Talk:Jamie Madrox

Name
I am sure that at one point he was advertised as Xerox the Multiple Man - I guess copyright lawyers nipped that in the bud.

Aha - see this from Len Wein - "I was going to call him XERROX, THE MULTIPLE MAN, until Roy [Thomas] went berserk. There was screaming about lawsuits and suchlike, even though I spelled the name with two Rs. Roy didn't think it would placate the Xerox company, so Madrox it became."

and "though I did remember after posting that I'd intended the original name to be Zerrox the Multiple Man, with a Z, not an X."

http://peterdavid.malibulist.com/archives/001658.html

-- Beardo 08:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Creators
In May, 67.186.35.95 changed the previously credited creators to Stan Lee and Gil Kane, and the date of the first appearance to December 1975. The date was wrong, and it seems the creators were too. Sources such as http://www.ffplaza.com/library/?title=Giant-Size+Fantastic+Four and http://www.angelfire.com/comics/mcg-sac/1974.html support the originally credits (though I will ignore the inkers) -- Beardo 08:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Kill Crop
In a recent issue of X-Factor Vol. 3, it is stated that Jamie is not a mutant but a homo killcrop.


 * ?? What, exactly, does that mean? -- Noclevername 13:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Check here. I'm currently trying to clean this article up a bit. It may take a while. --Psyphics ΨΦ 15:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems that they are compairing homo killcrop to Changelings 68.150.221.42 (talk) 07:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Considering the number of known mutants that have manifested mutant powers since birth i am highly  dubious of  if this retcon is in fact accurate. Does this mean that beast and nightcralwer are going to be retconed as not been mutants? As well as others that have developed mutant powers from birth?--Dr noire 20:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The easiest explanation would be that they're all mutants, but the ones' who's power manifests at puberty are the most numerous because those that manifested at birth where killed in most cases so didn't pass on their variant of the X-Gene, which manifested at birth (and neither did their parents as their kids ended up dead). Simple evolution at work. Tryp's interpretation of that can easily be the same thing that make some people see blacks as not human, he's obviously biased enough. But until Marvel actually addresses it we have no idea where it will go. Ciobanica (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Past Tense
Past tense can be used in articles on fictional subjects, as order of events is not exclusive to reality. Any literate individual will tell you that events occur in some chronological order in the vast majority of written and illustrated media and thus when talking about comics it follows that, assuming the present to be the most recent event, all events that preceded it were in the past. With a statement of its fictitious subject in the beginning of the article any reader will realize that the, obviously fictitious, subject is, in fact... fictitious. Its useless and will only confuse the article to make everything present tense.

If nothing else it implies a certain lack of intelligence or simple literate ability in the readers, that is so extreme as to imply that one does not have the ability to comprehend what one reads (the article clearly states that it concerns fiction at the beginning). I am almost offended that someone would believe any reader capable of that... then I realize that any individuals that impaired are not likely to be browsing the internet as even children understand when someone tells them they are about to tell them a story of a fictional nature (though one usually uses simpler language).

The tag is thus erroneous in claiming that the use of past tense should be exclusive to actual history, is it not? 70.136.89.194 06:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This has gone unresponded for some time, but I decided to look it up in Manual of Style's Writing About Fiction section. As you can see under 'Contextual Presentation', the standard is that writing about fictitious events should be in the present tense.  If you still don't agree with the tag, discuss it there, not here. Primal Zed (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Jaime has killed, twice
I can't find an effective place to enter in the times Jaime has killed sentient beings.

The first was the reseructed form of Carnivore, a lizard-like mutant who despises X-Factor and was about to bite off Jaime's arm. He formed a dupe inside the entity, which exploded him. The second was during the MadroX series, when he killed in self-defense, but still...a man ended up dead on the floor, his throat torn open.

And a list of dupes that have died, how and when, would be a great sub-section.

