Talk:X-Men/Archive 2

Bishop's Birthplace?
In the section about international characters, Bishop is listed under both the Phillipines and Australia. Which is correct? Shinji nishizono 21:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

William Stryker
Hey all, just wondering if some people might think that it is a godd idea to put a mention of William Stryker into the Anti-Cathlotism part -- [User: Mishy_dishy|Mishy_dishy]] 21:39 2 June 200 (GMT)

Incorrect Link
Hi, I just noticed that in the Background section, "Magneto" links to the wrong magneto article (it's about an engine component rahter than to the Xmen character). I'd fix this myself, but i'm not sure how to. Thanks, Lina

X-Men Roster
The members of the team originally consists of Havok, Polaris, Iceman, Rogue, Gambit and Wolverine while the members of the upcoming team written by new writer Mike Carey will consist of Cable, Cannonball, Iceman, Rogue, Mystique and Sabretooth. So why is it that someone placed Iceman, Gambit, Rogue, Sabretooth and Mystique under the X-Men team on the right side column?? I understand that some others have constantly corrected this but this particular person or people continue to edit the wrong things. So i kindly ask this person or people, whoever you are, to stop editing the wrong things. --Chambervii 21:30 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Just who is the guy who keeps editing the wrong team lineup for the Adjectiveless X-Men. Sabretooth and Mystique are only mentioned to be joining in an interview. They HAVE NOT joined the team in the comics. Besides, if they are in the team, then where is Cable's name under that heading? To whoever this person is, please do not degrade this site with your meddling. --Chambervii 15:30 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Mystique joined the team on a probationary status in Milligan's run. --DrBat 22:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Explain Sabretooth's inclusion under that heading. --Chambervii 16:00 11 March 2006

I am surprised you people are already reading comics of the future. There are no current comics in which Sabretooth has already joined the X-Men. --Chambervii 18:00 1 April 2006
 * True--hottie 13:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Wolverine is not on all three teams anymore. He's only on the Astonishing squad. I hope no one minds if I get rid of him on the Uncanny and Adjectiveless squads. Solofire6 05:52, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Personal opinions and analysis
User Sahriar summarily removed the references in the article viewing the X-Men as involving a gay rights metaphor. The only explanation he gave was "shortened the intro." He seems to have an edit pattern for making similar changes in other articles with minimal or no description/discussion. The section here appeared to have consensus and had been developed by multiple users over a six-month period. I don't know why the section is as prominent as it is, but it shouldn't be whitewashed over with a misleading explanation. I put it back.N. Caligon 16:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * It's a personal thought about an issue and has nothing to do with anything regarding the X-Men. Marvel and/or Bryan Singer has not commented to the public about anything regarding gay rights.


 * If anyone wants to find the similarities between X-Men and gay rights, please do so either in discussion or make a new article about it, don't use the X-Men page for this. Havok 16:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Then you're gonna have to argue with that Claremont guy, coz it was his idea. N. Caligon 16:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll just keep reverting what he's writing, if he can't seem to read the discussion page for X-Men, I won't bother argueing with him. Havok 17:08, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There are moments when one should just leave well enough alone, and Havok's last comment is so self-damning . . . but some substance is helpful here, so here's an example, excerpted from a Claremont interview going back to 1982, showing why the comments in the material Havok and Sahriar want to delete are not "personal opinions" for me or anybody else, but identify themes that were consciously woven into the title's storylines by its writers:


 * You know, that's really unfair. Some of us genuinely believe in our hearts that homosexual acts are by nature evil, and we have every right to believe that. I for one, as an X-Men fan, don't want to have to think about something that I find truly immoral like homosexuality when I am enjoying my favorite comic book, which is the correct reaction. Perversion naturally disturbs a conscience in conformity to the truth. -Isabella's Knight.

''But the X-Men are hated, feared, and despised collectively by humanity for no other reason than that they are mutants. So what we have here, [originally] intended or not, is a book that is about racism, bigotry, and prejudice. . . . The X-Men has been doing bigotry stories since the first Sentinels story, over 130 issues ago. It's never been stated, but it's been a subtext. . . . We got quite a few letters recently [1982, in context] from a number of gay fans, who believe that the X-Men makes positive subliminal statements about gay rights. They identify very strongly with the X-Men's position because gays are hated and feared simply because they exist.''


 * Now I think Chris's writing in the book has too often reflected a progressive-PC slant, but I'm not fool enough to deny it just because I don't agree with it. N. Caligon 18:03, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I know when I have to step down, I'm sorry. Anyway, I've moved your text to it's own section called "Fiction & Real Life" (feel free to change the title). The text is a bit bloated in the intro, plus this will give it a bigger punch. Could you also make the text a big longer and add some sources, like Claremont. Again, sorry. Hope you don't hate me for being arrogant about stuff. ;) Havok 21:05, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for the misleading edit summary. I just looked over the intro and removed that paragraph, since the intro was too big, and that paragraph was going into too much detail. But that's resolved now anyway. However, I'm still not convinced that X-men should be considered gay icons. Sahriar

Clean-Up
This may sound ironic because I originally added the small character briefs and had a rather nasty dispute about keeping them but these sections have grown out of control. Originally, they included only the defining details about each character (as much, I thought, an outsider needed to understand about each important individual to understand the series as a whole) but now they have grown to include a ridiculous amount of biographical information and descriptions of abilities.

For example, the current Psylocke blurb
 * Psylocke (Betsy Braddock), an British her psychic mind altered to produce telekinetic energies, allowing her to levitate and manipulate matter with her mind, propel herself through the air, project protective force screens, and generate focused energy blades that can sever the bonds between molecules and disrupt neural relays. Formerly a connection to the Crimson Dawn that gave her a mysteriously altered astral form and enabled her to utilize shadows to teleport herself and others over great distances, telepathy and a psychic knife that disabled her opponents physically and mentally, wore a Captain Britain uniform that increased her strength and allowed her to fly, precognition telepath and femme fatale, originally introduced in the Captain Britain comic.

Past Psylocke blurb:
 * Psylocke (Betsy Braddock), an English telepath and femme fatale, originally introduced in the Captain Britain comic.

All that extra information would seem best on the Psylocke page.

Also, there are many details about individual plotlines such as the Dark Phoenix Saga and even a What If about the Dark Phoenix Saga. Surely, these would be better off on related pages.

This page needs a huge clean-up. It needs to be reduced down to about 35-40KBs and it needs to concentrate on the bare bones information (which is still a lot of information because this is a 40-year old franchise) that would be useful to someone only vaguely familiar or unfamiliar with the series and how it developed. The page currently seems like a place to store the favorite factoids of various users, which seems to happen a lot of comic book-related pages. Let’s try to cut it down. - Rorschach567 9/3/05


 * OK, I know created a seperate article for the comic's history section (which took about 75% of the article) and stripped it down considerably for the main article. I also phased out the character captions, which I felt were redundant, after all, just click e.g. Cyclops if you want to find out what Cyke's superpowers are. But feel free to discuss, this is Wikipedia. Onomatopoeia 17:22, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Gay-Movement Symbol?
As far as I can find, the idea of X-Men as a gay-movement symbol is an urban legend, originaly created by people who disliked the comic. In recent years, it has become a near-truth in the younger generations. (Ever here that swallowed bubble gum will stay in your digestive system for 7 years? Or that eating sour candy after drinking Coca-Cola will make your stomach blow up? Same kind of false ideas that have become truths because people repeat them).

To put things simply, there has never been any relationship between the gay movement and X-Men, except what has been fabricated.


 * And where exactly did you find this?
 * And if you bothered to look up ahead, you'd have noticed someone already dealt with this.
 * ''There are moments when one should just leave well enough alone, and Havok's last comment is so self-damning . . . but some substance is helpful here, so here's an example, excerpted from a Claremont interview going back to 1982, showing why the comments in the material Havok and Sahriar want to delete are not "personal opinions" for me or anybody else, but identify themes that were consciously woven into the title's storylines by its writers:
 * But the X-Men are hated, feared, and despised collectively by humanity for no other reason than that they are mutants. So what we have here, [originally] intended or not, is a book that is about racism, bigotry, and prejudice. . . . The X-Men has been doing bigotry stories since the first Sentinels story, over 130 issues ago. It's never been stated, but it's been a subtext. . . . We got quite a few letters recently [1982, in context] from a number of gay fans, who believe that the X-Men makes positive subliminal statements about gay rights. They identify very strongly with the X-Men's position because gays are hated and feared simply because they exist.--DrBat 01:17, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Euch, I'm not at all sold on this whole gay/X-Men thing...
 * "Euch, I'm not at all sold on this whole gay/X-Men thing..." What a nice way to put things. Cheers.
 * Anyway, we shouldn't really take that instance of fan mail as that much of a validation of "gay icon" or "gay movement symbol" or whatever it's being called now; despite the thematic comparison being important (if not essential, along with racial issues), gay comic book readers complimenting the series is a far way from actual general embracing of the characters and comics by "the gay community" (don't like the expression) or even gay people on an individual level... No? Lets not mistake the views of comic book fans with the views of the general public, or lets at least be specific as to it being of significance for the fans, not really as a widespread deal. Zeppocity 22:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

