while simultaneously designed as a sexual object.  I think it was discussed on a website called "Salacious Tart" and I posted about it here a long time ago.  (Ah!  here it is: )  If we could find other interviews about her sexuality, then I think with this included it could be a worthwhile section.Luminum (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Character development section?
While I'm here, I came to think of the manner Emma has developed over the years. In her initial appearance during the Phoenix saga she was displayed as extremely unethical and manipulative, with a particular talent and liking of psychic torture on captives. In the early New Mutants issues she had no qualms about brainwashing/enslaving people into her service and stated her acquired students to simply be "valuable commodities" and that she and Sebastian intended to "take over the world", or steal Storm's body. There was absolutely no moral difference between the two, although Selene was obviously far worse than either. Claremont (who is a feminist) has strongly implied that he intended her to be pure evil, and very much disagrees with the current characterisation (inside the book, and outside it through "These aren't my X-men anymore. Ironically even the Exiles have more in common" or something of that nature), whereas he gradually even let Mystique get a more sympathetic bent (to finally be returned to her early "masquerade as a loved one and extatically chop people to death with a butcher knife", "switch aleegiances at first time it is convenient or interesting" characterisation). In the continuity itself she was gradually characterised as caring somewhat more about the wellbeing of her students, although still thinking in tactical terms, and after the severe chock of being evicted from her body for a prolonged time (which is a good enough justification for the following change in personality/priorities), started her real rehabilitation as headmaster of Generation X. After her introduction into the X-Men she occasionally got back some of her cruel, perverted, haughty, supremacist, and sadistic bent, being willing to casually belittle and violate the integrity of some she encountered, and even apparently sincerely threatening to "erase every happy memory" in the mind of one of her students (a hysterical Elixir, and no, this is not a remotely good real life way to deal with temporarily unhinged people). When CLaremont briefly returned to the book he had her pointing out that there were "worse warts on her soul" than Rachel Grey could possibly imagine.

