Talk:X-Men/Archive 1

This article includes discussions that occured on the Talk:X-Men page before 2005

Current Titles
I moved the current titles section here because it's not really appropriate in an encyclopedia to talk about "current" events which are time-based. All of this could be obsolete by August. If someone would like to write articles from an historical perspective on the individual titles, that would be appropriate, but doing so in the main X-Men article just obscures the more general information about the team.

Here's the original text:

Current X-Men Titles
There are currently four titles with the term "X-Men" in the titles: Uncanny X-Men (which was first published as X-Men volume 1), X-Men (volume 2, which was until May 2004 called New X-Men, though it was just X-Men prior to that), Astonishing X-Men and New X-Men (both newly published in May 2004). Note that confusingly, In May New X-Men became X-Men, and a new version of New X-Men began to be published, both drastically different from each other. Each of the titles currently follows a different theme, though these plots shifted between titles in May 2004. A brief summary of the titles follows:

Uncanny X-Men
Written by legendary X-Men scribe Chris Claremont, and drawn by Alan Davis. It picks up on the storyline of Chris Claremont's title X-Treme X-Men (X-Treme was cancelled in April 2004, but the characters and author simply tranferred to Uncanny). The team is led by Storm. The main plot of the title is that the group is working to ensure not mutant rights, like most other X-Men, but true egality between humans and mutants. To this end, the team members are marshalls of the XSE, a special law enforcement agency empowered to handle mutant-related scenarios around the world.

X-Men
Written by Chuck Austen. Until April 2004, Austen wrote Uncanny X-Men, and his new stint on X-Men features many of the same characters and a similar feel. Austen's X-Men are the most traditional of the four teams, and lack a "new spin" on the old concept. It is open to interpretation whether this is good or bad thing.

Astonishing X-Men
Written by Joss Whedon, better known as the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. First published in May 2004, in many ways Astonishing X-Men continues the more daring creative trend started by Grant Morrison on New X-Men (now known as X-Men, not to be confused with the current New X-Men). This team centres around Cyclops and Emma Frost.

New X-Men: Academy X
Though launched as a new title, the current New X-Men is effectively just a continuation of New Mutants, a series about the younger mutants and those mutants studying at Xavier's school.


 * Lots of articles make reference to current titles and events, including other comic articles. I don't see why we can't have a list of them. If certain information becomes "obsolete" then we simply update them. Maestro25 22:29, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it would be better to place all of the current Marvel series together on one page, e.g. List of current Marvel Comics publications, or expanding List of Marvel Comics titles, rather than adding lists to a handful of articles. The X-Men article is long enough as is.  -Sean Curtin 23:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Editing Dispute
Discussion moved from User talk:Michael Rawdon &mdash;Stormie 00:47, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Initial post by User:68.162.153.117
Hello Michael,

My name is Nick Keppler and last month I extended the X-Men entry into its present form. Anyway, I appreciate that you wanted to contribute to the entry, however, I must take issue with a few of the things you deleted or replaced in your revision:


 * The first few sentences should include the most important information. The fact that the X-Men debuted in 1963 is important; that it was September was not. Also, given that so many creators have developed the series, the fact that it was created by Lee and Kirby is not important enough to be one of the first bits of information we read. If anyone&#8217;s name should be in the first few paragraphs, it should be Chris Claremont&#8217;s.
 * It is important to note some of the defining characters of the series in the opening section. There should be some acknowledgement of at least Magneto, Professor X, Wolverine, Storm, Cyclops and Rogue, especially given that below characters are given more space because of their complexity and continuous presence in the series. Popularity should be noted somewhere.
 * The term &#8220;evil mutants&#8221; is old and cliché and shouldn&#8217;t be used in the opening section. Marvel did away with it years ago and it is especially inapplicable given the number of characters that have treaded the line between hero and villain (Rogue, Bishop, Colossus, Magneto, Juggernaut, Emma Frost, Mystique)
 * It is important to note in the &#8220;Original X-Men&#8221; section that the franchise originated in a particular creative rebirth of Marvel and was not just a fluke
 * The Phoenix Saga is important to note. Both because it signifies the dawn of the Claremont/Byrne age (God, I sound like such a dork) and because it is at least as important as other plotlines detailed later (Days of the Future&#8217;s Past, God Loves Man Kills, The 90s X-Overs) and its clarifying to the description of the Phoenix Saga

Anyway, I would appreciate a response (my e-mail is pnk6@pitt.edu) and look forward to coming to a compromise.

- Nick (July 14th)

Response by User:Michael Rawdon
Hi Nick -

I couldn't disagree more with your points. :-)

First of all, I was one of the major architects of the previous revision, so I obviously have a preference for a lot of the formatting and wording therein. To address specific points:


 * It's pretty standard in Wikipedia to refer to specific comic book issues by month and year, so September 1963 should remain.


 * It's standard and correct to credit creators in the introductory paragraph. They are, after all, the ones ultimately responsible for the creation.  While Claremont's place in X-Men history is significant, I think his role is clearly subordinate to that of Lee and Kirby.  Heck, Claremont didn't even create the "new" X-Men - they were created (mainly) by Len Wein and Dave Cockrum.


 * The introductory section definitely should not list individual characters. First, these characters have their own entries in the 'pedia.  Second, they are prominently listed in the sections below.  Third, this article is about the group, not the individual members.  Fourth, which members are the "defining" or "prominent" ones is a matter of opinion (I definitely do not think that Rogue or Nightcrawler belongs in such a list, unless the list is going to include 20 or 30 individuals).


 * "Evil mutants" was a key part of X-Men mythology for over 25 years (1963-1988), and is included directly in the name of one of their major enemies. The team was founded in part specifically to defend against "evil mutants", so its mention is appropriate.


 * I don't see any reason to stress that the X-Men were created during Marvel's 1960s renaissance. Indeed, this seems counterproductive because the 1960s X-Men stories were neither creatively nor commercially successful.  The book, was, in fact, such a flop that it was one of the few early Marvel titles to get cancelled during the 1960s.


 * Actually, the early Phoenix/Shi'ar story were mostly drawn and created by Dave Cockrum, not John Byrne. The story itself actually isn't especially noteworthy historically, except for the mutation of Jean Grey.  The first major storyline drawn by Byrne was the Magneto yarn a few issues later.  The Dark Phoenix Saga is certainly significant (and X-Men #137 is probably one of the most important single issues in comics in the last 50 years), but the background to that story can be easily summarized without resorting to an overly-detailed explanation of X-Men #100-108.  (Indeed, such information really belongs in the Phoenix or Jean Grey articles.)