No way. This is simply absurd, I mean when did Beast started wearing pink? Sure, the X-Men are feared and hated, and so are gays, but what's the point. Majority of the world's populace hates and fears my brother, but he is not gay. I believe, one of these days, I'll just be named as one of the world's top analogists. --Windspinner 03:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)windspinner
 * Okay, officially: screw off. I know that we have to be logical in discussions here, but this plus the little "Euch" remark is just obnoxious, childiish, and idiotic. If you have an *intelectual* opposition, meaning, coming from thought, as to the symbologism, great, but to say something like "when did the Beast started wearing pink?" is just beyond morronic. Get with the program. They're not black, they're not jewish, they're not gay. What they are, however, parallels these. So calm the hell down or at least try to make a proper remark as to the matter, instead of going "eww, dude", since this is really, really, really not the place.
 * I reckon to be named one of the world's top analogists you'd need some intelligence in what you say in the first place. *Sigh*.Zeppocity 10:43, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh my god!!! Somebody woke up on the wrong side of the microwave and took my comments seriously. You are almost hilarious, sir, if only you were not wearing those crystal pumps. Sure I know they parallel, I understand that, I got your point. But, come on, if your actions parallel that of a dog would you like to be called a dog symbol? Of course not. That's how, us, X-Men fans feel. We don't wanna liken our comic book heroes to gay movement advocates, it is simply unacceptable, sir. And no, it's not homophobia. --Windspinner 00:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then I guess its just plain ignorance? :)
 * And its funny you keep mentioning Beast, who once said he was gay to challenge stereotypes. :p --DrBat 00:16, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is absolutely ridiculous of me, and my, how you made an excellent point. See, the difference between comparing a dog, and comparing a human experience with a human experience... well, geez, do I even have to go on for you to see how it completely falls apart? Is it really that hard to see the significance of similarities in persecution, ways of living, and emotions (as remote as they may be, in the X-Men's case in particular), is greater than that of, say, both a man and a dog licking their own private parts?
 * Is it really that far beyond your mind that human experience often repeats itself in completely different instances?
 * My whole point (gosh, it wouldn't have hurt to read what I said, would it?) was that if there oughta be an opposition to the fact (which is applausible, in fact, I don't think they are either) it should be based on logic. And guess what? What you said, just now...? That's how, us, X-Men fans feel. We don't wanna liken our comic book heroes to gay movement advocates, it is simply unacceptable, sir. And no, it's not homophobia.? Is just about the most pathetically contradictory thing you could have spat out. See how immediately denying any possible connection, then tagging it as "simply unacceptable", as you (us) X-Men fans (who apparently, are highly superior in analyzing the issue...?) "don't wanna liken x to y" isn't really valid in any way whatsoever?
 * Key concepts, for the sake of clarity: we don't wannnaaa :(, we won't taaaake it :(. And you know what that sort of thing comes down to in this context?
 * Jack squat. And don't even dare suggest that your unfounded problem with the fact isn't based on homophobia, jack. Guess what? "You friggin' faggot, I'll piss on your grave" and "Woa, I accept the gayness, but don't get close!" might work on entirely different levels, but they're both anti-gay.
 * Finally, I'd like to apologize to those involved in this discussion page for going on like this on what is essentially a discussion with an idiot. Hopefully, someone will come along next that has something better to add to the whole thing than comments about Beast in pink (see, that's how dem poofs is). Moving along. Cheers, Zeppocity 11:35, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Whoa, some communist guy with a god-like logic speaketh. Fine by me, sir, if you want it that way. But let me just say that I think this page was made for everyone's opinion and not just yours, whether it be stupid, smart, or even as pinkishly gay as yours. I am also sorry to offend people's intelligence, but what might be acceptable for you, might not be for other people the same way as what might be intelligent for you might simply be plain stupid for others. We all have opinions, and if you don't like what you are reading, you can simply skip reading it and pray to God that someone else will add something better, which may no longer happen as people like you frequent this page. You truly are a communist.
 * Hum... no. That's not the point of a talk page; to conveniently ignore what you see and don't like. If that was the case, you wouldn't have responded to the "Gay-movement-symbol" heading in the first place, as I wouldn't have responded to you after that. See how this works? Discussion. And guess what? See how you reckon that we all have opinions? Precisely that opposition of opinions and thoughts leads to discussion, which is just about the healthiest thing, in the right terms. Which so far haven't been yours, with, as I've pointed out, your obviously anti-gay comments (mildly anti-gay, or politically incorrect, or whatever makes you happy).
 * Also, you should really think twice before throwing around the term "communist". I exposed my issues, strongly, with what you said. I am not however planting potatoes in the back yard for the glory of my commune, or some such. Unless there's some subtlest of jokes that I don't get here? Revising, the fact that I have an issue with people being disrespectful towards other, either as to sexuality, race, gender, age, etc., makes me a communist?
 * Doesn't it actually make me, you know, a regular person with some level of empathy?
 * Finally, tell me exactly how people like me, concerned with being exact in what is added (hence asking for a logical justification; you instead ignore what I say and tag it as "pinkishly gay", truely mature) and careful and NPOV about the content of the article, are ruining this discussion or the article itself.
 * ...So, your previous response came down to me being the Gay Communist God of Thunder (I am none). If you do reply this time, please. Less of what you feel, and attempts at offence, and more with the, you know, thinking. Oh, and if it does come down to more insults, since this is very off-topic as it is, please take a poop on by talk page or some place like that; this is getting bloated. Unless you do find something proper to say. Cheers, Zeppocity 08:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

---Let me first off say that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I feel like there is very little ground to stand on for the Pro. There have been a couple of characters such as Northstar that were "outed", however I fail to equate that with a "Gay-Movement Symbol". Think of it this way. The X-Men are hated for what they are which speaks to all minority groups. How could they be anything but excepting for anyone that was part of any suppressed minority group? I think it is unfair however to claim them as a "Gay-Movement Symbol" more so then a general social statement targeted for the positive view of any one group. I think it derails the true meaning behind the work when any one group claims it as theirs. Just because they have addressed the type of issues the gay community find very poignant does not make it a Movement symbol for that one group of people. Why narrow the vision so greatly when it can be viewed as so much more. It is a socially conscious medium in which many ideas can flourish. Please do not label it as belonging to any one group as you devalue the ideas it puts forth for other. For you right-wing extremists note this is coming from a white straight semi-conservative male and for you left-wing extremists I do not say this to try and cast aside your views. What is that saying?.... Opinions are like @$$h013s. They all stink and everyone has one. P.S. I apologize for the off color humor considering the topic. :p
 * I'm sure they could fit in any civil rights category. No one's saying they are exclusive to gay rights. --DrBat 11:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes however the only group to claim them as a "Movement Symbol" is the gay community. Why? Seems like a narrow view to me is all.
 * Then add the other groups to the categories. Nothing is stopping them from being added. --DrBat 23:01, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I think if you categorize them with a set definition as a "Symbol" for anyone then you may lose the subtleties that it bring forth on someone who is against or unsure of a particular group. I think it should be a natural evolution not "shoved" in the fan bases faces. The greatest changes take time and to win someone’s empathy over takes time, especially if they are of a mind to totally disagree with those subtlest of suggestions. I just think we should not label it as anything other then a socially conscious medium that has a good message of tolerance.
 * So you're against gay people? --DrBat 10:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What this all comes down to is natural law. Most people are naturally going to be repulsed by anything related to homosexuality because it is against the laws of God's reality. Trying to cram the homosexual agenda down everyone's throats by allying it with something wonderful and fun like the X-Men is going to meet with a lot of natural resistence, and I don't care if your Chris Claremont or joe average. I, for one, get sick of the idea that there is something "intolerant" or "wrong" with someone who is disgusted by homosexuality. It's a natural feeling, just like being disgusted by sex with goats.


 * So yeah, he's against gay people appearing in Wikipedia articles because he thinks his view of God's reality applies to all of Wikipedia. Wow. (Sorry, posting from a school computer)

Timeline
I think we should start a timeline for the x-men. there is one for the marvel universe but it is very loose in my opinion. if we can get one specific to the x-men that would be great. another option is doing one for every character seperatley. that might help for the more complex characters like wolverine.--Jaysscholar 23:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There separate entries for different characters. And I don't know if a timeline would be convoluted...--DrBat 00:50, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * what do u mean seperate entries? seperate entries on a timeline? i couldnt find any timeline. and if everyone who knos a part of the x-men saga then it wouldnt get too convoluted just time consuming. i f some one starts by chronicling what is happening currently, then that might serve as a good start--Jaysscholar 06:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * another option is doing one for every character seperatley. That's what I mean; the different characters have entries. Category:X-Men members. --DrBat 11:05, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
 * yes i know they have entries. but im talking about a timeline. not an entry. im looking to get a timeline started for what is going on and has gone on in the x-men universe. my suggestion was that maybe to make it easier and less complicated, we could do a timeline for each character. start with the main ones, then go from there. I also think that if we start at the present and chronicaling whats happening now, it will make it much easier to go back. they usually have flashback or a character from the past shows up again, thas a good time to insert the past. i think this is a good idea--Jaysscholar 01:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you looking for something like the Marvel Chronology Project? -Sean Curtin 03:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really. that shows appearences. im looking for something that says "wolverine was once a etc etc and he fought etc etc then he quit etc etc in the last issue he fought etc etc etc. Does that clarify?its more of something to tell what happened in certain issues. although many issues can be lumped together.--Jaysscholar 07:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No takers?--Jaysscholar 11:38, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Anybody?--Jaysscholar 01:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there even a solid storyline for this whole thing? seems to me that Stan Lee adds and removes characters as is marketable. Hamilton burr 08:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a solid storyline, it's just extremely convoluted. There's a solid go at trying to sort out exactly what happens when on this messageboard, but as Decimination isn't over yet, the second half of it is makeshift. Certain storylines are occuring later than what we're seeing, etc. Anyhow. I'm trying to notate which characters appear in which issue, for current stuff: I'm not insane enough to do this retroactively, but I am bored enough to do it now. If there's any interest, I can see about putting the info somewhere. Zooey stoke 00:49, 14 February 2006

Better image?
Anybody got an idea what better image to use in the infobox? What I don't like about the current one (Image:X-Men174.jpg) is that it's more a scene than a team shot and that it has the blacked-out silouette in the middle...--Fritz S. 14:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought that too. I think the previous one, with the cast shot from Cable/Deadpool, is better. --DrBat 14:45, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * much better pic now--Jaysscholar 18:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Isn't there something without speech bubbles we could use? What about a cover of one of the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe issues? (I don't really remember what the X-Men issue looked like, but maybe something like that...) All the other articles on comic book teams (like Avengers (comics), Fantastic Four, Justice League) use these iconic covers, maybe we could find something to match those... --Fritz S. 19:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Characters section
I added a Characters section listing some of the best-known characters. I left lesser known characters out on purpose, there's still List of X-Men characters for those (I wasn't entirely sure on the selection, though. I think that list might still need some additions and other ommissions). Maybe we could also give (very brief) character descriptions, including superpowers... And of course, the inclusion of this category is up for discussion, as it might jam up the article. --Fritz S. 20:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
 * BAD on two levels - unadorned lists in the text of an article are always bad, and there's a list of the current X-Men in the STB at the top. And, if you're planning on adding descriptions, there was a thing about that recently.


 * Also, while I'm here:
 * prettytable is depreciated in favour of a style (and, last I checked, was on WP:TFD. Subst it if you must use it.
 * Why change the image back? I uploaded both, and changed to the XM174 cover because it showed more of the current characters.