However most recently there has been an apparent abrupt departure from the foundation. Rather than an originally nearly completely corrupt individual who has gradually reformed into neutral and developed a genuine good spot in caring about her students, the original Phoenix confrontation (after Emma had cheerfully tortured the X-Men, and helped Mastermind to mindwipe Jean Grey into helping to murder her friends) was somehow represented as the back then hardcore corrupt business mogul Emma being motivated by "standing up for the little guy" against more powerful oppressors (to which she was very explicitly portrayed as belonging to at this point), that she now was completely unaware of Shaw and the Club using the mutant-hunting Sentinel business contracts for their own ends (at this point she and Shaw were shown as very romantically involved, in a two-headed alliance to take over the world from within), and that she has very strong personal qualms against torture on captured opponents, even though this was the very basis for her character, the area of psionics she is most specialised in, and what she extremely enjoys doing. Debasing, torturing, conquering, and subverting others was her entire original point as a character. So to stop rambling and get to the point. Should there be a section which goes into the dichotomy of her characterisation, and any continuity retcons, that could gradually build in size as contributors find more material. Dave (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No more so than for any other character who has changed in order to be more marketable as a three dimensional character for the comic book industry. Basically, while it's an enjoyable analysis, it's still original research and speculative.  Whether Claremont intended characters to be one way since their inception is a moot point.  Was Superman supposed to be neurotic?  Was Batman supposed to be so dark?  Is Phoenix only supposed to be a split personality? Or, more recently, is Shatterstar supposed to be gay?  In the end, a character is the property of its company, not its writers and they have free reign under that agency to explore and create a character's background as much as they deem fit and it's still "canon"...until another writer/editor retcons it.  I thinkt he most objective way of describing the situation here is the succinct manner in the page's intro: "Frost has changed from one of the X-Men's foes to one of their members."Luminum (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's hardly a moot point if it goes completely contrary to the foundation of the character, rather than simply managing gradual development instead of blatant retcons, and of course the above is OR, that's why I wrote it here (It is probably mostly correct though), but the point that the 3 different eras of very different characterisation and rationalisation would be a worthwhile minor topic (A character personality section is a common feature after all, as is referencing any blatant retcons. For example the Phobos character) still stands (and I heavily disagree that corrupt people are automatically less 3-dimensional than conflicted ones). Blatant cotnradictions such as being introduced as heavily into psychic torture of captives, and now taking an ideological stand against it should preferably at least get a more informative mention than "she was once a foe and now she's an ally".
 * Imho the extreme personality is basically the main ingredient/'appeal' of this type of character. I simply wanted to make a note of it as some food for thought, if anyone is interested in delving into it a bit, and maybe has a knack for finding useful secondary or third-party sources for entertainment material. It hasn't exactly been my forté to say the least (based on past experiences). Dave (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem here is that with little enough fictitious explaining, none of it is a "blatant contradiction." One could argue succinctly that Emma's true nature was always good (because is anyone truly evil, blah blah blah) and if nothing else, her harrowing experience leading children, finding them all slaughtered, then being one of the lone survivors of a mutant genocide could have profoundly sent her into a less "evil" personality.  I would say that Chris Claremont's statements might be potential fodder as a secondary source, but even his own stories involving Emma Frost would potentially refute his own claims that she is "completely evil."  For example, when Lordes Chantell dies defending Sebastian Shaw, Emma, drawn interpretively somber, telepathically subdues any pain Lordes is feeling.  Additionally, when she switches bodies with Storm and nearly kills Shaw with an uncontrolled lightening bolt, she agrees to return to her own body because of her concern over Shaw.  None of those examples seem to indicate, in whatever terms one might want to debate over fictitious interpretation, that she was "completely evil" even with Claremont at the pen.
 * That being said, I agree that an integral part of the Emma Frost character is based out of her past as a villainess and her willingness to cross moral/ethical lines that other X-Men characters do not, but I think it's arguable (and actually moot for a character handled by multiple writers for whatever suits their storyline purposes) that her more recent depictions are completely at odds with her initial appearances. Astonishing X-Men tackled her true loyalties, a one-shot in Manifest Destiny did the same thing, and Matt Fraction exploited it again for Dark X-Men.  Each time, she's either vindicated by other characters or condemned by other characters and it's just the nature of comic book writing.  Nothing is ever resolved.  ::shrug:: Luminum (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's a very significant "blatant contrast" between eras at least, although I agree that under Claremont she went from simply brainwashing students for personal toy soldier usage, to actually caring somewhat about their safety and romantically caring about Shaw (which now seems forgotten with the imprisonment story btw), and a characterisation section delving somewhat into just what you mention above, the manner different writers have handled her over the years should be worthwhile, and could include the sexualisation element. Just a thought. Dave (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Check out the Hulk characterization section for some possible ideas. The White Queen was named as the greatest female super (anti-)heroine by Empire Magazine after all, even before Wonder Woman. It seems like something a little less ambitious might be warranted at least. Dave (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What's with the blanking of entire sections?
Okay I noticed this quite a bit, users come in every second day and blank entire sections of the article then another user has to come and reverts it back, is this just plain vandalism? ExodusCloak (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Telepathy business...again
What I'm trying to do here, after observing this page and this section for months, is create a section that provides a clueless reader with an appropriate context of the character's powers as they've been portrayed since her inception. Since the beginning, Emma has not been considered directly on par with Xavier or Jean Grey. There are numerous instances where this is stated on panel. Whether or not Jean was Phoenix or isn't Phoenix is irrelevant, because on panel, she discusses these encounters as encounters with Jean and given that Jean will always be using the Phoenix Force more or less, what does it matter? The original intent of the Phoenix was to be Jean from the get go. Even when that was retconned, Jean was later stated to just "be" the one true Phoenix avatar anyway and that the Phoenix's powers would be her own. In New X-Men 131, Emma doesn't make a differentiation between the two. She says Jean left her comatose and that she would think twice before crossing swords with her again--as in at present. Rachel considers Jean to be her mother, not the Phoenix, and states that Jean took Emma apart in the same encounter. Emma states on panel that she cannot perform telepathic feats like Xavier can. These are instances that call back to her ranking in the MU against other telepaths since her inception. Apparently even Selene was a formidable match on some level with Emma during their days in the Hellfire Club as depicted in X-Men Unlimited (1st series) and in the Uncanny X-Men 2009 Annual. These are "facts" in a constantly fluctuating continuity that readers have known and that have been pressed by writers, even into the present, hence numerous explanations, such as long-range telepathy through the Mutivac or Cerebra, utilizing Cerebra to scan in detail the thoughts of an entire student body or fix Iceman's suppressed powers, or being able to take down someone with greater power one-on-one such as Rachel or Xavier through better telepathic skill or ingenuity. In the instance of Rachel, Claremont was pretty blatant. These can't be ignored. The section would otherwise be disingenuous.

However, it is also true that other writers have claimed her to be an actual rival to someone like Xavier on a telepathic level. Since that's the case, they're important to point out so that readers will know that it hasn't always been the case that she has been weaker, even in long-standing MU continuity even if she's still been respected as an enormously powerful telepath in her own right. And of course, now that Fraction has said so, it's appropriate to mention that she has since been upgraded, without saying as much, to the ultimate level of mutant power rankings.