While it would be nice to find a compromise, right now it sounds like we radically disagree on the structure of the article. I've mostly adhered to standard met by many other comic book-related articles, and would prefer to stick to them. In particular, where possible we should avoid the temptation to be overly wordy and (especially) to recapitulate the entire history of the team, rather than hitting the highlights, which casual- or non-comics fans would be most interested in. -mhr 22:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Response by User:68.162.153.117
Michael,


 * It is appropriate to mention the publication date of specific comic book issues, but the introductory section should include only the most important information. Is the fact that they debuted in X-Men #1 (September 1963) that important? Those are small details that can go in later. Note that entries for Spider-Man, Superman and Batman do not list the exact months the character made their introduction.
 * True, it is standard to note list the creators in articles on comic book characters but are the X-Men standard comic book creations? No, they are much more multifaceted. More than any other franchise they have been revised and redefined by a large number of people. The vision of Lee and Kirby is not what most people think of when they think &#8220;X-Men.&#8221; Again, I am not totally averse to the idea of listing specific creators in the introductory section but just Lee and Kirby seems simplistic and no mention of Claremont, who wrote most of the saga&#8217;s best storylines, developed its characters into what they are today, and dedicated 19 years of his life to the series, is criminal.
 * There are 20 or 30 X-Men as important as Nightcrawler and Rogue?!?!? What series are you reading? Anyway, which characters should be listed in the introductory section is debatable but again I stress that the purpose of the introductory section is to summarize what exactly people think of when the think &#8220;X-Men&#8221; and what they think are names like Cyclops, Storm, Wolverine ect. Yes, those characters have their own sections. Yes, they are mentioned below, but neither of those facts differentiate them from Thunderbird, Marrow, Longshot and other relatively marginal X-Men. What defines the X-Men should be in the introductory section and these characters define the X-Men.
 * Again note that the term &#8220;evil mutants&#8221; has been scraped and think of why; it is old, hokey and a part of a &#8220;fan boy speak.&#8221; It should be used to describe the team&#8217;s main 60s era adversaries but it is too old and obscure a term for the introductory paragraph. It is also misleading to say the X-Men were founded to battle &#8220;evil mutants&#8221; given the relativity of heroes and villains in the X-Men mythos and given that characters such as Mojo, Juggernaut and the Reavers are a part of their rogue&#8217;s gallery.
 * You have a small reference to the &#8220;Marvel Age&#8221; in your version but still failing to note the other important characters came about in this movement seems to be mentioning it without adequately defining it.
 * I checked my Essential X-Men trade and you are correct that most of the Phoenix Saga is illustrated by Dave Cuckrum, but spiritually, it is still the dawn of the X-Men&#8217;s prime. Even if the saga were only important for introducing the Phoenix Force, it would be pretty darned important but it also laid the entire groundwork for the intergalactic component of the X-Men mythos. Is it important as the Dark Phoenix Saga or the rebirth of the X-Men in 1975? No, but it is as important as many of the storylines described below so for consistency&#8217;s sake at least it, should stay.

I disagree that an article should only include the most basic highlights and not an extensive history. Anyone who looks up the subject wants information and there should be as much as will fit. But to separate the details from the crucial information, there should be a short, well-considered introductory section that includes all the information and only the information that answers the basic question, &#8220;What are the X-Men?&#8221; and the answer is:
 * a widely successful comic book franchise
 * two successful animated series
 * a successful film series
 * a mutant super hero team
 * the team that includes such popular superheroes as Cyclops, Wolverine, Rogue, Storm ect.
 * a metaphor for civil rights struggles

Anyway, I hope you hear me out and I hope you reconsider a compromise. If not, I am forced to reach out to a third party because the prior version of this article is more complete, better organized, better worded, clearer and more reader-friendly than the current version.

Although, I hate to start an edit war, I will see that my contributions and perspective are included to their fullest unless some agreement is soon reached.

Another response
In brief:
 * Just because some other comic book articles don't mention a month doesn't mean that it's wrong to do so. References to a specific issue of a monthly periodical ought to mention the month of release.
 * Lee and Kirby created the X-Men. This is a fact. Obviously they didn't create all of them, and didn't write or illustrate them at the peak of their popularity, but they did create them.
 * The problem with listing the most notable X-Men is that nobody's going to agree on exactly who the five most notable X-Men are (other than Wolverine, of course).
 * "Evil mutants" were their main enemies for decades. Another fact. The fact that the franchise has moved past this point does not invalidate the fact that this was the case.
 * A link to Silver Age of Comic Books has been added.
 * The original Phoenix Saga is not really that notable. The event of Jean becoming/being replaced by the Phoenix is notable, but the actual story is not.

--Sean Curtin 01:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yet another response by Michael Rawdon
Responding to all of your points seems futile at this juncture, Nick, as we fundamentally disagree on many of them. What sort of compromise do you have in mind? All you've really said so far is that it's "my way or the highway", from your point of view.

I think the point on which me most forcefully disagree is your observation:


 * I stress that the purpose of the introductory section is to summarize what exactly people think of when the think &#8220;X-Men&#8221; and what they think are names like Cyclops, Storm, Wolverine ect. [sic]

Well, no. I think the purpose of the introductory section is to summarize what they are, and to confirm to anyone who is searching the encyclopedia that this entry may be the one they're looking for. Articles should be angled towards people who don't know what the X-Men are. In particular, the article should be aimed at people who aren't X-Men geeks, emphasizing the larger importance of the franchise in the world.

In particular, I think detailed information on the members absolutely does not belong in this article - it belongs in articles on the members themselves (which is why we have this wonderful hyperlinked encyclopedia). Particularly since we already have List of X-Men for people to browse. If we must have a full accounting of X-Men creators and storylines (and I don't think we do, but whatever), those would be best placed in separate articles as well.

I am mostly striving to make the article more generally relevant and readable, and in particular to remove excess verbiage which exists or belongs in other entries in the encyclopedia (and also to remove some hyperbole and POV statements).

Lastly, I'll respond to your comment:


 * the prior version of this article is more complete, better organized, better worded, clearer and more reader-friendly than the current version

A matter of opinion, obviously. I'd be more convinced if you didn't often misspell words like the last name of Salvador LaRocca or "scrapped". By-and-large I think my revision contains the important elements of your revision, while generally getting to the point more succinctly (and adding a lot of useful hyperlinks, and correcting spelling and grammar). I've also written a number of paragraphs which provide historical context for the stories, since I've been reading quite a bit about the X-Men's first 25 years or so lately.