SoM 23:09, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The way I got it, the previous Characters section was removed because it got a little out of hand and was too comprehensive. I think if we keep the descriptions to a minimum, such a section would be very helpful for anybody unfamilar with the subject. But then again, feel free to remove it if you want.
 * I will. Lists-no-prose in the text are bad, especially if we're meant to be trying to FA it. - SoM 14:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And for the prettytable, I'll change that on my next edit. --Fritz S. 13:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Uncanny
Currently the History section makes no mentioning of the name change from X-Men to Uncanny X-Men. Anybody know which was the first issue labled Uncanny? --Fritz S. 13:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a teeny bit complicated - on the cover, it was straight or almost straight after Dark Phoenix - 138 or 139. But the "Uncanny" tag had been used on the page 1 blurb for a long time before that, and I don't know about the indicia. - SoM 14:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * vote to keep as "Xmen", if that's what you're asking. Hamilton burr 08:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration
How's it going? Any more tasks need doing? I added a few reference sources, anybody got any others to add, anyone have access to the X-Men Companions? Hiding talk 17:36, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that generally not so much work has been done on the article since it became the collab. As for what still needs to be done, the History section still misses some important things in the first subsections, and in contrast the last two subsections (Changing and modernizing the franchise and Post Morrison X-Men and House of M) are too long, I think. Also, the image on top is still unsatisfing, the Claremont quote under Racism is unsourced, the differentiation between homosexuals and lesbians in Religious, sexual and other minorities seems odd to me (done), the Northstar image is unsourced (replaced), Real-life comparison might need some work and images. Plus, the Character diversity section is merly a list, and posibbly could be expanded to be a fully-written Characters section that also gives a little detail about some of the main characters. I'm also not so sure the article really needs the cast section. That should probably go in the movies' articles... --Fritz S. 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article
Is it worth nominatinmg as it stands? Hiding talk 19:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it isn't (see above). Either way, the article should be peer reviewed first, anyway. --Fritz S. 20:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

On the new Controversy section
Is this really justified...? a) It isn't really a point of controversy; if the view is significantly held at all, those who do aren't exactly raising a war on the issue... It's not so much a point of controversy as a potential criticism. I don't really reckon we should include a Controversy section just for the heck of it; instead, when the issue is big enough for it to pretty much have to be approached in the article. I really, really don't think this is the case. b) Taking it simply as criticism rather than a true point of controversy, should it be here at all? Are we really supposed to find, for every single article on a piece of work, criticisms to include? Because, again, if this was a substantial concern among readers or critics, I'd get the point, but I'd never even seen the thought expressed elsewhere, so it seems... baseless. So, maybe we should check what to do to this, or is everyone really perfectly okay with keeping it? Personally, I'd do away with it; it ilustrates no particular main point and very much seems a very specific minority's view (if not, no offence, a transference of concerns the user who added it has himself). Thoughts...? Zeppocity 11:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It needs rephrased to be less... virulant... and reheaded, but I have seen the criticism raised elsewhere with moderate frequency, and I think it does deserve a place in the article. - SoM 13:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If it has to be there, there needs to be some rebuttal, or opposing view, to it. And why did Purple Rose, the guy who did it, mark it as a minor edit? --DrBat 13:06, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Major claim needs citation
RE: X-Men #1 as "the highest selling comic book of all time": This claim keeps being made for one comic or another on Wikipedia, never with any citation. I'm sure the author did not make this up, but read it or heard it somewhere. So just state the source -- no biggie. However, if that source is simply a company press release, that's inadequate on any journalistic or encyclopedic level. Also, a claim like this needs a number that can be checked again publically available circulation figures -- which comics and magazine publishers print once a year and must be public by law in order to sell advertising. -- Tenebrae 00:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Iceman
When did Iceman get his powers back? It certainly hasn't happened in Deadly Genesis 1, The newest issues of either XMen series or New Excalibur. I'm going to delete the addition, and ask that someone bring meaningful documentation. Elefuntboy 05:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In X-Men #178. Keep up :) - SoM 11:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Damn, I totally just checked and feel like an idiot. My bad, guys =). Elefuntboy 15:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Religious, sexual and other minorities
Shouldn't Ultimate Colossus be added?--Dylankidwell 00:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Colossus is gay only in the Ultimate continuity. Batzarro 06:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I know thats why I said "Ultimate" Colossus. But should Ultimate Colossus be added--Dil 22:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Since it's not part of the 616 universe, I think it should only be noted Colossus is gay in the Ultimate X-men article. --Seikonekoala 19:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

On Xavier and His Legs
When Professor Xavier founded the X-Men, he was not a parapalegic. His legs had been crushed by Lucifer beyond repair. He still retained feeling in them, he simply could not move them. Just a minor, almost semantic terminology thing. I'd change it but I'm afraid I'd muck up the flow of the section; I'd rather let someone versed in this sort of editing do it.

Psuedonym 19:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

X-Men represent all oppressed groups not just those of 20th Century
Hey folks, I don't yet have a user name, but my name is Scott (just like Cyclopes). I would just like to point out that the X-Men go a long way in personifying the plight of a wide variety of hated groups throughout history. Blacks, Jews and gays might've gotten a lot of trouble in the 20th Century, but you go back far enough and all groups have been hated and oppressed throughout time. In the Middle Ages, their were white slaves owned by black African royalty. The Irish were oppressed in early America. Christians were hated and persecuted by the Roman Empire. Christians living under Muslim rule in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East in Medieval times were second-class citizens. Conservatives in modern American colleges are often maligned and feared. Women, in many historical settings, have been mistreated. If you're an American walking around in certain areas of the world today you'll probably be the object of aggression. Heck, a lot of people hate and fear teenagers!

Anyway, my point is, pointing out specific groups as hated and feared and comparing them to the X-Men is kind of superflous. All groups, at one time, have been hated and feared. It makes more sense to just point out that "the X-Men represent the feelings of being an outsider and object of scorn found throughout the broad human experience." Make sense? What does everyone think?

And congratulations, everyone, on a great article!


 * It was my understanding that the whole series was an allegory for teenage angst and alienation. I don't know about a broader interpretation, though one is certainly hinted at with Magneto's character in the films. Hamilton burr 20:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The X-Men have usually served as a metaphor for various issues of civil rights. They also dealed with what was relatively relevant, so stuff that happened in the middle ages probably wasn't considered (And I don't think "conservatives in college" is comparable at all to the other examples mentioned, btw).
 * I don't know if the X-Men were used as a metaphor for feminism, though it certainly supported it with its strong female characters during that period in Claremont's run (Jean, Storm, Kitty, Rogue, ect).
 * Furthermore, Jews, gays and blacks have suffered for far more than just the 20th century. --DrBat 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this article should hint as stark influences for the writers. Certainly when writing Days of Future Past Claremont would have more easily thought back to the Red Scare and the Holocaust.

Sexual allegory removed
Well the basic note is still there, but could someone explain to me why racism still has an an entire section as a metaphor, whilst the information and evidence of the sexual orientation discrimination allegory - the "coming out" in the film and the legacy vs. AIDS viruses amongst - has been removed from the page? If not, I'll hapiily re-add it asap. -Erolos 03:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, nevermind that, it was vandalised by a random IP and not corrected, I'm re-adding it - the discussion above this actually seems to confirm consensus for it anyway, even if that was necessary. -Erolos 03:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I just added it back too. I don't know if it had been removed multiple times, but it clearly needs watching... Binerman 04:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Not the first time, and not the last either. Havok (T/C/c) 07:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Does Lockheed really need to be included in the team roster?
Seriously, he's more like the team pet, or mascot. This is the only place that I've ever seen him referred to as an actual member of Astonishing X-men. To me, it just looks odd for him to be listed. Arcanum7
 * Actually the OHOTMU X-Men Handooks class him as a team member and he's noted as being member of Excalibur. Originalsinner 01:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and Beast also looks like a mascot--Hotwiki 13:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Second Mutations?
Should it be added to the 2000s timeline during the Morrison run of New X-men? Not really sure how to state it however. Seikonekoala 13:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Reformation of messy article
Of all the comics articles, this is perhaps the most unwieldy due to the lengthy history and complexity of the franchise itself. The article seems to be about five things:
 * The characters
 * The major changes and plotlines of the series
 * The development of the X-Men family of series
 * The sociopolitical messages of the franchise
 * Adaptations into other media

The first three seem messily tangled together. There is also the problem of users good-heartedly trying to simplify information about the more important aspects and then other users adding information about esoteric aspects. Hence, we have a better description of the plot of the episodes of Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends and the proposed Magneto movie than we do either of the two films and a better description of Star Trek crossovers than Ultimate X-Men.

I’d like, with some help, to try to mold the article into something better. Here’s a prototype: X-Men new article temp. It’s a rough draft so I’m not insistent about any of it.

Here are some are some specific points of contention:
 * I shortened some sentences and paragraphs to the main point because of the size of the article.
 * I got rid of the New X-Men line-up from the roster box. I don’t read this series regularly but I understand that, despite the title, these characters are students and not official X-Men.
 * I wanted brief, decent descriptions of the 20 most important characters in the franchise and, by important, I mean they tend to pop-up in most other media adaptations and eras of the comic book series
 * I shortened the section on character diversity and moved the WASP point of the X-Men’s original line-up here. I think the large line-up of characters by ethnicity could be moved to a separate article.
 * Under the film section, I got rid of two posters, replaced with screen shot for sake of variety.
 * I shortened the cast listing to only include central characters. Like everyone else, I have not seen the third film yet but I eliminated characters based on who was given a spot on their photo gallery.
 * I think fictional places and Star Trek crossovers can move be moved to separate articles.
 * I don’t think the awards are really important, unless someone can make a comprehensive section.

Tell me what you think.

Rorschach567 12:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On my opinions...


 * 1st, we don't need to put the characters list, it's already on the List of X-Men and all the characters have their own articles.
 * 2nd, if you want the series to be more detailed, how about expand the article of Uncanny X-Men and X-Men (2nd series). No need to put Ultimate X-Men we already have a article for that
 * 3rd, no need to make a thread for X-Men/Star Trek crosscover since it's not very long
 * 4th, I kinda like the pretty table of cast listing but no need to put a screenshot of X2, it should be on it's own article and put just one poster.
 * 5th, I think it's better that the headline's name is "1960's" than 1963-1975. I think it's more organized we just separate the history by decades.
 * 6th, No need to list the spinoffs, we already have an article for that

And are you going to delete that article since it's only temporary? --hottie 14:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, on points 1 and 6, lists of characters and spin-offs are already in there. I just extracted and shaped them. Again, I think the X-Men article is not simply an article about a superhero team, like say the Fantastic Four or Legion of Superheroes articles, but is more like the main articles on Star Wars or Star Trek in that the very term evokes an entire franchise.
 * 2. I’d agree if Ultimate X-Men was not so widely successful but it often eclipses the “main” titles in terms of sales and attention. It seems weird to have it not mentioned at all, especially given the mention of things like Pryde or the X-Men, the proposed Magneto movie and…
 * 3. …the Star Trek crossovers. The section isn’t long but the entire subject seems kind of pedantic, especially when so many other details have been shipped-off to sub-articles.
 * 4. The posters don’t really tell you much. A screen shot is good because it illustrates the films’ visual approach as opposed to the comics.
 * 5. That’s more or less true, but the pivotal Claremont/Byrne era inconveniently laps into the 1980s.


 * And, after I get some comment on it, yes.