Lots42 02:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

earth x
i have expanded upon the  earth x section,   both the information givern in  earth x 6 apendex  and his role in universe x beasts special. what do you think?--Dr noire 20:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Suit
How are we sure he is wearing a suit at all? It seems (from the art) that it is just a shirt ,alluding to the old suit. I say this beceause he in no way seems to have controll of his duplication when he is hit or when he falls. 68.150.221.42 (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Giantsizefantastic4.jpg
Image:Giantsizefantastic4.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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Image
Why does the main image in the infobox have Madrox falling out of a window, instead of the MadroX #2 image that is later in the article? Obviously he is not defenestrated often, and the latter image shows a clear frontal view of Madrox backed by dupes exhibiting various moods - a much better representation of the man. Primal Zed (talk) 13:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Movie Mention in top summary
So this was apparently started by me, but I've since become unsure of the matter. Should the mention of his movie appearance be in the summary at the top? Though I don't necessarily agree with it, it seems to me the answer is 'yes' (many other character articles do this, including Iceman, Wolverine, and Lady Deathstrike). It is a summary, and people who look up the article because of the movies want to see it reaffirmed. Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the decision, but this isn't the place to debate it and it's bigger than I care to go for such a minor thing. In short, leave the line about the movie in the top summary - it's not hurting anybody. Primal Zed (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My edit putting the movie mention in the summary was reverted again. 'Mentioned in Film section' is not a complete explanation - nearly everything mentioned in the summary is mentioned elsewhere in the article.  If you insist on leaving it out, elaborate on better reasons, or find a better place to discuss it.  I think it should go by the standard seen in other articles.  Primal Zed (talk) 21:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

LGBT and Buddhist?
Should these tags be on here? His sexuality is never even mentioned in the article (that I found). As far as I know, both tags are based entirely on events in his 2004 miniseries MadroX: Multiple Choice. In this, he absorbs a dupe that had trained as a Shaolin monk, and another dupe compliments the features of another man. Later in the same miniseries, he applies Shaolin techniques to focus. Each of these are pretty isolated as far as the overall character is concerned, and by themselves don't seem enough to support assertions about his sexuality or religious beliefs. Primal Zed (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Chronology
The chronology for this very discussion page is all out of order. I tried to fix it and went all weird on me. Lots42 (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Baby info
So why was the baby info deleted? Confusing. Lots42 (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

see below —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.10.73 (talk) 07:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Peter David's plea not to spoil #39 and #40 immediately
The author of X-Factor actually pleads with the general public on the very first page of the comic itself (#s 39 and 40) to refrain from spoiling the big surprises within. As these very recent events are still playing out, it seems wrong not to honor this, for a little while at least. Many articles are often months out of date, so the "it must be up-to-the-minute" argument, while not entirely misguided, seems a weak reason to not honor his plea. 76.93.147.77 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not required to censor content from published material to honor the requests of a writer, and Spoiler Warnings were done away with some time ago. Interested readers are advised to simply not read the article or section in question. Besides, #39 came out over a month ago, and it makes little sense to delete the material in question, while still keeping "Sean" as the title of that section, doesn't it? For my part, this goes to accuracy and completeness, and not being up to the minute. Nightscream (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia editors should be morally intellectual on this issue, but they aren't. After all, some readers wait for the trade. Some fans probably don't want to see it somewhere. Then again, folks aren't morally responsible anyway. *shrug* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.10.73 (talk) 07:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a fair point. I myself stay away from Wikipedia articles I don't want to spoil myself upon. For example, I stayed away from Max Payne until I finished the entire game. Lots42 (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

the original Jamie Madrox
The article keeps referring to the original Jamie Madrox but it doesn't explain how he is any different from his dupes, if the dupes can create their own dupes. Does the original personality dominate the dupe's personality when they merge. Do the dupes lack some ability or fundamental quality that the original has? If not, then the concept of the original Jamie is meaningless, he just splits himself in two. 220.244.197.235 (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's always been one Jaime, as I understand it. The dupes themselves understand this. That's why a handful have rebelled, because they do not want to go back to the main Jaime. Lots42 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth
In 'New Mutants Academy X' #15, Rahne is talking with her friend Xian Coy Manh. Xian asks about Jaime's possible romantic interest in her. Rahne opines that none really exists, though there's probably a dupe with that personality aspect. She further opines that there's probably a dupe with romantic feelings for 'everyone'. No gender specified. Lots42 (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

should there be a section about the personalitys of his dupes.
well should there be. i'm not saying that we need to have a personality thing for each dupe, but maybe the more common traits. also i think the there should be a section or maybe even page for the bishop (or whatever he is in the church) dupe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.108.194 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 19:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)