Talk:Rictor

SHB image
Can we possibly get a better image of Rictor for the SHB; one that's more in line with WP:CMC guidelines? --Newt ΨΦ 16:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Civil War
Is there any explanation for why Rictor was even asked to register under the Superhuman Registration Act? Being depowered, he's not a superhuman, and he's not a costumed vigilante either. Just a private investigator's assistant. This seems rather plothole-ish to me. 71.203.209.0 01:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please use this talk page for discussing the article. This is not a forum. --Newt ΨΦ 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see how it's relevant to the article. After all, Rictor had SHIELD training looong before joining X-Factor. Many non-powered entities have been asked to register, such as Bengal. Lots42 00:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT Category and Article Mention
I noticed that the mention of Rictor's coming out as bisexual man in X-Factor #14 was removed, as was the LGBT Category entry. Any reason why this was omitted? Artemisboy 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It was an anon-user who removed it, and he had only one other edit, so I just reverted it.
 * Now that he's out, should someone put more information on his relationship with Shatterstar and how it used to be implied that they were a couple? --DrBat 00:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I remember the main instigation to the supposed relationship was, besides their close friendship, in one issue Shatterstar stopped a gay bashing in progress. After which he made the comment "I miss Rictor". Artemisboy 17:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that there was no "outing" confirmed in X-Factor #14. PAD is known for his vagueness and we get the sense of him playing to the fans. If that's an outing, then it's really weak. I think we should keep Rictor where he's at for now until (if) we get more on the situation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.132.204.80 (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I dont think his comment was vague at all, he says he is joking about sleeping with Pietro, but not about the "guy/guy thing". To me thats anything but vague and the writter cant really "play" to the fans because a statement like that has to be approved by marvel, because it is an outing, it might only seem weak to some simply because he doesnt stand up and say "I for one am a gay" the way Northstar did...also in the main article it says that Rictor over-reacts to the comment about Shatterstar, to me he looks more supprised or shocked, if you look at the page closely on the last panel his mough is hanging open and he is spilling his beer, sitting there in shock because someone else actually knows about his relationship with Shatterstar, to me the word over-reacted doesnt fit, does anyone else think that?--Minity 3:43, 2 January 2007
 * Has anyone from Marvel ever come out to say "Rictor is gay", "Rictor is straight", "Rictor is bisexual", or even "Rictor is bi-curious"? If not, and if he's never been exlicitly depicted in a romantic relationship with a man, this constant edit-warring is merely defending a speculation, and no matter how many people support a speculation, a speculation is still a speculation, which is not allowed on wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.136.11.242 (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC).
 * That sets an unusually high standard for characteristics. It's not enough for the character to self-identify, it has to be confirmed by an external source.
 * As well, one can have a sexual orientation without it being specifically shown or even acted upon. If a character said that he was straight would it still be 'unverified speculation' until he were shown in a relationship?   David Cheater 08:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

"Heterosexual inclination"...
The article says: In X-Factor #21, it is strongly suggested that Julio and Rahne Sinclair have sex, which indicates Rictor's heterosexual inclination.

I have problems with that sentence, because I do not believe having sex with Rahne "indicates" his being heterosexual. It indicates he is able to have and enjoy sex with women, but that is the case of some men who also have and enjoy sex with other men.

In other words, it does not indicate that he is exclusively heterosexual, as the article would suggest. Icecypher 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone probably changed it, because Im pretty sure it used to say something about bisexuality, I think that would be more accurate anyway. Minity 23:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Before it said the character was likely bisexual, but someone updated it to include information on his and Rahne's "relationship," but that person also worded it to say that the bisexuality was just a joke, and the character was entirely heterosexual. I think the user used the phrase, "confirming his heterosexuality," so I changed the wording to try to imply he was possibly bisexual, without stating it outright, as per the quote by David Peter.  If I didn't do it well enough, feel free to correct it.  It's my personal opinion that the character does have both homosexual and heterosexual tendencies.  -Gafami 21:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sex: It Either Happened Or No
The article can't seem to make up it's mind on whether or not Rictor and Rahne had sex. Since I have not read the issues in question, it should be made clear if he had her do the tail thing at the time by someone who has, please. Lots42 00:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Relationship with Shattestar
I find it odd that this doesn't even get mentioned in the section on sexual orientation, as that's where the notion of Rictor being gay derives from... MultipleTom (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Two things
1 - No alternate verions section of Rictor? And 2 - the sexuality section is currently jammed full of original research. It should be toned down a lot. Lots42 (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not so much original research at the moment, as it's nothing but bullet points of every single instance (consisting mostly of the new X-Factor comment, but ignoring - except for one sentence - the multiple instances in X-Force). It needs to be converted into a coherent prose paragraph.24.190.34.219 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation section needs clean-up and expansion.
First off, the section is in the wrong format. It currently presents multiple bullets of every single instance, and relies too much on quotes. All the bullets need to be combined into a coherent paragraphs.

Secondly, it is extremely biased. For one, almost every bullet deals with the current X-Factor comic, and there is next to no mention of the original X-Force comment (save for the first sentence, which isn't even the main point of contention for his bisexuality).