-To quote Emma from NXM#23 "You came here to learn and use your powers to find a place in the world. Now we will see what you've learned and where your place is. There are 2 possibilities-on the battlefield or on the sidelines.  YOU DECIDE WHICH.  The exercise is simple-every man for himself.  Last students standing will train TO BE X-MEN...the rest will not." I think this proves that they are now and forever (at least until Civil War is over) Xmen. Feedback?


 * Huh? Rorschach567 12:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the issue is post-DECIMATION and has Emma make the students fight each other. Eight (I think) students are left standing and begin to train as (quote Emma) "The New X-Men".

Appearances in other media
Under the Films section, Pyro is listed as appearing in X2 and X3. Wasn't Pyro in the first film too? In the classroom setting, he tries to get Rogue's attention with a little fire and then Iceman freezes the fire. I know it was not the same actor but I remember reading that it was supposed to be Pyro and they changed the actor for X2 because the first one didn't look like your typical bad boy. If Beast's minor appearance in the first film can be listed, shouldn't Pyro's appearance be listed as well? --kwyjibear 05:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

X-Men is 'Not an Allegory of Racial Tolerance?
''While this interpretation has become commonplace, it is not without its critics. In 2002, comics critic Julian Darius argued in "X-Men is 'Not an Allegory of Racial Tolerance" that a close examination of early X-Men comics would make Magneto not Malcolm X, but the radical revolutionaries of the Black Panthers. In the earliest comics, Xavier expressed no concern with mutant rights but instead focusing on stopping mutant menaces. He was, wrote Darius, explicitly counter-revolutionary. However, it should be noted that the metaphor of racism, and the characters and beliefs of Magneto and Xavier, weren't truly fleshed out until later writers came on board, so it''
 * How common is this view? Does it need to be noted in the article?
 * Yes, the earlier issues weren't really civil rights metaphors. It wouldn't be until later writers such as Claremont came on when that happened. Just because it didn't start out an allegory/metaphor doesn't mean that it isnt now. The same goes for Magneto and Xavier; their chararacters weren't developed until later on either. --DrBat 19:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. By a tortured analogy, I believe the X-Men were the "dust particle" onto which water droplets form, thereby creating a raindrop or snowflake, and onto which stock Jungian types have been layered by successive writers (particularly Claremont). This still does not invalidate the allegory since it is the process and the end result which defines them. I also think the logical starting point should not be the original X-Men, but instead their revival in the Giant-sized X-Men 1 which is where their pop culture influence really started.
 * Pardon me if this sounds, well, kooky, but I think that the X-Men in the Claremont era, particularly the Xavier/Magneto relationship was to some great efect an extension of the historical experiences of 20th century Jewish-America society, with Xavier representing the viewpoint of Americanized Jews with good prospect of hope and toleration, while Magneto represents the other side of the coin - those who "gave up" on humanity in the wake of the Holocaust. I could well imagine - perhaps conceive would be a safer word - the types of conversations that must have gone on within that society between American Jews and their relations from Europe and it would only be natural to see this reflected in the comic pages (given the historical ties between Jews and the comic book industry, in that discrimination had steered many into lower prestige, lower paying jobs, of which comic book publishing was representative -- if the comic publishing houses had been founded anyplace other than New York with its large Jewish population their would have been a profound difference in what we read today). Going even further out on a limb, I believe Nightcrawler is part of this story as well - Both Xavier and Magneto are reactive to discrimination, while Nightcrawler, despite his extreme physical differences, attempts to live outside of this construct, trying to keep the same outlook and personality he would have had if he were born a normal human instead (there's some other stuff with his German background, his original base in Munich, his being raised by Gypsies within a subculture group, and his demonic appearance which sort of feeds into this as well I think but I'm having problems connecting dots). Haverberg 05:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Box
I'm new to Wikipedia, but I noticed that the the little box at the bottom of the X-articles includes all the members of the X-Men... except Wraith and Omerta. So... either they should be added or Joanna Cargill should be removed. Also, people like Cecilia Reyes should be listed as last name first since it is in alphabetical order.

IMDB message board entry for X-Men 3
Don't go there. Just a friendly warning. Cluttered and full of teenagers with too much time on their hands now that school is out.

Reflecting concurrent social issues: Deafness and Cochlear implants
On May 31, someone at IP 64.12.117.5 deleted the Reflecting concurrent social issues: Deafness and Cochlear implants subsection, with change 5619155. They also included the following vandalish edits:


 * A.K.A what losers they couldn't think of their own super-hero team.
 * Me again:A.K.A what losers they couldn't think of their own super-hero team.
 * Me again lets hopew this is the last time: A.K.A what losers they couldn't think of their own super-hero team.
 * Lets hope this is the last time: A.K.A what losers they couldn't think of their own super-hero team.
 * Guess no: A.K.A what losers they couldn't think of their own super-hero team.

I don't want to get into a revert war, so I'm asking whether people think the following paragraph belongs in the X-men article:


 * Deafness and Cochlear implants: In X-Men: The Last Stand, a chemical 'cure' for mutants is discovered. The mutant community is divided over this, with some wanting to take it and lose their mutant abilities, while others protest. This divide has strong parallels to the deaf community's reaction to Cochlear implants, where people view them as the correction of a disability while others claim that there is nothing wrong with deafness and hence nothing to correct. This question of how to view mutanthood is illustrated in the language of the drug's proponents and opponents; Warren Worthington II of Worthington Pharmaceuticals, the company that developed the drug, presents himself and his company as trying to cure mutants of a disease. Protesters, however, chant “nothing to cure!”


 * -- Jeff 04:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I do believe it represents a connection to the argument on whether or not deaf people should get the implants. I read a review that actually compared Rogue's plight and her dilemma on whether or not get the 'cure' to that of deaf people. --DrBat 00:24, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Series Names
I was reading through various X-Men related pages today and I noticed that most of the time, comics are named by the X-Men v1 / X-Men v2 convention, but several articles also name them as Uncanny X-Men / X-Men, which I found confusing at times. I think we should reach a consciences on which naming system to use and change any that were named differently.

Schubatis1 02:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The adjectivelss X-Men title is usually refered to as X-Men volume 2. --DrBat 00:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize that, but I've seen it both ways on Wikipedia and I only one method should be used to reduce confusion. Schubatis1 03:35, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the X-Men
Who would have known what the X-Men should turn into at that time?

"Stan Lee only went the 'mutant' route with the X-Men because he was getting burned out trying to come up with "plausible" origins for his characters. There's only so many trips to the well of accidents with chemicals, radioactivity, lightning strikes, and combinations of same that you can make.

When the X-Men came around, Lee threw up his hands and effectively said - to hell with it - they were born this way. Yeah - they're mutants, that's the ticket.

Lee wanted to call the comic series The Mutants, but publisher Martin Goodman thought kids wouldn't know what that word meant, so he had him change it to X-Men."

image ratio change leaves it skewed. (vertically flattened)
The first, main image seems to be flattened and seems like it should be stretched vertically to restore its original width-to-height ratio.

Mutant X
Mutant X the tv show is not part of the X-Men franchise. Someone should remove that.

"...american mutants..."
It's in the first paragraph, but Wolverine is Canadian though.

-G


 * Although it's not the most common usage, 'American' can cover anyone from the American continents. Still, there are other members of the X-men who don't fall into that category. It should say something like 'US-based'. Nick Fel 11:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They all get American passports and identities when they join the Xavier Institute. 194.171.56.2 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Essential characters
I've removed this bit of fan opinion, again. It is nothing more than a collection of one person's ideas of who fits this "essential" category. And yes, to answer the question asked in the edit summary, that probably means that the "Notable former members" bit needs to go away also as Original Research and fan opinion as to who is notable. CovenantD 22:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess the word "Essential" is a bit subjective to some people I agree. But what I trying to convey on the list is what I described or wrote on the section: I bolded the important things to emphasize.

Although the X-men roster in the comic books changes constantly through the years and had numerous past members, allies and villains, there are characters that were featured outside the comic books more often than the others. Consequently becoming recognizable even for non-readers. They can be categorize as the essential characters. Characters that often appear, especially, in popular adaptations on TV series, Movies and Video Games.

I would like to make clear that this is not my "FAVORITE X-MEN" list. And I think creating "notable" or "important" characters are not really hard to make. Should we also take out all the "Notable Alumni" on the articles about Schools? Or Something like that? Should we also get rid of the word "notable" altogether and the people or things which it describes in every article for that matter?

These characters are often used, featured, appeared outside the comic book world more often than others. Giving them a "Notable" or "Essential" qualities to the franchise. They became more of an icon in sense of the franchise. They become more synonymous to the franchise as their characters transcend the comic books. Making them more RECOGNIZABLE or widely known or celebrated even for the non-readers of the comic books.

These characters are frequently representing the X-men in other artforms regardless of the storyline. But basically they could be interchangebly called as the most "popular", "important", "notable" or "essential". What I meant by "essential" is not who I think is "essential" but based on the criteria I gave. Yes, the list could change overtime but we cant argue who are the most notable X-men and who are not today.

Like what I said we could quantified such things. First we have to weigh it in the popular adaptions. In the case of Movies and TV series, What characters starred in these popular adaptation? Are they a lead or not? In the case of Video games, what characters are playable? are they the lead or not? All in all which characters are OFTEN seen as an X-men or Villains through these popular adaptation.

I would like to give example of which adaptation I am talking about. In the movies we have B.O. hits like X-men, X2 and X3. Which characters that are featured here? In TV series we have hits like the "X-men the animated series" and "X-men Evolution". Which characters are featured here? In case of Video games he have hits like "X-men Children of Atom", "X-men vs.Capcom", "X-men Legends". Which characters are featured here?

What I am trying to say is the consensual roster of X-men characters through these popular adaptations. And the list of characters I gave are basically the ones who always appears on these. I think this the only way we can create "notable", "essential" or "popular" characters list if we consider not only the "comic book world" but most importantly the "popular adapatations" beacuse most of the general public follows the latter.

For example Wolverine has been in every adaptation of X-men as you can possiblly think of, as well as Cyclops, Proffesor X, Mageneto and Storm. If we say their names, a regular folk could instantly connect them to as "X-men characters". So they weigh more as oppose to let say Banshee or Xorn or Feral.

I guess, I just made it too long of explaination, sorry, hehe. In summary, I am just trying to say or suggest that we can drop the word "essential" and change it to "popular characters"? maybe? And change the introduction a bit? Or we could make a poll about it perhaps?

—888

You can sign by typing four tildes ( ~ ).

It's the POV words Popular or Essential that bother me. Why don't we get some other opinions, take a poll, whatever. CovenantD 21:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind changing the wording. "Notable"? perhaps? Although In my opinion the word "Popular" is pretty appropriate enough I think. and Yeah, others opinion and taking a poll of others is a good idea. Any takers? ~


 * I can easily think of one "adapatation" of the X-Men that Wolverine & Storm weren't a part of -- the original team seen in the earliest comics. (Well, maybe "incarnation" would be a better term.) Dr Archeville 00:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Juggernaut? Should we not place him as a hero?