-mhr 01:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My two cents on a few disputed matters
&mdash;Stormie 01:38, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * I reckon leave the "September 1963" in the introductory paragraph. If it was an article about a person we'd have their exact date of birth, why not have the "date of birth" of the comic?
 * Names of creators and contributors in the introduction - I'd be perfectly happy to see Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's names accompanied by those of Claremont and maybe others. How about something like Created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby and popularised by the work of Chris Claremont, Jim Lee and others, they first appeared in X-Men #1 (September 1963). OK, that's pretty clunky, but maybe someone can do a better job?
 * Name of characters in the introduction - now this one I'm unsure about. In theory I think it's a good idea, and would recommend it for most articles about superhero teams, but in practice I think it's more likely to be a pain in the ass in the specific case of the X-Men.
 * "evil mutants" doesn't particularly bother me, but I'd shed no tears if the phrase was replaced by something that Nick was happier with.

My Idea for a Compromise
First of all, thanks to everyone who took the time to chime in on this dispute. I am glad there are a few neutral observers in the room.

I am not saying &#8220;my way or the high way.&#8221; I believe it was Rawdon who disagreed with the entire idea of a compromise when I first brought it up. The compromise I have in mind is simple:

'''Leave, reorganize or make corrections to what is already there. Don&#8217;t delete any large chunks of information. Add whatever you want.'''

It upsets me to see that information that I spent a lot of time and effort writing out carelessly and needlessly deleted. A clear and comprehensive article, albeit a long one, is enough to relate to casual or non-fans, especially when there is an introductory section that gets through all the basics. '''Keeping as much information as possible is a good thing. These articles are written to relate information.'''

Because, I feel that there should be as much information as possible, I feel that brief (certainly not detailed) descriptions of characters should remain because, as stated earlier, characters define the series. A big long list of characters, creators and titles and how they came and went is not helpful to anyone.

Passing over smaller disputes, I think the big disagreement here comes down to two points: 1) Is the amount of information a deterrent for non-or-casual fans? I say no. Anyone here is here for information. We serve up as much as we can in the clearesr, easiest way we can. 2) What is the purpose of the introduction? We both agree to answer &#8220;what [the X-men] are&#8221; but I only want the answer to that question and want it answered fully.

A challenge to a section as POV I am willing to consider, as I am a spelling correction, or another idea as to where &#8220;evil mutant,&#8221; &#8220;September 1963&#8221; and &#8220;Lee and Kirby&#8221; go. A complete slash and burn of my contributions I am not and that is why I am returning the article as it was. Add whatever you like. - Nick

PS. The original Phoenix Saga is about 10 times more important than an aborted storyline revealing Sabretooth as Wolverine&#8217;s father. That's what we call a factoid.

Stormie's reply to Nick's idea
The fact that you have reverted everything since your last edit, including my spelling, grammar and link fixes, certainly makes it look like you're saying "my way or the highway."

Also the slashing and burning goes both ways, consider for example the paragraph ''Despite the philosophical concepts which have appeared in the X-Men series, co-creator Stan Lee has noted that his motivation for the team was to find a way to create a number of characters with a large variety of super-powers without having to come up with a separate and interesting origin for each one. He tapped the concept of genetic mutation as a way to make this aspect of his storytelling easier, so he could focus on telling the adventure yarns he wanted to sell.'' which you have chopped out.

In response to your two points:


 * 1) Please, everyone bear in mind, that the solution to "too much information" is to move is elsewhere, not to just chop it out. We have a List of X-Men which has virtually no details about any character other that "first appearances". We have a Bibliography of X-Men titles with no details, and (it seems to me) not all the comics in there. We have articles like New X-Men with less detail than there is about the title in this article! (and no link to it from this article)
 * 2) I think there is definite merit in the way your version of the introduction at least makes reference to the TV series and the movies (although listing the networks and years of the TV series is a little wordy) - this article is about "the X-Men", not solely about the comic X-Men and that needs to be reflected in the intro.

Should the article include capsule summaries of the characters in the various teams, or just lists of names linking to the characters' own articles? I think the summaries are pretty harmless and one line per character is hardly excessive. Michael said "I think detailed information on the members absolutely does not belong in this article - it belongs in articles on the members themselves" but I really don't think this could be described as "detailed information", could it?

Is there any point me re-doing my fixes to this version, or is someone going to come along and revert it again?

&mdash;Stormie 04:13, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

What I am going to do
I am going to attempt to work on an article at X-Men/Temp which merges the content from both Michael and Nick's latest revisions. Then I am going to try to make sure that there aren't any articles like New X-Men which have less detail than this article. Then we can argue about what's too wordy in the combined version. How does that sound to everyone? &mdash;Stormie 04:19, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Merged version at X-Men/Temp
OK, the version at X-Men/Temp is my attempt to merge Michael and Nick's latest revisions into something which has all of Michael's improvements to phrasing, all of my fixes, but also all of the content that Nick is trying to defend.

(I may have missed something, of course, it's incredibly hard to do compares when so much of the structure of sections and paragraphs was changed between the two versions)

This is definitely too wordy - Wikipedia thinks so too, it's protesting that the article is 34k long. But is it possible that people could look at making some changes and cuts to this, rather than getting into revert wars on the main article? And please - do it bite-sized chunks, don't revamp the whole article at once! And make sure that if you cut something out, that if at all possible you ensure that it can be found elsewhere, e.g. in an article on a particular character or title.

Thanks! &mdash;Stormie 05:40, Jul 16, 2004 (UTC)

Nick's Reply to Stormie
Stormie, firstly forgive me for chopping out your fixes. But I was put in a position where the article was not just altered but replaced. Whereas, we are in the situation where there were two versions, I have to stand by the first. I doubt if I had created an amalgamation, it would have lasted long.

However, when I get some free time, I do look forward to viewing what you have come up with. I promise to consider and discuss it fairly.

I like the idea of moving some things around to other articles, especially descriptions of spin-off books. The brief character descriptions I also feel are rightly a part of the main article. We&#8217;ll discuss it further.