Her actual abilities as a telepath need to be discussed first in the section because that is what a reader wants to know first. What does it mean that she is a telepath? What are her super powers? After that, it is appropriate to discuss to what extent those powers compare her to others. As it reads starting off comparing her to Xavier, it gives the section a feel that the most important thing is addressing a continuity debate rather than the actual subject at hand. As it was, the section would be inaccurate on the same level as if someone ignored the inconsistencies with Emma's diamond form and just wrote that it was indestructible, super strong, and that she was entirely immune to psychic contact. It's okay to mention writers' inconsistencies because this character is fictitious and that is the nature of the medium.Luminum (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless I misundertand, I don't know that anyone would disagree with chronicalling Emma's growth in power per her continued movement to the "light side of the force." As you said, she's a character and different authors treated her different but the trend has definitely been to make her more powerful to the point where in Dark X-Men she's suddenly able to use telepathy in her diamond form (although limited) to talk to Xavier although she was not able to use her telepathy previously while in diamond form. And who knows her power level now that she has a piece of the Void in her. Yes, I don't know if anyone would agree with just listing her current power set without any discussion of her much changed power level and if someone will argue that, than I'll support your point, unless of course I misunderstood your post.--RossF18 (talk) 02:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * She wasn't actually able to use telepathy in diamond form there, she could pick up what Xavier sent (though he noted her thoughts were "protected"), but he could not get any response. She had to talk out loud to reply. 193.185.55.253 (talk) 08:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If she wasn't able to use her telepathy, how did she hear him? Yes, she wasn't able to use her telepathy to talk to him and had to reply in words, but she previously was completely blocked from any telepathy, both going in and out, while in diamond form. Thus her being psy shielded while in diamond form. Now, she's able to hear people thinking at her while in diamond form. And while in the sell, Xavier was either severely limited in his power or even possibly depowered completely given that they used that depowering mechine on him. So, I don't hink he actually sent out any thoughts through his own will, i.e., powers. He just thought and hoped Emma would hear him because she couldn't see him. And she heard him - thus, that's either a limitation of her diamond form (which she previously didn't have) or an actual power. --RossF18 (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * She heard him the same any non-telepath would hear a telepath "thinking" at them. It was clear in the issue that Xavier was the one sending his thoughts, Emma was not reading them, and Fraction has made it abundantly clear earlier and later that she has NO telepathy at all in diamond form. Since Xavier noted that her thoughts were "protected" it seems Fraction interprets her diamond form TP immunity so that TP might get through but it will be filtered so it causes no harm. Similarly to how an over-current protector protects sensitive electronic equipment against voltage peaks in the current. 94.22.118.39 (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's now official, Dave Richards called her an Omega-level telepath in a recent interview. Just in case people missed it.--RossF18 (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC) Nevermind
 * Lol. No, you didn't misunderstand me.  I posted this to explain the revision to the section.  The previous user removed text that discussed the differences in Emma's powers and abilities and reinforced text that highlighted (int he first line) her extreme power levels now.  I merely posted this to assert that though she is currently depicted as extremely powerful and unquestionably on par with the likes of Xavier, there are several older instances in which she has been depicted by writers as distinctly weaker than him.  I also wanted to address the issue that the section was becoming more pointedly concerned with her power levels than her actual powers.Luminum (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the best way to write it is that Emma Frost's telepathy levels have varied due to the writer using her from heightened Omega levels to being on par with Xavier/Prof. X to being less powerful then him. We hit most of the marks with a sentence like that, plus it is true with most other superheroes. Just look at the Superman/Hulk strength levels which have varied with writers and over time periods (like modern ages compared to silver ages). It eliminates most arguments, is neutral and explains how the changes occur between comics. HVulpes 09:46 EST, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm all for that. Thanks for the suggestion!Luminum (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There's a few things that are a bit irksome with the telepath paragraph. Firstly...I don't see the need to repeat this: "Emma Frost is an enormously powerful mutant telepath"...it's already mentioned at the top of the power grid. Secondly the reference used to say Jean > Emma is slightly false...since that was Phoenix on both occasions it would be more accurate to change it to Phoenix then Jean there's a big difference as seen in the recent Cabal One-shot where Emma makes the difference and the Phoenix is pretty much > then everyone. Secondly the Astonishing X-Men 1 issue is a fair enough reference although I don't believe that it is to be intepreted that Xavier is leagues above Emma. I've seen Jean say similar things when comparing herself to Xavier. I've also seen Xavier struggle with a mob of 6 humans. Xavier is regarded as the most powerful mutant mind on the planet, everyone else may be weaker but their not leagues below him they do "rival" him. I don't believe that there are numerous statements saying otherwise since he has regarded her as a psi of the highest order. He considers her in his class and she was cited as an Xavier level telepath by Illyana. And Selene is weaker then Dani Moonstar, Veteran White Queen Emma had to bail her out in New Mutants.