I think Juggernaut were mostly portayed as a villian outside the comic book realm. I believe that what is the section describing.

Attention everyone please stop adding on the section "notable characters". Pls read the description of what the article is stating before putting anything. The list right now suffice what the section of the article is conveying. If you would like to add more pls support it with a strong agurment given the criteria the article is presenting. I deleted "Dust" because clearly the character does not fit the description.-888

And we're already seeing the creep that I expected from this section. It's going to grow, inevitably, as people add their favorite characters. CovenantD 04:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Like what I said, the argument you are saying would also apply to every when ever an article describes who is notable. If this must be deleted should not also all those article describing who is notable be deleted. Also, I presicely described which characters should fit the criteria (Pls read my explanation above). I will follow this closely-888

While I can see some purpose for this - I'm sure there's a reason the initial picture for the article features Wolverine, Storm, and Nightcrawler instead of Dusk, Beak, and Multiple - creep is inevitable unless some quantification method is put in. I would guess the most recognizable characters have appeared in comics, movies, animation, and video games so why not just require that all notables appear in at least three of the above media?Haverberg 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a qualification that was stated clearly. The section particularly describes characters that are quite popular OUTSIDE the comic book realm. Especially, TV,Movies,&Video Games. In that way the list of characters would be more restrictive. So no matter how popular or notable a character is in the comic books, if that character isnt being frequently featured oustside of it, like what I said, that character does not fit the description or criteria. Many "notable list" section does not even give any precise description like this. I was thinking about changing the title of the section from "Notable Chracaters" to "Popular characters outside the comic books" and putting it on under the "Appearance in other media". Do you think it would be better that way? BTW, someone just put Senator Kelly, I am sorry but, yes he was, significantly, in the first movie but other than that he has minimal apperances on other things. I can think of other more characters that has more pressence than him that was not in the list. So, I am afraid I must delete him.-888


 * How does one define "popular outside the comic book realm?" Again, it's a subjective term that can't be quantified. CovenantD 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think, I already explained that it can be measurable. That is why I used the terms "frequently" and "often". How often this character appears on other adaptations like in this or on that. I am open for suggestion on what term should be used otherwise we can stick to "notable characters". IMO though, the term "popular outside the comic book realm" is a no brainer really. We can easily distinguish which are popular and which are not. I like to make it clear though that when I say "popular" it means they recognizable by non-readers or comprehensible to the general public. I guess you misinterprenting them as the most favored that is why you find it subjective-888


 * Frequently and often are, again, both subjective terms with no definite answer. You're going in circles, using one ill-defined word to explain another. Recognizable by which non-readers? I can assure you that there are milliions, probably billions, who have never heard of Nightcrawler or Mystique or Cable. So who do we poll? CovenantD 16:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

First, the non-readers was not meant to be as the whole population of the planet earth, these are the people or fans that are familiar of the x-men "franchise" but not necesarilly read the comic books. The people who only knew these characeters by means of TV series, Movies, & Video Games and that is what we are focusing on.

Ok let me do this step by step. Based on the criteria: "Characters who appears "frequently" in other adaptation outside the comic books especially [TV, Movies, & Video Games]"

First let us take 4 example characters: Wolverine, Colossus, Sage, Banshee, (these are just rough example)

Wolverine: appeared on 3 movies, 8 video games, 3 TV series. Colossus: appeared on 2 movies, 5 video games, 1 TV series. Banshee: appeared on 0 movie, 0 video game, 1 TV series. Sage: appeared on 0 movie, 0 video game, 0 TV series.

Based on this we can say Wolverine "frequently" appears outside the comic book realm. Thus, based on the description he weighs more than Sage or Banshee. Based on the information would you not describe him as a "popular character outside the comic book realm?"-888

Actually it's: Colossus: appeared on 3 movies, 5 video games, 3 TV series. since he was in all three movies and shows.

"Notable characters"
Every time I see this edited I feel like just plain removing it, but in the interest of others, I'd like to put it to a vote. Who is for removal of the header 'notable characters'? Kusonaga 13:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * Delete ~ It adds nothing, and is way too dependant on the editor's POV, evident from all of the reverts that section gets ~ Kusonaga 13:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wiki-newbie 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I've been against this from the beginning. Too subjective, POV fancruft. If they are NOTABLE enough for this then they are given proper due in the appropriate places, like the game articles and their individual ones. CovenantD 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep There are "notable character list" in every decase in history section and there is one "notable former member list" right at front. why would this be any different? and also wondering why this section gets all the issue? The section gives a precise description of which character should be included. So I do not see any problem -888
 * The problem lies with the fact that seemingly only you know what is supposed to go in the notable characters list. Multiple reverts later and the list just keeps changing. It's inconsistant, and based purely on the POV of the individual editor. Secondly, yes, each decade gives the members that were prominent, which just makes the "notable characters" section a redundancy. You'll also note that the notable former member list consists solely of characters that have left the X-Men recently (besides Magneto, who gets the spot because he is their archfoe, but was also a member). Kusonaga 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is why I have been trying to comprimise not to call it "notable characters" bec of redundancy. It was not my first choice of word, however it could also apply.
 * I have been suggesting to call it "popular characters" as it best describes my description but one person here think the woed was "subjective". Please read my long explanation above to understand my point.
 * And no, the list has not actually got really out of control. As I have been checking on it once in a while. The original list I gave still stands, as is, and every single one. Maybe one or two were added but were reverted again to the original list by, to my suprise, by other users (who I think agree that the list is sound enough, as many of the x-men fans would also agree).
 * I must admit though that I did some research on this. So I just did not simply put my "favorite" characters" there, I can assure you it was done objectively. I did quantify which characters do "frequently" featured outside the comic book realm. I already stated my detailed explanation about this above. The section was not meant to focus on the comic book world but "OUTSIDE". That is why I was calling for people who ever wants to add to provide a strong argument why their character should be included given the criteria and put it in the talk page-888 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.146.117 (talk • contribs).


 * Yeah, a denomination of "popular" would be even worse. Thing is, the list is still subject to the views of the individual editor, and having to to consistantly revert it means there is quite likely a fault with it. Besides the fact that original research isn't 'allowed', I understand your points and have read your reasons for adding the characters listed, but let's take someone like Cable. He really isn't popular enough and it just opens the door for other characters to be added. It's just redundant because notable characters are already noted in the approiate sections (even outside of comics). Kusonaga 19:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The word "popular" always comes up whenever you read an article about an X-men character (especially the ones I gave). If you could take a look each one of the character I list and read their individual article you would see "popular" everytime. It is a very common word, So I really dont get what is the problem with the word "Popular". As long as you can support the claim why not call him/her popular? I already explined that above.
 * We ca not avoid editing in Wikipedia. But like what I said the list up until now is as is as it was the first time I put it. The revertion was not out of control'
 * Cable was a popular playable character in the hit "Marvel vs. Capcom video game series" and was popular and frequently appeared in X-men animated series. Yes, he was not as popular let say Wolverine, that is a given, that is why he is in the bottom of the list. The characters at the bottom are actually the borderline
 * But that was my point though If someone could present or support an argument that if a character has more appearnces in "other media" than Cable then it be should explained first. and if proven right then we change it, there would be no problem at all. You see this is not really my own view the list can be flexible BUT the claim should be strong. So the list could be seen as objective. The list actually restricts people to add as not really many characters are featured outside the comic books.-888 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.146.117 (talk • contribs).


 * A) It would be quite handy if you registered at wikipedia. It would be more preferable to the -888 sign you do. Either that or use ~.
 * B) The word "popular" is POV unless proper statistics can be shown, in cited, published work (WP:NOR). In other words: Do actually support the claim.
 * C) Furthermore, if there is work to be referenced, it will need referencing. In other words, cite "widely known" and "recognizable for non-readers" (the second of which I doubt to be true with over half of the listed characters).
 * D) An other article making the same mistakes does not make it right.
 * E) Redundancy is a large factor here for me as well. When notable, characters are mentioned in the section when needed. Each of the sections about the TV shows, games etc. give us the roster of X-Men appearing in that particular form of media. Another specific section is therefore wholly unnecessary.
 * Kusonaga 10:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * B)So are you suggesting that whenever the "popular" word is used here in wikepedia it should be deleted unless proper statistic is given?
 * C)Again the section was not made like the characters were randomnly selected. Is it references from each individual article of the x-men characters. There is a section "appearances in other media" on every article that you can look. It is supported by facts that can be found here in wikipedia.
 * Let me explain the "widely known" part. First, there are people who reads the comic books who knows this charaters. Let for the sake of argument say, 10 out of 100 people read the comic books so they know and are familiar with the characters. Now lets take again out of the same 100 people 15 also knows and familiar with the X-men characters BUT does not necesarilly read the comic books but only knew them in TV series, Movies and Video Games. So 10 comic readers plus 15 non-comic readers you will have 25 out of 100 people who are now familiar with the X-men characters. Thus, people are more familiar with those characters that "frequently" appears in the other media than those characters that only appears in the comic books. That is why we can support the claim that they are "widely know" or "popular" characters outside the comic books realm or simply as an X-men characeter by itself. I do not see why is this so hard to understand in my opinion. But again when I say "Popular" it does not necesarilly means they are very liked or something like that. It simply means that most people knows them.
 * D) Which articles are we talking about that has mistake?
 * E) It is not a redundancy because the section describe specfic description that can not be found in 1) in the article itself 2) the whole wikipedia. The section simply summarizes the which X-men characters that are popular outside the comic book realm.
 * F)I really do not see this as a big issue as the list has been stable for so long. 67.101.146.117 11:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)888.