Thanks for your work and your input,

- Nick

Response to the new entry
Stormie, I really like what you have here. It's a smart, fair compromise that builds on the prior entry, not destroy it. I do have some ideas for clarity, for shortening and for eliminating redundancy:

Introductory Section:
 * The second sentence is a little bulky. How about: &#8220;The X-Men are a fictional group of mutant superheroes, owned by Marvel Comics. The X-Men, who were created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, first appeared in X-Men #1 (September 1963), and are one of the most popular comic book franchises in the world. Since the mid-1980s, their series Uncanny X-Men and its many spin-off comic books have sold briskly and turned their writers and illustrators into comic book industry superstars. We can get to the 1975 revival later and the fact that they didn&#8217;t get off the ground until the late-1980s implies a history of trial and error.


 * I can live with the mentions of Lee and Kirby and September 1963 but I would still like to see a reference to other creators up here. Claremont is a must. Cockrum? Byrne? Lee? Lobdell? Morrison?


 * I agree that section here about films and televisions series should be cut down

Original X-Men:
 * &#8220;Flush with the success of Fantastic Four in the early 1960s&#8230;&#8221; My dictionary has no version of &#8220;Flush&#8221; that fits this sentence. &#8220;After the success of Fantastic Four in the early 1960s&#8221;? Or maybe just list the FF with the other heroes created during this time. The Marvel Age or Silver Age entry can include which characters came first.


 * &#8220;&#8216;Marvel Age of comics,&#8217; more generally known as the Silver Age of Comic Books&#8221; The Silver Age also included the rebirths of the Flash, Green Lantern and other DC heroes. &#8220;How about &#8216;Marvel Age of comics,&#8217; part of the Silver Age of Comic Books&#8221;?


 * &#8220;A few issues later, X-Men #4&#8221; Obviously, issue #4 is a few issues later than issue #1.


 * Maybe to save room, a full line-up of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants is not needed.

The All-New, All-Different X-Men
 * &#8220;This marked the beginning of the X-Men's first true heyday, during which they ascended to become one of the most popular comics in the industry.&#8221; "First true heyday" is a POV. Perhaps this should be cut. By simply noting the rise in popularity and the importance of the Dark Phoenix Saga, we know that this is a pretty important era.


 * &#8220;Byrne departed after #143 and Cockrum returned, though his second run is not well-remembered.&#8221; - then the entry should just skip it.


 * Two explanations of Phoenix transformation.


 * I liked the list for the early 1980s recruits. It makes the entry less cumbersome and more consistent with how most of the other X-Men were introduced.

The expansion of the franchise
 * &#8220;In 1986 Claremont scripted the first major X-Men crossover, or "X-Over", a story which occurred simultaneously in all of the X-Men books being published.&#8221; Two descriptions of what an X-Over is.


 * The Wolverine/Sabretooth paternity story is a small detail that might be better on either characters&#8217; own entry.


 * "These sales landmarks were helped substantially by the unprecedented boom in the comic book industry at the time, as well as widespread speculative investment in popular comic books by the general public and novel new marketing gimmicks employed by the publishers. The sales levels proved untenable and collapsed along with the rest of the industry in the mid-1990s." Perhaps information about the boom and its collapse would work better as a conclusion to the section concerning the expansion. As it is, we jump from the mid-1990s to 1992.

The new regime
 * "A few new books were launched, including Weapon X." I consider it important that the new approach to X-Books is finding a theme outside the regular concept of superheroes.

Animated television series
 * Maybe to cut this down, only a brief mention of Pryde of the X-Men is needed.

Anyway, there's also some small sections where the wording can be tightened to make the article smaller and make it go down easier. I look forward to hearing what everybody thinks of these suggestions

Mediation
User:Rorschach567 has requested that this debate undergo official Mediation, and I have accepted the request. See Requests_for_mediation. How this will affect edits under debate and further edits from this point, I don't know. If mediation fails then this dispute will likely go to arbitration. -mhr 17:47, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Comments on the temp article by User:Michael Rawdon

 * The introductory section seems astoundingly long, hardly a summary anymore.


 * I much prefer the initial paragraph which I wrote.
 * The second paragraph is POV and should be removed. In my opinion only Wolverine comes anywhere close to equalling the popularity of Superman, Batman or Spider-Man overall.
 * The third paragraph is very wordy and should be reduced to a comment that the X-Men have been successfully adapted into animation and film. Interesting parties should then go to the appropriate section for details.
 * The fourth and fifth paragraphs are reasonable but still seem overlong.


 * The first paragraph under the original X-Men seems wordy. Do any creations other than Fantastic Four need to be mentioned here?  While the X-Men were created in this historical context, the context is by-and-large not really relevant to their creation.  They were, really, only one among many.


 * I feel strongly that detailed lists of characters is inappropriate in this article. Secret identities of characters certainly ought not to be listed (other than Jean Grey, who is widely known by her real name as well as her pseudonyms), since people can and should follow hyperlinks to individual articles to learn that information.  Superpowers also should not be listed here, unless relevant to specific other information being presented in the article (which, for the most part, they aren't).  Again, readers can and should follow hyperlinks to individual character entries for that information.


 * A lengthy accounting of creators of the series doesn't seem very useful, and indeed some sections feel like they are little more than lists of creators and characters. Many creators (Whilce Portacio, for instance) were not particularly influential in the series and probably should not even be mentioned unless there is a larger reason why.  It's worth noting the creators who truly had a significant impact on the franchise (Stan Lee, Kirby, Thomas, Adams, Wein, Cockrum, Claremont, Byrne, Jim Lee, Warren Ellis) or who are giants in the field who are worth noting for their simple presence in the franchise's history (Steranko, and, uh, no one else who comes to mind), but otherwise I think we need to consider at length whether it's worth listing them here.  A separate article, such as X-Men creators or something otherwise appropriately named would be a better place for such info.

These are my main goals in editing the article: Shorter, more concise, include appropriate hyperlinks and remove information best accessed through those hyperlinks. Most readers of this article I think will neither know nor care that Paul Smith illustrated Uncanny X-Men for nearly a year (and I say this as a big fan of Smith's art), and readers who really care who Husk is can and should follow the hyperlink to learn more (that's what hyperlinks are for, after all, and many people - including myself - have put a lot of work into the individual character articles). -mhr 18:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reply to Rawdon's Comments on Temp Article
"The introductory section seems astoundingly long, hardly a summary anymore." 320 words can hardly be called "astoundingly long" for a summarization of a complex concept with a 40 year history.

"The second paragraph is POV and should be removed..." This is valid. How about &#8220;Such X-Men as Storm, Rogue, Cyclops and especially Wolverine are some of today&#8217;s most popular comic book characters.&#8221; The point is that the franchise has given the comic book industry some of its most popular characters.