As for the tech thing, there's not one instance where you can say that she's used it to gain the upper hand on another telepath in the context it's been presented her use of Cerebra is no different to any of the other telepaths. As White Queen she's never boosted her powers to take on the X-Men that is disingenous. The only thing you can really claim is against God-like Cable and that was pretty much a one time thing. There are plenty of older references that consider her an Xavier level telepath and there's plenty of low showings for other telepaths. The section also reads messy.86.40.26.41 (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Just read through it again, it reads very messy. Xavier's name is mentioned twice...just reads bad...something along the lines of what HVulpes suggested would be better make it shorter. I'd suggest just using Xavier's name as a standard and remove the others. Also the boosting of powers thing is not something she's only done recently she's done that to her hellions as well as modify their brain engrams to prevent Cerebra and Magneto detecting them. Also the power boosting thing is not a something that portray her so called power upgrade in later depictions. It should be presented a lot clearer if that's what you want to depict. Also Matt Fractions name being mentioned makes the paragraph messy looking as well 'twas mentioned in UXM #512 and by Matt Fraction can we do something about that I'm sure the reference links will suffice. 86.40.26.41 (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * For the sake of technicalities, Claremont had intended the Phoenix to have always been Jean Grey, not a cosmic entity. The retcon that the "Phoenix" who fought Emma and ate a star was actually a Phoenix-clone came after.  So in truth, when it was written, it was a fully realized Jean Grey who fought and easily overcame Emma, not a cosmic alien entity.  Following those storylines, yes, she used technology to infiltrate Cerebro and reach Kitty Pryde first.  She also created the device that allowed her to switch minds using a gun against Storm.  She also created the device that essentially allowed Jean Grey/Phoenix to be brainwashed and controlled by Mastermind.


 * I'll grant you that the section needs to be streamlined and we can work on that. I've already agreed with the suggestion from HVulpes, so I'll add it in and retool the paragraph.  Also, nothing in the paragraph states that Emma is "leagues" below anyone, only that she is weaker than they are.  What I have done is removed specific mention of other telepaths that she has a similar greater than/weaker writing issue with and only named Xavier specifically, though references still point to other examples.  I've utilized a form of HVulpes' suggested sentence.  I've fixed the blocking and accessing aspects to place them outside of the telepathic standards but no portray them as being "new."  It as suggested that something about her power levels increasing whens he goes form being a "DarK' character to a "light" character.  I haven't added that in because it's correlative, not causative and would be speculative at best unless it's ever distinctly stated that being "good" made her more powerful.  Let me know what you think.Luminum (talk) 02:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think Emma acknowledges that the Phoenix she fought the first time around was Phoenix and not Jean in the Cabal One-shot.

As for the tech thing, not in the context it's been presented in. She never overcame another telepath (Won in a telepathic duel) by boosting her powers with tech, the tech thing had more to do with locating mutants before Cerebra and boosting Mastermind's abilties. 89.101.34.91 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Phoenix/Jean: Then what we have here are writer-based inconsistencies. In the context of "who Emma fought" my personal interpretation of the actual battle and later recollections of it in New X-Men is that for all intensive purposes, Emma acknowledges that the experience was a fight with Jean.  Even later when Jean tries to pry into her memory, even while using the Phoenix, it is clear that Emma was not strong enough to prevent Jean from humiliating her.  Regardless, saying that she's weaker than the Phoenix Force doesn't mean much (because again, technically everyone is weaker than the Phoenix Force), but comparing her to Jean Grey, another prominent telepath known throughout various Marvel titles, does mean something.  But at this point, I don't care.  In all the confrontations I've seen, Jean in whatever form she may be in, has always been the winner.  The muddled business of retconned identity doesn't help the issue, and I doubt it matters to the casual reader.


 * As for tech, I'll grant you that, so feel free to fix it. I just thought it would be important to mention that she was depicted from the beginning as being familiar enough to utilize and create telepathy-related technology for a diverse number of purposes beyond every other telepath merely using Cerebro.  It demonstrates an aspect of her ability to edge others out in ways other than sheer telepathic power.Luminum (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The exact quote from the recent one-shot was "The Phoenix was Jean, Jean was not the Phoenix there is a difference". As for the second time well that was again by tapping into the Phoenix Force, Grant Morrison actually called them evenly matched until one of them started tapping into cosmic reserves in his Wizard interview. In the same interview he said Xavier would take Phoenix Jean. The only real time a Jean sans Phoenix came across Emma was right before the Hellions died and Emma's psionic static was indirectly hurting Jean.89.101.34.91 (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

http://img401.imageshack.us/i/99403317.png/ http://img219.imageshack.us/i/newmutants01513lj2.jpg/ http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/2306/uncannyxmen281078dxjz6.jpg http://img242.imageshack.us/i/79979264.png/