 * B) No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the manner in which popular is often used in a manner that is condoned, but should not be allowed by wikipedia policy.
 * C) I know they were not randomly selected, except you've got nothing to support the claim you make that is actually published, or that you can cite. All you've got is original research, and I again point you to WP:NOR.
 * D) Lots.
 * E) The description is redundant, since which characters are shown in other media is already shown. I'm not against showing people which characters appear in other media (on the contrary even) but that's what the specific "other media" section is for.
 * Kusonaga 11:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You know what? This is stupid. I've seen one person trying and trying to defend the inclusion of this list, one without a lot of experience or knowledge of Wiki. I'm taking the section out until this is resolved. It's been there long enough. CovenantD 11:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Kusonaga 11:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The list has been STABLE for months. No one is really complaining about it. There are only 2 people who is making this long (Im sorry about that, As I explain very leghtnty). I am beggining to suspect though that the 2 user that I am talking to is as of the same person. Anyway that is not how you treat a user/comtributer even if I am an anonymous I do explain politely as possible and with grounds.---888


 * Months!?! Hardly. And yet another accusation of being a sock. So far that makes about 6 other people that I'm supposed to be. And from somebody who STILL can't sign their posts correctly. No, you have no valid reasons why this isn't OR. Kusonaga, since this 888 character is obviously going to reinsert this everytime, I'd like your help in keeping it out. CovenantD 12:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I never really minded the Notable characters section, but we have sufficient character information in the roster stuff in the main box. Wiki-newbie 12:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete its a redundant list, the roster already serves this purpose, hell the List of X-Men and that huge X-Men box at the bottom of the page do the same thing. --Basique 16:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Basique. There doesn't need to be numerous lists of just about the same thing. RobJ1981 00:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. For the reasons already presented by Kusonaga, Covenant and Basique. —Lesfer (talk/@) 04:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete although I respect the concept of an encyclopedia article providing clear links for those less familiar with the subject (e.g. someone who saw the movies and is interested in the comic book). That said, issues of article length and redundant multi-linking (i.e. "roster" and decade descriptions) seem to take precendence in this case.  888: I realize this conversation became heated despite your clear desire to make an article about popular characters user-friendly to a wide audience, but I hope you don't feel any ill-will.  Passion for the subject (by yourself, CovenantD, Kusonaga or anyone) can only be to the benefit of the article and I hope you continue contributing to WikiProject Comics. -Markeer 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not huge follower of comic books but it is fairly obvious to me who the main characters are. They are the ones that appear in the cartoon and the film and the video games time after time. Wolverine, Cyclops, Storm, Proff X, Magneto, Gambit, Phoenix. Is there not a site whre you can get the number of appearences they have each had and do a top ten appearences list? 213.218.242.6 14:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments
See I see what your point now. It is because that I am just an anonymous? It was not an accusation. I am sorry but whenever you appaer he also appears to prove your point. Just makes me wonder And yes, It has been stable for a very long time. The "Internationa Characters" should we take that out also to since it has no reference? The the other "Notable Characters" list Should we take that out too? I really do not get why this is getting all the heat. How about taking out all the "Notable Characters" and putting in one place? I really think you are not trying to help to comprimise as I have been doing that since.

It is not OR. If it is OR then all should the things here are also OR. Like the "International Chracters", "Notable List", "Appearance in other Media" etc. etc.---888

It's the very definition of OR. You created a criteria, then populated it based on that criteria. I've taken out the notable former members list, but the other examples you use are independently verifiable based on the comics. CovenantD 12:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Like what I said every section has a criteria. Let say the "International Characters" the charaters should be included there are the characters that was a "Native" outside the US. The section we are talking about is also independently verifiable as I refernces it on the characters article's "appearance in other media". if you taken out the notable former member list, then you should also take out all the "NOTABLE LIST" not only in this section but all over Wikepedia and that is a lot and the word "popular"---888
 * A) CovenantD is not a sockpuppet of mine (you'll note that I joined earlier).
 * B) Chances are good that me and Covenant will just keep deleting it if you persist.
 * C) Again, just because another article does it, does not make it right. No other article however, that I know of, boasts a section likened to "Notable characters".
 * D) No criticism before? Did you forget the discussion under "Essential characters" right here on the talk page?
 * E) The international character list simply states which countries these fictional characters are supposed to hail from. Easily referenced etc. etc. However, the notable character list states only the criteria, and then proceeds to list, with none of the research thrown in. Research, that isn't allowed here under WP:NOR.
 * Kusonaga 12:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A)I am sorry if I offended you that I accused you as a sockpuppet
 * B)Every School has "Notable Alumni" should we take that out as well? That is just one example. The Essebtial characters are basically me and CovenantD. talking. I tend to explain very long
 * C) The section I gave also has an easy reference. As I have been pointing that out ever early on.
 * D)The very important thing is the List has not been out of control. It has been STABLE since It was put in AS IS. So ther is NO HARM DONE. Apparently only CovenantD has a problem with it as he was the first one and only who tries to delete it from the beggining.
 * E)Eventhough CovenantD has been bellitiling me like calling me a "character" and critisizing how I sign my post. I still kept my cool and tried to explain and trying to comprimise. It seems he has some issues with anonymous users in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.146.117 (talk • contribs).


 * A) It's cool.
 * B) Officially? Yes. Unless cited, they should be taken out.
 * C) Where's the reference? Certainly not in the article itself.
 * D) It's gotten a few changes and reverts here and there, but we put the stability thing long past us.
 * E) I think that's an accusation that is rather unfounded.
 * Kusonaga 13:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Three-Revert
Both of you need to stop, now. You're both breaking the three-revert rule. WP:3RR. Kusonaga 13:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * B)See, we also have to delete the word "notable" in every article and the word "popular"? as well.
 * C)Again in, Each Individual Characters Articles.
 * E) Not accusation, just an oipinion. sorry if I offended but thats just how I feel "belittled".
 * D)CovenantD is keep on reverting while I keep on explaining. Is that againts the rule?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.146.117 (talk • contribs).


 * B) Again, no. If properly argumented and cited/referenced, this is not necessary, or depending on the context in which the word is used. However, yes, in quite a few cases, words like "notable" should be removed, but this does not excuse this. Again, another wrong does not make another right. We're discussing this article, not another.
 * C) Is this referenced no? You simply give a list. Again, this makes the list even more redundant, since each incarnation of other media specifically states which characters appear, and allows people to look it up themselves.
 * D) If both of you stop reverting, the rule will not be broken.
 * E) That's not an opinion, that's accusing someone of a behavioural pattern which has little fundament. However, an editor's personal beliefs are not what this is about.
 * F) Please sign your posts.
 * Kusonaga 13:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * B)Not necesarilly, "Notable" has a specific defenition. If you exempt one or another then that would be POV on your part. Although I have been presenting a support on my claim and I already saying that the references can be found in Indivual's characters article. If putting all th references I will. Do you think it would be better? suggestion?
 * C)It was meant to summarize it. That is why it is unique not redundant.
 * D) Well it is a form of opinion reagardless.
 * E) I really do not get it. The section is not harming anything or the article. It has been stable all along. So I really do not get the passion about this.--88800 13:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)88800


 * Just because you finally got an account doesn't mean you can continue to revert the article. CovenantD 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

'''CovenantD if you edit this again as you saw it fit without a resolution then I will give up. It seems you really unwilling to comprimise. It is not worth my time most imporatantly. But nevcertheless that says something more about you than anything else. The section was not meant to offend anyone. I really do not see what is the big issue. Like what I said if enough people want to take it out I WILL BE GLADLY to abide No hard feelings. This will be my last post. let others speak. Goodluck editing.--88800 14:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC) 88800'''

Well that's settled then. Wiki-newbie 14:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't think we should have any of those lists since some of the characters listed under Uncanny X-men could also under X-Men.

Article size
In order to avoid size issues, what about creating an section/sub-article called "Cultural impact of the X-Men"? It could contain sections "Reflecting current social issues" and "Other media". —Lesfer (talk/@) 18:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel the article can acceptably grow up to 60 KB. Wiki-newbie 18:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Spinning off a Cultural impact article would be consistent with other articles of similar import. Some, like Superman, have even reached Featured status. That would allow more room here for growth. CovenantD 18:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I guess we can have 'other media' in a new article, but fact is 'reflecting social issues' is something so important to the concept that X-Men that a reader needs to know that I wouldn't like that to be spun-off. We have a history spun off section anyway. Wiki-newbie 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I'm thinking about, Covenant ;)) And I don't think you're aware of WP:SIZE, Newbie. Regards —Lesfer (talk/@) 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Superman is 56 KB. Batman is 67 KB. Wiki-newbie 19:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And that's with the cultural impacts in their own articles! If the split does happen (and I'd suggest waiting a couple more days for comment) be sure to leave a decent summary of the refecting social issues section to address Newbie's concerns. S/he is correct that it's one of the major aspects that contributes to their popularity and should still be covered here to some extent. CovenantD 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So what will we do? Merge the history section? OK. Keep the racism/homophobia issues before introducing the main 'cultural impact' article, keep a paragraph each on the cartoons and films, mention famous writers and explain the fictional organisation of the team. Wiki-newbie 14:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Man... you're just not getting a single thing. :P —Lesfer (talk/@) 18:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Navbox Guidelines
Please follow this link Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/templates/navboxes to join in on the discussion. --Basique 12:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

GA review
The article needs inline citations before it gets GA. The JPS talk to me  20:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the article on hold for lack of citations. Other than that it seems well written and comprehensive. Eluchil404 23:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am faling the article as suitable references are still lacking. Without them it is hard to tell if parts of the article consist of original research so I am not listing the article at WP:UGA/N at this time.  Eluchil404 20:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

anti-catholic
Has X-Men ever really been used as a metaphor for anti-catholicism? I know there are Catholic character but the whole Just as Catholics were often mistrusted and feared in early United States history because of their loyalty to a foreign Pope, so are the X-men suspect because of their double loyalties both to the same laws as all other citizens and to the "mutant cause." sounds a lot like original research; can anyone list any issues/storylines dealing with Anti-Catholicism? --DrBat 20:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's saying that X-Men is a metaphor for anti-Catholicism. It's simply an analogy. If you said, "Just as Napoleon's forces were defeated at Waterloo, blah blah blah, so were the Brotherhood of Mutants blah blah blah," it wouldn't mean that the whole series is a metaphor to the Napoleonic Wars. Also, a similar argument could be made for the LGBT comparison. Even prior to Northstar, the metaphor is still relevant because of the similarities between LGBT people in the real world and fictional mutants. A direct story address is not a requirement for it to be a legitimate metaphor. Jonb39 07:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comic timeline
I've played making a type of timeline explaining the shifting titles, currently tracing the history of 5 of the X books - have a look at User:Morwen/x-men and tell me what you think? I think it would be good if we could have something like this on the article, although my table isn't actually pretty enough. Morwen - Talk 14:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

X-Men Classes
The movies mention 5 classes of mutants class 5 being the most powerful. Does anyone know what the exact criteria for each class is?

That's the films. In the comics it's Alpha, Beta and Omega, which you can easily get. Wiki-newbie 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Umm just wanted 2 let someone know that some guy has gone on the X-men page and changed words around to somehow include "cody" and has changed facts all together, i went on there to find articles about the X-men for school but I guess i'll just have 2 look somewhere else.

SHB Pic
It needs to be changed, the image just does not work for it's dimensions. I know it would be good if we could include every single member into the pic but i don't see that happening (the avengers article is going through the same thing). If we could find a comic cover that has most of the members (comething like this ). I think it would work out great. What do you all think.Phoenix741 21:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I think it should be kept. Thelaststand3
 * Well yea it is a good pic, but because of the dimmensions of the SHB, inorder to fit, the picture has to be way to small which blurs out almost every single person on the pic, so wouldn't yopu want a pic that actually shows the x-men and not just something you have to squint to look at.Phoenix741 21:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree its too small. Would it be possible to crop deadpool off the edge and blow it up bigger?