"Do any creations other than Fantastic Four need to be mentioned here?" Why the Fantastic Four? "While the X-Men were created in this historical context, the context is by-and-large not really relevant to their creation." By &#8220;this historical context&#8221; do you mean the Marvel Age or Silver Age? &#8220;Their creation&#8221; itself would not have happened without these events. How could it be any more important? In the first few lines, The Beatles article mentions baby boomer culture, the Martin Luther King article mentions the civil rights movement. Historical context is important.

"I feel strongly that detailed lists of characters is inappropriate in this article." Again these descriptions are hardly detailed. Yes, a person can click a link to an individual entry for more information. But the X-Men should be able to stand up on its own and it doesn't without basic explanations of who these X-Men are. Powers and the most basic details (Cyclops is a leader, Beast is a scientist, Forge is an inventor) make up the very chemistry of the team. The characters define the series. I'm willing to shorten all character descriptions to the slimest details and delete some of the less important characters, but I am not willing to rid of them completely.

"A lengthy accounting of creators of the series doesn't seem very useful&#8230;." That&#8217;s understandable. Naming only the most important creators and their main contributions is a fine idea.

But Paul Smith is not worth mentioning and Brent Anderson and Terry Austin are? I don&#8217;t see how your version fits this point of view. In fact, since this conversation started I&#8217;ve found it difficult to correlate your philosophy of covering only the basics to your revision of this article. The fact that Beast is a scientist is not important but the fact that he could use his feet as hands is? Shadowcat&#8217;s powers are unimportant but her exact age when he joined the X-Men is? The fact that Wolverine's past is hidden in a shady, government program isn&#8217;t important but that he one time killed this security guard is? I'll make the same criticism of your version that many conservatives made of President Clinton&#8217;s cuts in government spending, it doesn&#8217;t make anything smarter or more basic; just smaller.

Well anyway, in the interest of &#8220;cooling off&#8221; I&#8217;ll refrain from reverting the article to its prior version but only as long as I am certain that we are making progress towards making a cleaner version of X-Men/Temp (or some other compromise) the main article.

Response to Nick's comments on mhr's comments
I think I may see an essential point of disagreement, so I'll tackle that first, and then (if I have the energy!) respond to some of the lesser points.

Nick writes: ''Powers and the most basic details (Cyclops is a leader, Beast is a scientist, Forge is an inventor) make up the very chemistry of the team. The characters define the series. I agree with this, but in a different spirit from the approach you took to the article:  Powers and occupations are relevant (sometimes) to particular storylines'', but not necessarily to the series as a whole. To put it another way, I think mentioning these details is worthwhile if they are important to illuminate a larger point being discussed, but on their own, in isolation, they're just a list of fiddly details which are already covered in other articles.

A few examples that come to mind:


 * I don't think that characters real names (secret identities) are a defining point of the series, and should not be listed here. Readers and even the characters themselves rarely think in terms of real names, they think in terms of code names.
 * On the other hand, a case could be made that Jean Grey's real name, in particular, is worth noting since she's referred to by that name in more recent comics and in the movies. But she's an exception, not the rule.  (Rachel Summers may be another exception.  Kitty Pryde once would have been an exception, but she seems to be widely accepted as Shadowcat now.)
 * Occupations are sometimes relevant, sometimes not. Mentioning that Beast is a scientist certainly was not relevant to the X-Men for the first 25 years of their existence.  Perhaps it is now, if you're going to discuss the details of the Legacy Virus story; if you're not, then I don't think they are.  The fact that Cyclops is the leader is a worthwhile fact; it's even more worthwhile if you're going to discuss the conflict between Cyclops and Wolverine during the Clermont/Byrne era (which is probably worth mentioning, actually).
 * In many cases, I don't think mentioning specific powers here is worthwhile. Nightcrawler can teleport and climb walls and turn invisible in shadows?  Pretty minor details, in the context of this article, unless you have a particular story which turns on Nightcrawler's abilities which you want to discuss.

Here's a perfect example of what I mean: You also wrote: The fact that Beast is a scientist is not important but the fact that he could use his feet as hands is?  I was describing Beast's nature in this way because the visual strangeness of the original X-Men were in fact one of the few things which set them apart from other Marvel superheroes at the time. Which is why I also went to the effort of describing Cyclops', Angel's and Iceman's appearances in that same paragraph. My point was not to enumerate their powers, but to use those points as specific evidence for what made them - at that time - different.

That's a big part of why I was removing the lists: Because they're... just lists. If you mention that Forge is an inventor and then don't describe why his being an inventor has an impact on the series and characters, then it's just, as you put it earlier, a "factoid". Write a paragraph about some story you think it worth writing about which turns on Forge being an inventor, and then it becomes relevant to the article.

(FWIW, there are some X-Men stories I love which I don't think are worth writing about here. The Mutant X storyline from Uncanny #125-128.  But by that I mainly mean I don't have anything interesting to say about it.  You might have interesting things to say about it which I don't.  Though for me the bar for "interesting" is higher than - for instance - "The X-Men faced the reality-warping mutant named Proteus and Cyclops was finally reunited with Phoenix."  It doesn't provide any insight into the story, and I don't think it's worth turning this article into a full enumeration of every story in X-Men history.)

Does this point of view make sense (regardless of whether you agree with it)?

Okay, a few more things:


 * The point is that the franchise has given the comic book industry some of its most popular characters. My opinion is that only Wolverine has ascended to the ranks of the truly popular characters in comics, among all the X-Men.  None of the others would I put on the same tier as Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, Captain America or the Hulk.  (I don't think anyone's clamoring for a Cyclops or Storm solo series, for instance.)  Before the movies, I doubt anyone who hadn't been a serious comics fan at some point could have named any X-Man other than Wolverine.  After the movies, they can probably name... um, Professor X and Jean Grey and Magneto, I guess.  The others are still pretty obscure, relatively speaking.
 * Why the Fantastic Four? The Fantastic Four were the first superheroes published by the "new" Marvel, and were largely the ones responsible for the company's success.  They dwarf all other Silver Age Marvel heroes in importance, and other heroes introduced from 1961-1965 can largely be seen as efforts to imitate the FF's success.
 * But Paul Smith is not worth mentioning and Brent Anderson and Terry Austin are? I don&#8217;t see how your version fits this point of view. Anderson's worth mentioning mainly because one of the stories he draw - "God Loves, Man Kills" - is given special attention in the article.  My feeling is that specific stories discussed should be attributed to the creators who worked on them.  I don't think mentioning Smith adds much to the article, and I wouldn't weep if he were removed.  I may add a blurb about how Byrne and Austin each gained popularity due to their work on X-Men (which is true; Austin was hugely popular as an inker throughout the 80s due to his X-Men work), which would make Austin's mention more relevant.