Also maybe the word ruthless should be added to telepathy description. Also Fraction confirmed on his Jinx Worl boards that it was a error and that was Sage not Selene in the Annual who got the jump on Emma who was green and just became the White Queen. 89.101.34.91 (talk) 19:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think old speculations by a young Illyana should count for much, how would she be able to judge the relative strengths of Xavier and Emma Frost? As for the Uncanny scene, didn't Jean came back with a vengeance a page or two later there? Besides, wasn't Emma herself similarly affected by the feedback of the battle between Xavier and Exodus recently in Legacy? And then she was several hundreds of miles away. The page from Wizard is quite interesting though, assuming it can be counted as canon. 94.22.118.39 (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The Xavier/Exodus thing was a astral battle and their energis were off the charts I don't think distance counts when you're in a different plane of existence. Besides she wasn't as badly effected as Jean. And yes Jean did buzz everyone psychically but not to the same effect as what Emma was doing to her, Jean could barely stand. The Wizard thing is Morrisons take on the fight...just thought I'd throw in their because of what the previous user said about Emma being inferior to both Jean Grey and Phoenix as opposed to just Phoenix. The Illyana thing is more to do with people saying that Emma was never ever even considered Xavier level until this last decade. It's just to show that even back then Claremont thought she was up there. 89.101.34.91 (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And those are great counter examples, but like I mentioned earlier, we're still just dealing with writers' inconsistencies. That won't change the page as it is now and there are plenty more examples of Jean and Emma being equal or unequal that we could throw around, so I'm not sure why you wanted to draw my attention to this discussion again.
 * As for her diamond form, thanks for adding the pain bit. As for her emotions, I thinks he's only stated once (New X-Men Annual) that she has no emotions.  All other indications of her diamond form on panel demonstrate her showing some form of emotion, like concern, anger, or confusion (which probably means that the emotions bit was ignored or not perceived as entirely literal).  The on-panel discussion of her emotions were probably only addressed most directly by Fraction in recent issues and there she states that they're hard to stay in touch with, not impossible to feel.  The only other possible address was in Warsong with the Cuckoos, which was one big mess of literal/figurative writing.Luminum (talk) 23:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up the structure
There remain a few major problems with the text. The greatest one being such an abundance of references that don't have anything to do with what is claimed that the one(s?) actually connecting to a statement get hidden among the rest. Specifically, in which precise issue did the White Queen "later generate global-wide telepathic broadcasting and reception unaided"? Because it definitely wasn't in all of these stories: "New Mutants #15 (1st series), May 1984 • X-Men #202 (2nd series), October 2007 • Generation X #31, October 1997 • Civil War: X-Men #1, September 2006 • Uncanny X-Men #452 (1st series), January 2005 • X-Man #50, April 1999 • World of War Hulk: X-Men #1, June 2007 • X-Men #200 (2nd series), August 2007 • Onslaught X-Men (one-shot), August 1996 • Wolverine #46 (4th series), September 2006 • X-Men #205 (2nd series), November 2007 • X-Men #207 (2nd series), January 2008 • X-Men #206 (2nd series), December 2007 • Uncanny X-Men #495 (1st series), February 2008 • Uncanny X-Men #499 (1st series), June 2008 • Uncanny X-Men #500 (1st series), July 2008 • X-Men Legacy #215 (2nd series), August 2008 • X-Men Legacy #216 (2nd series), September 2008 • Secret Invasion: X-Men #2, September 2008 • Secret Invasion: X-Men #3, October 2008 • New X-Men (2nd series) #31 • X-Men (2nd series) #178". Major weeding to only the specific non-contradicted examples is necessary here. And no, the one wherein we are shown a picture of her astral body simply viewing (a literal water-style) maelstrom of screaming people within Rogue's mind to look for the original doesn't count.

There is also a major inherent double-meaning in the word "global-wide" that needs to be clarified. Meaning, if she can reach Wolverine across continents that's not remotely the same thing as being in contact with or channelling every mind on Earth simultaneously. If it's simply the former it should be rewritten as "capable of unaided telepathic broadcasting and reception across global distances" to be more specific.

Ditto for using references that are by nature unreliable, hence the issue with a promotion-blurb that states that she possibly rivals Professor X to build up a confrontation, when inside it it is once again stated that no, his mind is stronger than hers. The point being that regardless of personal bias, it is not a clear-cut point within the reference. A more clear-cut one would be that Emma was completely outmatched in a telepathic duel against Dark Phoenix Jean Grey, whereas Professor X managed much better (likely partially because she still had some affection for him, but regardless the difference was much greater than that). His entire schtick is "the most powerful mutant mind on the planet", so excepting people who don't live on Earth, aliens, or outside boosts, such as the Phoenix Force, temporary boosts, such as Age of Apocalypse Legion, or the Muir Island Shadow King, he is regularly referred to as such.