Iron Ghost 22:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I did that. Cut Deadpool off so it could fit on my backround. Thelastsand3

K i put in a pic w/o deadpool and i made it a bit bigger, and it looks alot better.Phoenix741 14:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

That looks alot better than before. Deadpool isn't even an X-Man anyway. Thelastsand3 20:57 14 January 2007

Actually he was. I think including him in the picture was a little joke since none of the X-men really like being reminded of the fact. --Shaoken 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What?!? when? i don't even think he is a mutant.Phoenix741 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Abortion?
I think the mention of X-Men as some sort of metaphor for abortion is definitely reaching to try and find common ground with your beliefs when there is none. Disregarding the fact that it references only one or two scenes from the third movie (and doesn't supply any reference to this being in the comics), abortion is an issue thats acceptability largely depends on your opinion as to when life begins. The mutant cure was an entirely self-affecting medical procedure, meaning there's absolutely no way it could be argued taking The Cure would kill a living being ala abortion. If we really need to use it for some sort of metaphor, it's more akin to labor disputes, with the jeering onlookers representing striking workers and those seeking the Cure being scabs. Joehundredaire 10:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ok, huh?!?Phoenix741 19:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Magneto Jewish?
It was my understanding that Magneto was in the concentration camp because he was a Gypsy not Jewish? Yet this article has him listed along with Kitty Pryde as being so.

Marvel lists (http://www.marvel.com/universe/Magneto_%28Magnus%29) his citizenship and birthplace us unknown.--Jan 21 07. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ford Prefect2nd (talk • contribs) 02:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * He's Jewish.
 * Check out his article for more details on the whole 'Jewish/Gypsy' disupute.--DrBat 00:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The name Erik Lensherr definitely sounds more Jewish than Roma (Gypsy). But he fell in love with a Roma girl in the concentration camp. Perhaps that's the source of the confusion. tharsaile (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Magneto was generally portrayed as Jewish throughout the Claremont run. Then in the early 1990's some author (I think Niecza (sp?)) wrote a storyline where he was portrayed to be Roma.  More recent writers have ignored that, and the consensus is that he's Jewish, and that the Roma identity was a cover identity.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.162.110 (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

main image
The main image is nice, but does anyone think it's too cluttered? Not too mention too wide... I thought the Larocca one from the X-Men handbook was better. --DrBat 21:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It supposedly doesn't count as fair use. Wiki-newbie 21:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Rosters
The rosters in the infobox need to go. The article is about the entire history of X-Men, not just now. This is the way this WikiProject has been shown to feel about this sort of matter in many discussions. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 22:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article was only about the current teams, you'd have a point. It's about the past AND current, and the current teams are a very important part of the X-verse, so they belong.76.214.173.215 09:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. Articles should not suffer recentism. No one but you wants it. Consensus wins. WikiNew 12:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus my ass. From what I can see, there were several other people putting that list back up before me.  Alot more than just you and Chris.  You wanna play that game, then the consensus for the list wins.  And again, if the article only talked about what was happening recently, you'd have a point, but the lists are just a tiny part of the article, and in no way tell anyone that the article is just about what is happening recently.76.214.173.215 05:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, the article is not just about the recent comics, so neither should the infobox be. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 19:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that they don't belong. There's an entire article dedicated to the roster of the X-Men - we don't need month-by-month changes here. CovenantD 05:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't twist my words around. Info boxes are about the info on the titles.  People are going to want some quick info when the come to this page, and the rosters in the info box are the quickest way to get them.  Leave 'em up.76.214.173.215 06:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with CovenantD, Wiki-newbie, and ChrisGriswold. There is already a page for the rosters of the teams, and adding that info to the infobox is just adding clutter to the page. vanis 06:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

That being said the page with rosters of the team is not updated as frequently as the predecessor was. Therefore it is more beneficial to add the roster info on this page, quick information for new readers. Guest speaker 11:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Tense
This article should discuss fictional events in present tense, rather than past, to differentiate from real events. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 23:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. We're discussing things very much from an out-of-universe perspective as it is. See Storm (comics) and Transformers (fiction) for another example of this style the article has. Wiki-newbie 20:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, then this will improve the article even more. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 00:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Your reply is too ambigious. Wiki-newbie 12:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * What more do you want? --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 10:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of past tense used to describe fictional events. "The 'all-new, all-different X-Men' were led by Cyclops" There's also stuff like "Wolverine/Logan who would become the breakout character": "Would" he? Or "did" he? He did. He became the breakout character. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

X-Men of the world
The list in this section is unnecessary. It doesn't tell you any more about the subject of the article than saying X-Men has a lot of international characters. This either needs to be deleted or split off into its own article. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 23:13, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

magneto
im suprise magneto got his power back in the third movie. its cool that there going to probly make x4 because im a fan of there movies. and im suprise xavier survied i wait therw all the way therw the creadits to see who was in it but then it showed this part in the end that xavier was in a medical bed witch is cool he said like hi to the nurse i here it was his twin brother because it said that xavier almost died and magneto ran the school for a while. im just wondering who would win magneto or xavier —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Trevor5575 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Wording.
"The X-Men occasionally guest-starred on Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends. Spider-Man, Iceman and Firestar were the three regular heroes. The X-Men first appeared on the Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends episode The Origin of Iceman. Appearing in this particular episode (in a flashback sequence only) are Professor X and the five original X-Men: Iceman, Cyclops, Angel, Marvel Girl and Beast. The next appearance on Spider-Man and His Amazing Friends was in the episode A Firestar is Born. Making appearances in this particular episode are Professor X, Cyclops, Angel, Wolverine, Storm, and Juggernaut (plus Magneto in a cameo appearance). The X-Men would return the following season in the episode entitled The X-Men Adventure. Making appearances there were Professor X, Cyclops, Storm, Nightcrawler, Colossus, Sprite, and Thunderbird. The X-Men Adventure was meant to be a pilot for an X-Men cartoon, featuring the X-Men characters in the episode, plus Lady Lightning (animated version of Carol Danvers/Ms. Marvel) and Videoman as members. Needless to say, the cartoon never happened."

That last line, "Needless to say, the cartoon never happened." (I've put it in bold) doesn't feel entirely NPOV. I don't think it actually insinuates any kind of opinion; I just don't like the wording. I'm editing it to, "The cartoon was never produced." I think it reads more objectively. HXcGeek 08:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Card Game
I see there is no mention to the Xmen Trading Card Game that was put out by Wizards of the Coast. I think it should be mentioned. See List of collectible card games --Mjrmtg 04:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits by 68.34.51.231
Is he right, or do we need to revert them?Phoenix741 18:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Right about what? S/he hasn't even bothered to comment on this talk page. I see nothing in the edit summaries that justifies the insistence on her/his prefered version in defiance of the discussion above. CovenantD 19:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is all I needed to hear. Was really wondering if something has changed or not. Guess it hasn't thanks.Phoenix741 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Main image
Let's talk. CovenantD 19:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The X-Men roster at the end of 2006, by Mark Brooks
X-Men roster


 * All I am going to say is this. I can't see any character in that image besides Sabertooth. If we could cut down the image so that the people in the center are bigger, I am cool with that. Until then I think we should use the other image, cause we can see the characters better, and it shows all of the main X-men (cyclops, beast, wolvie, etc, etc)Phoenix741 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Support (Just to formalize it...) CovenantD 19:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support (Since we are being all official and such)Phoenix741 20:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support Nice & clear image--Stavenn 23:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Cover art for X-Men (vol. 2) #200, by David Finch
X-Men (vol. 2) #200


 * I prefer this one. The previous image wasn't very well recieved. It was dull: a line-up. This is a quality image that defines X-Men. WikiNew 19:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dull yes, but at least you could make out who was who.Phoenix741 19:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I can barely see Wolverine or Xavier in the line-up version. WikiNew 19:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My biggest problem with this one is the size of the characters in relation to the panel. It seems as though the focus of the pic is a big empty space, and all the X people are arranged at the periphery of that space. As a result, the characters on the far side are relatively small and difficult to see. Yeah, some of the individual characters are hard to see in the Roster pic, but with a lineup this large somebody's going to be depreciated. It's the overall effect that I think is important. Also, the level of detail, while nice in a large pic, is a bit too busy for something at 250px.

If this one is kept, I'd like to see the date appear in the caption to give it some temporal reference. We all know the lineup will change sooner rather than later and should avoid the implication that the pic shows the current lineup. :) CovenantD 19:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer this one. It's the X-Men past and present and possibly future. I like it. Thelaststand3 20:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I like this one too, though my first choice would be X-Men #1. --Maestro25 17:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Nomination for Giant Size X-Men #1 cover
This is the most iconic image of the X-Men. It covers the well-known original and "all-new" teams, which also gives a sense of the changing nature of the membership. --Chris Griswold (  ☎  ☓  ) 03:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Works for me, but since that means the Giant Size X-Men cover wont be in the text anymore, could we put the roster pic that is up now, at the bottom of the page.Phoenix741 12:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

About the new picture (X-men #1(interlocking))
It is better, but it is still kinda sorta hard to see some of the people, I think we should use a comic cover seing as how they fit better into these articles. Giant Size X-Men #1 seems to fit perfectly. Phoenix741 14:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture
There's too much going on in the pictur to even tell who's in it. I liked the X-Men roster from 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.77.55.20 (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Picture and list
Everyone always gets in a huff whenever the lists for the current teams are put up, saying that the article can't show recent stuff. Yet, people also get in a huff whenever they change the picture from the one that shows the most RECENT teams of X-Men. Hypocritical much? So, you can either change the pic and remove the lists, or keep the pic and allow the lists back, because they both "violate" this so called recentism thing, which doesn't even count here anyways.68.34.51.231 23:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The picture wasn't for recentism, is was because we could see everyone. That is why I did not want to use that other pic, you can't see anyone. Next time read the discussion before you post.Phoenix741 12:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the discussion perfectly. That current pic you use violates the "recentism" crap that everyone is flinging around.  If that can be used, so can the lists.  Why don't you read before you post next time.68.34.51.231 17:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We're not complaining about the recency. We just want to be able to see everyone clearly. I don't like your attitude, but that is beside the point.