Overall, I think the article would be better served by trying to write paragraphs which provide insight into the series and its stories; how a story reflects on X-Men and comics generally. Lists and small details don't do that, and I doubt anyone but serious X-Men fans really care about them (and if they do, they can go read the individual character articles. -mhr 21:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Character descriptions and other matters
&#8220;Does this point of view make sense (regardless of whether you agree with it)?&#8221;

To my understanding, your point of view is that major storylines (Dark Phoenix Saga, Mutant Massacre ect) and major revisions (Giant-Sized X-Men #1, Morison&#8217;s revamp ect.) are all that is important to the series and information about specific characters is only important if it pertains to a major storyline or change. A detail as minor as Byrne once planned to reveal Sabretooth as Wolverine&#8217;s father is worth mentioning because it pertains to Mutant Massacre. A detail as major as Wolverine was the product of a shady government program (important enough to be incorporated into the Fox cartoon, Ultimate X-Men and the film series) is unimportant because it does not directly pertain to a major story the article discusses. Is that correct?

But here is why you are wrong. Major storylines and changes are all not that is important to the series. The characters themselves are even more important and a person coming to the X-Men article should be adequately introduced to those characters. Is the fact that Forge was an inventor important to the series? Yes, because it defined Forge and Forge was important to the series (at least for a time). Regardless of the specific storylines that get a mention, the characters themselves hold their own intrinsic worth and deserve an adequate blurb, not just a meaningless, hyperlinked name floating around.

You seem to think: Major stories + major changes = series = article

I think: Characters + major storylines + major changes = series = article (and names + powers + crucial personality traits = characters)

Does this point of view make sense to you?

&#8220;Before the movies, I doubt anyone who hadn't been a serious comics fan at some point could have named any X-Man other than Wolverine&#8230;The others are still pretty obscure, relatively speaking.&#8221;

If you mean relative to the six most well-known superheroes in existence I can&#8217;t disagree. However, I still stand by the statement that the franchise has produced, by a more reasonable standard, many very, very popular superheroes and still consider acknowledging flagship characters important.

&#8220;[The Fantastic Four] dwarf all other Silver Age Marvel heroes in importance, and other heroes introduced from 1961-1965 can largely be seen as efforts to imitate the FF's success.&#8221;

Being first is only one of many criteria for importance. Spider-Man and the Hulk are just as innovative and influential and even more popular and timeless than the Fantastic Four and are just as deserving of mention in a brief description of the Marvel Age.

''&#8220;Anderson's worth mentioning mainly because one of the stories he draw - "God Loves, Man Kills" - is given special attention in the article. My feeling is that specific stories discussed should be attributed to the creators who worked on them.&#8221;''

Do you think a reader is going to follow this logic? Or will he or she assume that the 20 or so creators mentioned are the 20 or so most important to the series (and also assume that the character details that get a mention are the most important details to those character)?

''&#8220;Overall, I think the article would be better served by trying to write paragraphs which provide insight into the series and its stories; how a story reflects on X-Men and comics generally. Lists and small details don't do that, and I doubt anyone but serious X-Men fans really care about them.&#8221;''

Any casual fan is going to be just as like to be interested in who the X-Men are and what they can do as they are in the fact that a 1953 Wilbur Shiras science fiction novel inspired the team, that the original X-Men looked weirder than some other superheroes, that Austin became a popular inker, that Sabretooth used to be an enemy of Iron Fist, that Madureira helped popularize manga in the US, that the new Uncanny X-Men focused on traditional action and adventures or any other assorted &#8220;insights&#8221; we comic book geeks have made concerning the series&#8217; extensive history. Any version will be long and complex and basic descriptions of who these characters are will be more important than a lot of other information that goes in.

Anyway, to speed this process up, I am going to start making small edits in managable sizes to the temp article.

- Nick

Yet Another Response
Nick writes: ''Is the fact that Forge was an inventor important to the series? Yes, because it defined Forge and Forge was important to the series (at least for a time).''

Is he? Why? That's the big problem: You don't explain why Forge was important to the series. Explaining that he was a member and an inventor does not justify his inclusion in the article. We may as well enumerate the parents and siblings of every member, as well. Until you explain why a character is important to the series, listing their real name, powers and occupation doesn't provide any useful information with regard to this article. Certainly it's important information about Forge, but that's why there's a separate article on Forge, which any and every user can access by simply following a hyperlink (which is what hyperlinks are for).

Just because it's a fact which once appeared in an X-Men comic book doesn't mean including it in this article is appropriate.

(Incidentally, I don't know why Forge was important to the series. In the chunks of the series I've read, he was a very, very minor supporting character.  So, in all seriousness, why was he important to the series?)

[T]he characters themselves hold their own intrinsic worth and deserve an adequate blurb, not just a meaningless, hyperlinked name floating around. You seem to have a radically different concept of why hypertext is useful from what I do. The hyperlink, in and of itself, provides meaning and context, and is an adequate reference for many characters in X-Men history.

However, I still stand by the statement that the franchise has produced, by a more reasonable standard, many very, very popular superheroes and still consider acknowledging flagship characters important. And they are acknowledged, and even hyperlinked, further down in the article.

Spider-Man and the Hulk are just as innovative and influential and even more popular and timeless than the Fantastic Four and are just as deserving of mention in a brief description of the Marvel Age. But Spider-Man and the Hulk are not relevant to the creation of the X-Men. They were created around the same time, by the some of the same people at the same company. But that's only a link, not a relationship. The Fantastic Four is the direct link, and the only one which needs to be referenced. Parties interested in the history of Marvel should follow the Marvel Comics hyperlink.

Any casual fan is going to be just as like to be interested in who the X-Men are and what they can do as they are in the fact that [...] Which is why we have hyperlinks in the article so that readers interested in learning more can follow them and, well, learn more. That's the whole point of hypertext.

-mhr 01:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

More going around in circles - Nick
&#8220;That's the big problem: You don't explain why Forge was important to the series.&#8221; Because he&#8217;s an X-Man and the series is about the X-Men. It doesn&#8217;t need explaining. Perhaps Forge is not the best example but you still dodge the point: No article titled X-Men is complete as long as it tells us little or nothing about these characters who are the X-Men.