On the other hand the "Omega-class psion" references are all very good ones, and the "five most skilled telepaths on the planet" is also non-explicitly contradicted and fine (although, given that in this case all of the references are in fact valid, and 4 are not excessive, I think they should be merged into one reference that lists all of them). I do however think that the context should be put in chronological order. Hence first an "originally considered less powerful than Professor X and other prominent telepaths, that uses all the current references plus the handbooks that state the same thing (http://www.megaupload.com/?d=OCLFNW7Y), and then "later been described as omega-level psion, and amongst the five most skilled telepaths on the planet". That part is something the most recent writers added because they want to identify with her sarcastic go-getter morally ambivalent attitude, regardless that she used to brainwash, torture, mentally rape, and murder people for kicks, along with being a self-stated "be a slaver or a slave" supremacist, which, of course, isn't really any different from considering Wolverine an admirable pinnacle of moral virtue, so it's more an inherent flaw in humanity.

I still have a hang-up about the whole "enormous" thing, "enormous" and "tremendous" are, within the context of Wikipedia, reserved for characters who at least have minor cosmic-scale abilities. Othervise you'd have to go with "extreme" or "immense". Meaning: It is extremely misleading to use a very different gauging scale. Dave (talk) 10:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to respond to a select few things here, mostly because I agree or don't care:


 * "That part is something the most recent writers added because they want to identify with her sarcastic go-getter morally ambivalent attitude," I have no idea what writers attempting to boost a character aspect has to do with also boosting her powers.  Interesting commentary, sure, but what does it have to do with the article?


 * I think you've brought up your hang ups about terminology before, which may border on being described as "exhaustively." It's been pointed out again that the terminology is acceptable because we don't write these entries based on another encyclopedia's terms, in this case, the OHTMU books.  They are their own resource.  Those are not terms that are as apparent or used at all in the comics themselves.  My best suggestion would be to let it go.Luminum (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The first point, which addresses the least relevant part of my post: Standard fanboyism of course. We're all guilty of it to some degree. In this case it simply intersects with one of my hangups of going ridiculously far with trying to excuse and going overboard with trying to make absolute monster characters sympathetic regardless if it makes sense or not.
 * The second (there are plenty more aspects than that, all of them relevant to the structure and content, which I'd prefer to see addressed individually), it's not about another encyclopedia's specific terms, it's about those used in other entries her on Wikipedia. "Enormous" would very misleadingly put her at the same level as Elder Gods and minor cosmic entities. There are only so many scale-describing adjectives to go around.
 * The third, not brought up nearly as coherently as this, with a few additions, and not remotely addressed, more like lost in the mutual incoherence.
 * Also, which points do you agree about? The reference weeding and the chronological order shouldn't be that big a deal at least. Dave (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate to call it "fanboyism" when it's the direction taken by those who now control the character? Wouldn't any character direction taken by a writer other than the original creator be considered "fanboyism" if someone disagreed with the direction? You keep saying the humanization of this character or the depictions of her as a protagonist with moral integrity is "fanboyism" or "incorrect," but Emma Frost, like any other character in the Marvel Universe, isn't a static character.  Writers and editors at Marvel have free reign to write her however they want and the most right to do so and make it canon than anyone else.  I don't see the point.  It just seems like you're upset with the direction Marvel has decided to go along with since Generation X started and can't get over it. ::shrug::
 * Also, do you really believe that when someone reads the page on Emma Frost, they'll automatically think, "Oh, it says she's enormously powerful, that must mean she's as strong as the enormously powerful deities of a Hell dimension."? Maybe you would, but I don't think your basic reader is going to make that assumption.  "Enormous" doesn't have a definite quantity.  It gives an idea, contextualized by the surrounding information and the sources attached.  If we compared numerical ratings, then this would be an acceptable argument to make because they suggest precise comparisons.  Otherwise, it comes down to context.  If I said that the Blob has a huge stature, would we be concerned that a reader would confuse that with describing Galactus as a huge entity?
 * I have no idea where this "third point" came from, seeing as I only made two. Can you elaborate on whatever it was that you wanted to bring up?
 * I agree that if a resource is excessive, then we can cut them down to only the few that depict as many of those statements at once or are the most definitive. That's basically what I agree with and already proposed in some earlier discussions.
 * One other thing is that yes, global-wide is accurate. If you check the source, she broadcasts a telepathic message to every mutant remaining on the planet without aid to tell them that they can come to San Francisco.  It would be helpful to check a source first before you post about how it may be wrong.Luminum (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

That mass amount of references was originally next to "extraordinary telepathic feats". Instead of listing them like Cyclops page I figured that it would be better to place her top feats in one category to make it easier for people to scan through. The other stuff you listed we've already been through many a time. Oh and btw Jean helped Xavier defeat Dark Phoenix.ExodusCloak (talk) 23:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive
I propose we archive anything older than 5 to 6 threads. The page is getting overly long.--RossF18 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed.Luminum (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Merging refs
I reverted the merged refs not because I disagree with the attempt, but because further examination revealed that it was creating duplicate separate refs in the reference section. For example, New X-Men # 131 and Astonishing X-Men (Vol 3) #1 - 6 (among others) appeared as their own references and again in the proposed merges. Standard policy would be to use ref name functions and I've never seen multiple references condensed into a single reference in any publication. I suggest that you run this by the WikiComics Project first.