The section is also extremely skewed. It doesn't mention the pre X-Factor v. 3 relationship with Rahne, it doesn't mention the pre X-Factor v. 3 relationship with Boom-Boom, it mentions next to nothing of the pre X-Factor v. 3 relationship with Shatterstar. Yes, they kissed last issue, but his relationships (with men and women) and orientation have been going on since the early '90s.

Even without an official declaration in the comics or by Marvel, the section can still be cleaned up and put in a proper encyclopedic format that covers the entire topic not just it's recent incarnations.24.190.34.219 (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free... Dornicke (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I replaced the section with a general summary. There is no need to list every gay remark or joke.


 * While I agree the section could theoretically be expanded for more detailed descriptions I don't have the exact New Mutants and X-Force issue numbers to cite every single relationship with Boom Boom and Rahne. Yet, the section is about his sexuality not a detailed analysis of his relationships so I think that's okay.


 * Peter David confirmed in his blog that the kiss was not a fake out and that he wants to develop the Rictor and Shatterstar relationship in future issues (added the link as a citation, he discusses in in the comments section [search for Peter David]).24.190.34.219 (talk) 06:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

September 2010
I have since overhauled this section using two great interviews with PAD and some other sources.~ZytheTalk to me! 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the good work. I've changed the heading, since it's not about his relationship with Shattersta so much as his sexual orientation, of which Shatterstar is a major facet.  That being said, this section should be rewritten to better describe the evolution of the character's sexual orientation from a creative perspective.  How was he introduced, how did writers handle it, any subtext, reception, developments, creative processes, etc.  A lot of it is there, it just needs to be reorganized.  That being said, given that the kiss received some good media attention (albeit not mainstream), the page's lead could also be expanded to include this real world significance.Luminum (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yup, I wanted to see editors accept the changes I made without fuss before I started to cover it in the Lead, or else fear cries of gayifying their favourite character's page too much. I think the various "subtext, reception, developments, creative processes" etc. are limited really to what we can find in RS, and because of the subject a lot of what we have is Peter David talking about what earlier writers were probably doing without direct quotations from them. We certainly don't have any interviews with Loeb from which we can comment on some of his scene-by-scene decisions.


 * I wasn't sure if "Sexual orientation" was the main focus. Surely his bi-ness was less importance for most of the run than his relationship with Shatterstar (mostly platonic) which later bleeds into the same topic? I was kind of thinking along the lines of the Willow Rosenberg article (not by me) and Jack Harkness article (me) in terms of how we discuss it on the page. "Sexual orientation" as a subsection also seems to de-normalise the issue of his sexuality, and imply that it is a constant of the character and not a creative decision on the part of specific writers.


 * I was trying to focus on the complexities of the character being a thing written by someone under circumstances fundamental to their artistic decisions, editorial staff, era, and whatnot, which is why it has a broadly chronological structure. I think it's important not to treat it as if it were a real relationship or a real person "discovering" his always-there orientation, keeping our real-world perspective very much at the forefront.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I use "Sexual orientation" because the characters' prominent notability is for the depiction of his same-sex relationship in a series and being a bisexual character. Yes, the character has a history beyond his sexual orientation, but not much of that has any real-world impact or notability.  A "Relationships" section wouldn't work ala Willow Rosenberg because those previous relationships don't have much in terms of deep impact or notable impact, compared to say, Willow's character evolution as a meek individual to having a relationship with Oz, then emergence of homosexual sexual orientation with Tara, and then resolution of her grief and anger with the introduction of the Kennedy character.  Personally, the Willow Rosenberg page, particularly that section, reads like a fanpage moreso than an encyclopedia article, since it's more about the fiction than it is about the rel-world context of those relationships, such as discussions about impacts to character, the creative process behind it, reception, etc., so I wouldn't consider it a good standard to use.


 * In Rictor's case, "Sexual orientation" is an appropriate heading. It doesn't treat the character as "real" since the content of the section should clearly deal with the concept as it applies to a fictional character--i.e. early fan subtext, writer's development, notable impact, reactions, rather than say, the character's sexual/relationship history.  If we keep the section strictly to the events, coverage, development, and reception of the Shatterstar/Rictor relationship, then the previous heading would be better.  As it is now, we talk about the character and his relationships with a lot of other characters, which is out of place for a section discussing his relationship with only one character.


 * It's not de-normalizing because the main notable coverage revolves around his sexual orientation. It would be wrong to create a subheading like this if the character isn't noted for his sexual orientation.  At that point, from a development or reception perspective, it would be irrelevant.  If it exists, it's important to portray reception for a specific trait or aspect for what it is.  If Rictor is a minority in the mainstream American comic book industry, then it's a worthwhile section to have so long as it's supported by RS.Luminum (talk) 23:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I do agree with you. I agree entirely about just covering the real-world focus, really. And personally, I agree about the Willow article; I and its overhauling editor disagreed strongly about it on the talk page, and I gave up trying to put in more attribution and whatnot in the style of the Jack article. I fully agree about the focus on the writers' actions and choices and the factors behind those decisions. Do you have any immediate suggestions for re-structuring? From this section outwards, the article is going to have a real overhaul I feel. Perhaps we should work on a sandbox, to that end?~ZytheTalk to me! 00:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

New Main Picture
Can he please get a new main image that isn't from the early 2000s Cordelia Van Allen (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2023 (UTC)