&#8220;You seem to have a radically different concept of why hypertext is useful from what I do.&#8221;

Sure do. It&#8217;s is a nice bonus but any decent article should be clear, complete and comprehensive without it.

This particular debate is going in circles and I&#8217;m not discussing it anymore unless a new line of reasoning is added. The character descriptions will stay. Even if you rather they be eliminated, they are still small, harmless and unobtrusive to the information you want to add. You&#8217;ll live.

&#8220;And [the most popular characters] are acknowledged, and even hyperlinked, further down in the article.&#8221;

Again, that doesn&#8217;t separates the Storms and Rogues from the Dazzlers and Marrows.

''&#8220;They were created around the same time, by the some of the same people at the same company. But that's only a link, not a relationship. The Fantastic Four is the direct link&#8221;''

How are the Fantastic Four any more directly linked to the X-Men than anyone else? Regardless, the issue is how to adequately describe the Marvel Age, a direly important piece of historical context.

- Nick

Mediation
Since User:Rorschach567 ("Nick") feels that we are at an impasse and he has previously requested mediation on this issue (and I accepted), at this point I think we will pursue that avenue. User:Danny has volunteered/been assigned as the mediator. See Requests_for_mediation/Archive_8 for the initial set-up of the mediation.

I do now know how this will affect the status of X-Men/Temp. Nick's forceful statements notwithstanding, obviously there's no guarantee that whatever gets created there will end up being the final article, since anyone and everyone can edit the article even after that one is "completed". I've been making a point of not making any edits to the temp article, since I suspect the edits I feel it needs are exactly the ones Nick objects to. So people may wish to bear this in mind before investing too much time in the temp article.

I do not know exactly how the meditation process will proceed or how public it will be, but I felt it was appropriate and necessary to inform others of this development. Presumably other interested parties can contact the mediator if they wish to be involved. -mhr 20:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * "Because he&#8217;s [Forge] an X-Man and the series is about the X-Men." Technically Forge was never an X-Man.  He was a member of the non-team that fought the Reavers on Muir Island, but after that never actually joined; he just hung around the mansion as a part of its support staff.  Technically, Sunfire never joined either: he accompanied the team on one mission and then refused membership when it was offered. -Sean Curtin 06:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New Article
With all due respect to Danny, the mediator whose taken up the dispute and Mr. Rawdon, who has been good enough to accept mediation, the process is taking too long and I am unhappy that what I consider an inadequate article has remained for the past three weeks while the process occurs. So I have replaced the current X-Men article with my best efforts to create a fair, well-written and compromised version of X-Men/Temp (However, I will continue with official mediation if that is requested of me).

For the current X-Men article, I eliminated some of the redundancies, cumbersome wording, POV statements and factual errors that I considered to be in the original X-Men/Temp. In the spirit of compromise, I have also removed real names in the cases where the character is known almost exclusively by code-name, shortened character descriptions as much as I could, removed the list of flagship characters in the introduction, and left references to Lee, Kirby and September 1963, although, if I were the only contributor with a strong opinion about this article I would have done otherwise.

However, I left brief descriptions for characters and some other aspects that I feel strongly about. If I hadn’t, I would not consider my efforts a matter of compromise but appeasement.

I expect and even look forward to seeing others edit and contribute to the current X-Men article. Despite how some of you may feel I am not averse to others adding to my work and greatly applaud recent additions to a section I had written regarding the origins of X-Factor. However, should there be a wholesale reversion to a previous version of the X-Men article or a slash and burn at this version, I doubt I have to specify as to where that leads us. I’ve done my best to revise the article for clarity, accurateness and compromise, keeping the stronger views of myself and of others in mind as I did so. I promise to fairly and calmly look at any edits to the current article that may come but I will also continue to stand by the things I feel strongly about.

- Nick

Recent Changes
Are the individual powers of the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants important? Not very, but for the sake of consistency, whenever one character is introduced with a brief description of their powers (Be it an X-Man like Beast or a villain like Juggernaut), others should be. An alternative would be to skip naming any members of the Brother (beside Magneto), but Mastermind and Toad both have references below so I am in favor of getting them out of the way here. Or perhaps we could put powers in parenthesis within a paragraph. I think the descriptions are small enough for that. Also, the name already indicates they were an “‘evil mutants” and the fact that they were Magneto’s team indicates they were a “counterpart to the X-Men”

Other nitpicks
 * Nightcrawler is occasionally referred to as “fuzzy elf,” Xavier’s estate is constantly called the X-Mansion.
 * I do feel there are many benefits to the shorter Marvel age description of Michael Rawdon’s last edit, but I still think a few more names are important. To a non-comics fan, “Spider-Man” and “Hulk” will signal “this is something pretty important.” Also, they are no less important than the Fantastic Four so it seems odd to have one and not the others. Also, I don’t think a proper summary of this development can be done without credit to Lee and Kirby.

- Nick


 * As you know, I feel that short descriptions of characters should only be presented when the character's description is crucial to understanding some other element of the article. Otherwise, users can and should follow the hyperlink to get more information about the character.  I think this is true for  all characters, not just ones who aren't even X-Men.


 * Nightcrawler is occasionally referred to as a "fuzzy elf". Such information would be a useful addition to the Nightcrawler article.  It is superfluous trivia in the X-Men article.


 * Xavier's mansion was never - not once - referred to as the X-Mansion in the first 25 years of the comic's existence. While it may have been "constantly" referred to by that name on some occasions, recent X-Men-related titled I've read have referred to it by such a moniker little, if at all.  (Though I admit that I do not read many X-Men titles today, other than Exiles and part of Grant Morrison's run.)


 * Considering the article has aready said up-front that the X-Men are one of the most popular comic books in history, I hardly think mentioning Spider-Man or (especially) the Hulk will add anything to the article. Especially since the characters are, by and large, unrelated.  Actually one book worth mentioning is The Avengers, since both it and X-Men debuted in the same month, and were Marvel's first two team comics.


 * Funny that you're arguing in favor of credit to Lee and Kirby in the summary, since you were doubtful - at best - of such credit back when I first added it (c.f. your July 14 comment). -mhr 02:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you might have misunderstood me on several accounts:


 * Information about the Brotherhood is a matter of consistency, not importance. It simply looks weird if some characters get a small description and others, for no reason that would be apparent to a reader, do not. However, the more I think about, the more I would just assume can the Brotherhood roster. Still, “‘evil mutant’ counterpart” is redundant.