I also believe that this has been talked about to death yet again, but OHTMU is not preferred to in-comic material itself re:infringing on another encyclopedia's material among other issues.Luminum (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, ohotmu was used elsewhere in the text, and according to my information it is mostly fine if used in conjunction with other references, which it is, but should preferably have a disclaimer before it that (like regular comics) it is not an absolute truth and likely to change at the whims of other writers. I didn't see where I should fit in something like that here though.
 * In any case, that massive "telepathicfeats" reference is one of very few I've seen that are so chunky, unwieldy, and incomprehensible that it turns ridiculous. Could whoever wrote it take the time to sort it out into different categories, to insert after each separate example (as is common practice), as well as gauge if she actually does something remarkable within all of them, and clearly define what the kept instances actually mean? Dave (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

David A, I'm removing your quotation marks.

Secondly she was not "introduced" as weaker then Xavier that is a lie. That needs to change. We've been over this 100's of times.

This will hopefully resolve this dispute about "enormous"

From Gen X 16 the Narrator: http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/8885/genx16enability.jpg ExodusCloak (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As for your reference freak out:

I will catelogue them for you:

a b New Mutants #15 (1st series) May 1984 Cited as A telepath on par with Xavier by Illyana

• X-Men #200 (2nd series), August 2007 - Scanning the Rogues mind containing 8 Billion tortured minds. X-Men #201, #202, 203 (2nd series), October 2007 Projecting Her consciousness across America while bootstrapping her own brain chemistry, she worked around the Marauders Psi-Tech in the previous issue. Plus lifting the post hypnotic on Kitty. Great Multi-tasking feat, and range feat.

*Civil War: X-Men #1, September 2006 - Cited as one of the worlds most powerful telepaths my Val cooper.


 * Generation X #31, October 1997 • - Not sure why this reference is here. Maybe it got mixed up with the issue where she's described as one of the most powerful telepaths on the planet while attacking Emplate and Chimera or the Psi-War issue.

Uncanny X-Men #452 (1st series), January 2005 • - Beating Rachel Grey

X-Man #50, April 1999 - Making X-Man look like chump when he attacks her and calls herself a superior psi to him.

World of War Hulk: X-Men #1, June 2007 - Blocks an upgraded Xavier.

*Onslaught X-Men (one-shot)- Cited as one of the most powerful telepaths on earth.


 * Wolverine #46 (4th series)- It's actually v3 and cited as a level 10 telepath.

X-Men #205 (2nd series)- Blocking Sinister from using his all his powers, blocking Exodus and LM from using their psi powers while projecting her mind halfway across the world without add and giving a guy a nose bleed. More long range telepathy shown from hearing Pixie scream.

X-Men #207 (2nd series), January 2008 • - Stalemating exodus.


 * X-Men #206 (2nd series), December 2007 • - Sensing Cables psychic echo but not sure why this is here.

Uncanny X-Men #495 (1st series), February 2008 • - It's actually 496 Thought Fractules or whatever they were called. Long Distance telepathy too.

Uncanny X-Men #499 (1st series)- Beating a souped up Martinque Jason.

Uncanny X-Men #500 (1st series), July 2008 • - Long Distance Telepathy.

X-Men Legacy #215 (2nd series), August 2008 • X-Men Legacy #216 (2nd series),-humiliting Xavier.

Secret Invasion: X-Men #2, September 2008 • Secret Invasion: X-Men #3, October 2008 • - Beating 7 Skrulls that have been trained to take on the X-Men their whole lives on 8 Cerebra machines while separated from her body. The Skrulls are causing a global telepathy blockade.

New X-Men (2nd series) #31 - removing julians psi-blocks from long distance.

X-Men (2nd series) #178 - unlocking Bobby's secondary mutatation before he gets shot.

I'd suggest removing the references I asterixed as they're not feats. Or moving them to another part of the article.

Also there's some of the new New Mutants stuff where she kills Legion and Magik comes back to change the timeline. And Cannonball says she's the only one qualified to poke around in Legions head. ExodusCloak (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More stuff she's done, I'll make a list for people to glimse through.