 * I don’t want to put a reference to “fuzzy elf” in the article, I was just exemplifying why I did not think “occasionally referred to” fits. However, I am willing to leave it if it is for some reason overly important to you.


 * I never argued that Lee and Kirby should not be credited anywhere. My view it might not be the most crucial piece of information and thus should not go in the intro. However, a description of the Marvel Age is wholly inadequate without references to Lee, Kirby, Spider-Man and the Hulk. Also, I did not want to reference the latter two to highlight the importance of the creation of the X-Men but the Marvel Age in general.

- Nick

How nice, Nick
There seems little reason to continue a dialog with someone who reverts my changes with the comment "suck it", as in your 23 August 2004 morning revision. Your attitude has consistently been one of "my way or the highway", never compromising or even trying to see another point of view, and now you're reduced to being insulting. I have tried to find some common ground, but you were never willing to budge even a little. Oh, well. -mhr 18:25, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

&#8220;Your attitude has consistently been one of "my way or the highway", never compromising or even trying to see another point of view&#8221;

I spent days speaking to you, trying to see your point of view and resolve certain issues. I tried official mediation but, with your unreadable piece of shit on display and not being edited, you were unacceptably late replying to the mediator. I put together a compromised version of X-Men/Temp that held into account things I felt strongly about and you felt strongly about but you didn&#8216;t even comment and started ransacking it. I&#8217;ve tried three different times to find another road besides "my way" and "the highway." What have you ever done to "try to find some common ground?" Imagine my surprise when I clicked onto your user page and found that you were 35 and you still have no idea how to negotiate and compromise. So yes, after all the times I&#8217;ve tried to communicate, negotiate and compromise and you&#8217;ve been a big baby, all I have to say is suck it, Rawdon.

- Nick

If the two of you are going to be uncivil and engage in revert wars, I'm going to request page protection. -Sean Curtin 19:56, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * That might be for the best. We clearly both feel we're in the right, negotiations have led nowhere despite much verbiage on this page, and I personally am at a loss for how else to proceed (and Nick seems to feel similarly).  Mediation is ongoing but is a slow process.  Unfortunately, short of banning both of us from editing this article, I don't see a long-term solution. -mhr 20:13, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * "Unfortunately, short of banning both of us from editing this article, I don't see a long-term solution"


 * Well, that’s been your outlook since the beginning ("While it would be nice to find a compromise, right now it sounds like we radically disagree on the structure of the article" - July 14) and any form of compromise has failed because of such foolishness. Fine, we’ll go to the arbitration committee, freeze the article.


 * - Nick

Comments on other recent changes

 * I can find no credible source claiming the X2 was even remotely inspired by the Weapon X series. Don&#8217;t make crap up.


 * Doom Patrol? Amazing Adult Fantasy #14? Maybe a small blurb would be suitable (look at how early inspirations are dealt with on the Batman page), but besides hardcore fan boys who is going to care about all that? Maybe it's time for an Inspirations and Predecessors of the X-Men article.

- Nick
 * It's funny that you consider a plot synopsis of the original Phoenix Saga space opera and a description of Forge's powers to be "important" but the origins of the X-Men concept to be "fan boy shit". -Sean Curtin 22:45, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * I see your point (and perhaps I have been expressing myself a little too forcefully) but can either of these really be called "origins of the X-Men concept?" Amazing Adult Fantasy #14 introduced the idea of people being born with superpowers but not to any large audience and it didn't have any effect on the X-Men. To my understanding the similarities betwee the X-Men and Doom Patrol have always been called a historic concidence. - Nick

Okay, this is getting out of hand. I want both parties to submit to me their versions of the article by Thursday evening. I will spend the weekend attempting to merge them, and send them to you by Saturday night. I want comments back by Monday morning. I think that is fair. Until then, I would not like to see any sniping at each other on this or any other page. Thanks. Danny (the Mediator)

Michael Rawdon is insane
For any of you looking for an assload of X-Men history, an absolutely perfect example of how not to write a wikipedia article or an explanation of the title of this thread, please go to User:Michael Rawdon/Temp/X-Men.

Bypassing the serious issue of shoddy writing, this article is ridiculously longwinded and detailed; a huge listing of almost every even marginally important X-Men storyline or creative team, including those of the long-forgotten 1960s. I would pity a casual fan or non-comics fan coming to the X-Men article and getting bogged down by all that. I’m a fanatic and I got bored as hell. I would suggest that Mr. Rawdon move his hard work to sub articles such as The Behind the Scenes History of the X-Men Comic Book Franchise and History of the Continuing X-Men Storyline and Unimportant Crap About the X-Men I Like to Tell People for Some Inexplicable Reason. Perhaps he should create his own X-Men historical archiving fansite because I am unaware of any other work of fiction that receives such a detailed history at wikipedia.org.

When Rawdon originally removed brief character descriptions and other parts from the main article, I thought he wanted to keep things concise. That obviously cannot be the case. I now think he wanted to remove them because they simply wouldn’t fit considering all of the fan boy garbage he wanted to include. I imagine that wants a grand matrix of factoids and hyperlinks for in place of a here’s-all-you-need X-Men article. Again, this seems very unhelpful and unfair to casual or new fans.

I realize that my own version is lengthy (although, it is includes info about TV shows, movies, Ultimate X-Men and some characters) but it is nothing in comparison with this article’s size and utter inability to determine what is important and what isn’t.

In July, when Rawdon, started editing this article, I thought he was an amateur writer and someone who had no respect for the work or input of others. I’ve found both of those to be true in extremes but now I am leaning towards the inclination to explain his work and behavior by believing he is, in fact, insane. That is the only way to explain how someone can both argue “where possible we should avoid the temptation to be overly wordy and (especially) to recapitulate the entire history of the team, rather than hitting the highlights, which casual- or non-comics fans would be most interested in” and write out something like this.

I feel a great amount of sympathy for Danny, our mediator who has agreed to sew this hulking piece of junk to the current X-Men article to create something sensible and readable.

- Nick

Pictures
Someone should change them to jpg. It wouldn't take as much time to load, especially if you're on 56k. Maestro25 17:42, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ouch, yes.. I don't have the tools at home, but if nobody does it by the end of the weekend, I'll do it on Monday. &mdash;Stormie 23:18, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

As per policy, I deleted some images that had been used in the article, from a listing that had been on Copyright problems since September. There is a lot of copyrighted material we can get away with using under Fair use, but please do not dishonestly label someone else's copyrighted images as GFDL or PD if it is not. -- Infrogmation 17:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)