Astonishing X-Men #33 - Controls a 100 people. Astonishing X-Men #7 - Controls everyone in the Office Blocks. Generation X #1 - Makes herself and all the GenXers Psi-Blind from everyone in the Airport. Uncanny X-Men #453 - Instantly uploads that psi-blind skill into Rachels mind. Emma Frost #18 - Beats Astrid Bloom and Absorbs all her telepathic knowledge. Weapon X #4 - Tricks Sauron with an Illusion. New X-Men #121 - Psychically pushes an entire crowds bliss buttons. Unlimited X-Men v1 #42 - Psychically controls an entire ecosystem including all the Diamond Animals. Destroys the entire diamond Fortress with her telepathy. New X-Men ANnual - Grants Scott the ability to speak Chinese. Uncanny X-Men 281 - Emma's psionic static indirectly hurts Jean Grey. Warsong #4 - Controls 1000 Cuckoos and combines her power with hers to lobotomize the Phoenix. Adding more later.... 188.141.109.59 (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding "introduced as weaker than Xavier" no that is not a lie. I don't consciously do that. The way I remember it, in the Hellfire Club saga, she was completely overwhelmed by Jean Grey Phoenix, whereas Xavier managed to pull off a very narrow victory in his following showdown with the entity. White Queen was also consistently mentioned without any of Xavier's "vast" or "most powerful mutant telepath" handbook mentions. So yes, originally not as powerful as Xavier, but Matt Fraction likes the character's semi-amoral go-getter diva personality, so he's apparently changed it to "Omega level telepath" now. We'll have to see if it sticks. The mega-ref is also still very chunky and incomprehensible for the reader. This is not a "freak-out", but a statement of fact, and you should preferably segment it into categories to be mentioned after her different types of powers, and likely be weeded from the ones you find less significant. Choose by yourself. I don't care. But some form of in-reference clarifications are in order, since it hurts the readability of the article as it is now. Dave (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Since you're saying you're not doing it consciously I'd like you to take a gander at the DPS again because you've missed out a crucial piece that hurts your argument. Xavier did no manage to pull off a narrow victory by himself. He couldn't have done it without Jean helping him.

Secondly just because it wasn't mentioned in the handbook doesn't mean it wasn't mentioned in the comics? As shown before she was cited as Xavier level in New Mutants, one of the most powerful psis on the planet in Gen X and a Psi of the highest order by Xavier under Claremonts pen in Uncanny X-men as well as a psi on the level of Jean Grey by Storm and Xavier. And thirdly omission of the words vast etc. to a D-List character back in the day doesn't automatically mean it's not there. I will try and sort out the references for you.ExodusCloak (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

As for references:

X-Men #202 (2nd series), October 2007 = Long Distance Telepathy already mentioned in the article no mention of the bootstrapping of her Brain chemistry thing though. Multi-tasking not mentioned.

Uncanny X-Men #452 (1st series) January 2005 = Already mentioned in the article skill beats power.

•X-Man #50, April 1999 = Hurting Nate Grey not mentioned. World of War Hulk: X-Men #1, June 2007 = Blocking Xavier not mentioned. • X-Men #207 (2nd series), January 2008 = Stalemate Exodus not mentioned Uncanny X-Men #499 (1st series)= Beating suped up Martinque not mentioned July 2008 • X-Men Legacy #215 (2nd series), August 2008 • X-Men Legacy #216 (2nd series), = Blocking Xavier walkthrough his mind not mentioned. TP Virus. Presumably a line inserted to describe these feats.

• X-Men #200 (2nd series) August 2007 = Mass Probing/mental scan not mentioned

• X-Men #205 (2nd series), November 2007 = Long distance already mentioned, multi-tasking not mentioned power blocking of Sinister, and TP shielding from Exodus and LM.

June 2008 • Uncanny X-Men #500 (1st series),= Long distance already mentioned

Uncanny X-Men #496 (1st series) = Obtaining information from the psychic static in the air. Thought fractules not mentioned.

September 2008 • Secret Invasion: X-Men #2, September 2008 • Secret Invasion: X-Men #3,= Beating Skrulls on 8 Cerebra's not mentioned not sure how do add this to the article but very impressive feat.

New X-Men (2nd series) #31 • X-Men (2nd series) #178 = Already mentioned in article unlocking potential.

Astonishing X-Men #33/Warsong/New X-Men = Mass Mind control.

Any ideas how we should go about describing some of these feats in the article?

ExodusCloak (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

We could just stick the word mass in front of mind control, probing or memory alteration for example.ExodusCloak (talk) 15:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

adding images from X-MEN: FIRST CLASS
I have seen several images of Emma Frost as portrayed by actress January Jones for the upcoming film. At what point should they be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.186.22.249 (talk) 07:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Speech Patterns
I'm new to X-Men and have just read Gifted. In Joss Whedon's hands, Emma seems to use a lot of British slang ("a sodding migraine", "sweet F.A." etc). Why is this? Mattmm (talk) 21:01, 21 August 2011 (UTC)