Mentall ill??
I'm sorry but that paragraph about the mentally ill should not be in there. And if it's to remain, it should be thoroughly revised. "No objective tests"? Bull. There are lots of objective tests for various mental illnesses, including chronic depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder. Some of these tests are even based on physical causes such as chemical levels in the brain. And there are genetic links found for such illnesses. Also, the euthanization of the mentally ill in Nazi Germany was akin to the euthanization of the elderly and the crippled. They were simply killed. They weren't rounded into work camps like the minority groups (Jews, Gypsies, etc). The comparison is weak and subjective at best. If no one else replies to support it or revise the paragraph to exclude the false and POV statements, I'm deleting it. HXcGeek 06:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know how I'm supposed to officially reply to this, so I'll do it here.

RE no objective tests There isn't any. You can have every physical test known to man done, send the documents to any psychiatrist in the world and they can't diagnose the patient.A psychiatrist has to see and talk to his/her patient to diagnose a disorder. I cited wiki entries you didn't read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychiatry#Psychiatric_labeling

before 1973 Homosexuals were considered mentally ill and compulsory treated with aversion therapy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversion_therapy people wanted a genetic excuse (DNA flaw) to persecute homosexuals as well. The theme of fixing the DNA is in X-Men: The Last Stand.

RE chemical levels in the brain. there is no test for these brain chemicals, balanced or unbalanced.

RE genetic links There is theory of genetic links, but its unproven. If there was a genetic test it would huge news and BINGO it would no longer be "mental illness" but a physical illness treated by Neurology. Following Schizophrenia’s Frustrating Genetic Trail"The problem is that genes do not encode panic attacks," said Weinberger. "Genes do not encode depression. Genes do not encode hallucinations or delusions, nor do they encode thoughts or how you react to things." He said that genes encode simple molecules in cells, usually proteins, and these proteins change how a cell responds to stimuli in its environment.The theme of fixing the DNA is in X-Men: The Last Stand.


 * http://www.szasz.com/iol8.html

None of psychiatry's classic mistakes -- from masturbatory insanity and its cures with castration and clitoridectomy, to the disease of homosexuality and its and to the attribution of the cause of schizophrenia to reverberating circuits in the frontal lobes and its cure with lobotomy (rewarded with a Nobel Prize in Medicine) -- are "innocent" errors. Invariably, the false belief and the medical interventions it appears to justify serves the needs of the believers, especially the relatives of "patients" who seek control over the misbehavior of their "loved ones," and the physicians who gain prestige and power by "diagnosing" and "treating" misbehavior as if it were disease.
 * http://www.szasz.com/washtimesparity.html

The phenomena we label as mental illnesses are not brain diseases, and everyone knows it. That is why psychiatrists protest that mental illnesses are bodily diseases, and why politicians proclaim the disease status of mental illness.

RE NAZI GERMANY The term "mentally ill" had not been invented yet. They were called incurably ill,useless bread eaters, malinger

If you happened to look at the wiki link of Action T4 you will realize it is real. HXcGeek wrote "They were simply killed", simply killed?

If you were lucky, you were sterilized for your defective genetic traits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization, again the theme of bad DNA is in X-Men: The Last Stand.

this proves you didn't read about T4 and what the program was that killed up to 200,000.

Mass Murderers in White Coats : Psychiatric Genocide in Nazi Germany and the United States.
 * Book

Psychiatric survivor/activist Lenny Lapon's historically important book shows how the killing of thousands of psychiatric inmates in Hitler's Third Reich set the stage in a practical and ideological way for the later extermination of six million Jews and other victims of Nazi persecution. Other Holocaust researchers have rarely acknowledged the incredible significance of this fact

You don't see the similarity of the X-Men (plot) of a mutant cure, and the cure for "mental illness" with pharma drugs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychiatry#Psychiatry_and_the_pharmaceutical_industry

You don't see the similarities with the fictional Mutant Registration Act and the real New Freedom Commission on Mental Health? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Freedom_Commission_on_Mental_Health --Mark v1.0 18:00, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No, well at least I don't. Honestly even with all the wikilinks in the world, if there is no evidence, if there is no prof then it is just POV.Phoenix741 00:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok I will try to explain it.


 * Firstly there is two kinds of mentally ill, those that want to be, and those that don't.


 * To be a homosexual was to be mentally ill, an illness that psychiatry locked people up for and compulsory treated with aversion therapy.
 * Is being homosexual a crime? no, not today, but it was a crime before 1973.
 * Is this POV? How did homosexuality get in?


 * To be schizophrenic is to be mentally ill, an illness that psychiatry locks people up for and compulsory treats. You call it a hospital, I call it a jail.
 * If you think mental illness is a physical cause fine, but there is no compulsory treatment for cancer or epilepsy (though epilepsy used to be a mental illness)


 * The final solution of nazi germany was not to just kill Jews but to kill everyone with genetic faults.Genetic faults everyone believes the mentally ill have.


 * To think differently is a crime, psychiatry is the ultimate form of racism. Jailing people for ::their beliefs and imagined genetic faults.


 * mutants get their powers at puberty, mental illness happens at puberty
 * people fear mutants, people fear the mentally ill
 * mutants are outsiders, the mentally ill are outsiders
 * chemical cure for mutants, chemical cure for mentally ill

Mark v1.0 12:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you have prof or it is not pain stakingly obvious(like mutants to raceism) then it should not be here, it is POV. So please just let it go.Phoenix741 17:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. This is not the place for an essay. Doczilla 17:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay dudes I will let it go.
 * I will finish with this.
 * If I can't write an essay ,how am I supposed to to do prof.
 * Some facts for you
 * psychiatry enforced the belief homosexuality is wrong and jailed and tortured many thousands of homosexuals to change who they are.
 * psychiatry invented drapetomania, the mental disease characterized by the slave's uncontrollable urge to escape from bondage and seek liberty.
 * psychiatry sterilized hundreds of thousands due to the belief they were defective.
 * psychiatry in nazi germany started with the mentall ill before they moved on the Jewish.
 * psychiatry today wants to forcefully drug those that misbehave such as the ADD child, and the homeless guy on the corner
 * psychiatry is the agent of the establishment that imposes the "correct" thoughts and beliefs
 * don't catch the disease of being "mentally ill" or you will become their slave for the rest of your life ( unless you like that sort of thing)--Mark v1.0 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * don't catch the disease of being "mentally ill" or you will become their slave for the rest of your life ( unless you like that sort of thing)--Mark v1.0 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark v1.0 (talk • contribs) 03:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Homosexuality has it's own section in this article about it's correllation to the Mutant issue in Marvel Comics. The corellation is not only clear, it's also been commented on in both the comics and the movies; and by the creators. All of these things can be sourced. There are no sourcable references correllating the issue to generalized mental illness. Everything you have stated is entirely POV. You want to express your opinion, write an essay. There are places you can even publish those sorts of things. Then, after you are a credited expert on the field, we can source your publications here. This is an encyclopedia, that's how it works. That's NPOV. I'm sure we could argue for hours about the validity of psychology/psychiatry and it's various crimes throughout history, but that's exactly why it doesn't belong in the article. HXcGeek 03:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I'm so sorry for my opinion at the end of my prof
 * I think the corelation between mutant and mentally ill is clear. I mostly wrote history, not opinion to back up my claim of corelation. As we all know anonymity is the mental patients first defense against the world's hostility.So you crazy people out there, stay quiet.

[anonymity]--Mark v1.0 17:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does User Mark v1.0 seem like they have an anti-psychiatry bias?(I apologise if that's considered apersonel attack....)Kairos 08:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I would like to think that his intentions are somewhat good. He is just misguided.Phoenix741 15:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Mark, you did cite history, I'll agree with that. And, in your opinion there is a corellation here. But there's been no publically published records stating this corellation, whether it's clear or not. Even the section on racism (which is abundantly clear) wouldn't be in here if it couldn't be cited to published/credible sources, such as interviews with the creators, books and essays. All history is opinion, because it's all recorded from different perspectives. An encyclopedia does not make assertions of it's own, nor does it correlate pieces of data; it only records the assertions correlations that other people have made. You see? That's what this is about. If you (or anyone else) published a book or an essay, in which the correlation between general mental illness and the mutant issue, this correlation would be listed on this page, and cited to that work. The same would hold true if any of the comic's creators were quoted saying such a thing. As it is, there are no cited references, and therefore it's an assertion, not a record of fact. Does this make sense? It's not taken off because people disagree with you, it's taken off because it isn't cited to anyone but you, and you aren't a published authority on the subject. Become one yourself, or find someone who is, and maybe then we can put the section back up, complete with citations. HXcGeek 08:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Mutants can be used as a stand-in for anyone who has been the victim of prejudice. But unless a citeable source has made it clear that such a correlation exists, it's still OR and doesn't go into the article. Noclevername 01:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

New Image
I have a proposed image for this page. Tell me what you think.

X-Men Disassembled —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

someone deleted your image, put it back up with a fair use rationale if you believe it is appropriate. SJMNY (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Archiving and becoming a good article
I'd like to help turn this into a "good article" and i think the first step should be to archive the discussion, none of which seems to be current or ongoing. once we've done that we can hopefully move to deciding what needs to be sourced and how to go about that since inline sourcing was cited as the reason this isnt a "good article." as per WP:ARCHIVE i'd like to seek consensus for doing this. SJMNY (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do...since two months have gone by and no one has objected, I say go for it. Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.79.83.254 (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The "X" in X-men
In the article, it says that the "X" in the name "X-Men" is a reference to the X gene which present in all mutants. However, waaaay back in Uncanny X-Men #1, Professor X says it stands for "eXtra power". Now fair enough, this is presumably not canon anymore, but I was wondering if it was worth a mention anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aawood (talk • contribs) 20:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

X-Men #1
Was looking at the cover of X-Men #1.

In another article I read that Marvel Girl is a daughter of, I think it was, Scott Summers, but when you click on the name, it says that she's Jean Grey (as I thought it was when I started reading X-Men) but I can't remember when she just became Jean instead of Marvel Girl.

-Rachel Grey is Scott's dauhgter in an alternate timeline, she uses her mother Jean Grey's original codename, Marvel Girl.

In another article I wrote about Beast and on the cover of X-Men #1 it does show Beast in his human form. It also shows how Iceman looked before he gained better control over his powers. Also, since Bobby's shown with the original team, he MUST be older than portrayed in the movies.

In the movie, Rogue seems much younger than portrayed in the comics. I do like how the movie explained her white hair (I can't remember if there ever was an explanation in the comics). After all, it's hard to remember way back 40+ years or so when I started reading comics (and if the prices hadn't gone so high and the quality went down, I probably still would buy them; I think I'd need a whole room to keep them in, tho).

Any other differences anyone can explain or would like to mention?

I did like Prof X - - he seemed like the character come to life, and so did Wolverine. Unlike some paper-to-person conversions.

Katladygh (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Reflecting social issues
I keep trying to insert the correlation between mutant supremacists like Magneto/Xorn and the Omega Gang with racial supremacists (especially Hitler) and their concepts of "racial superiority" because I believe it's relevant to the article's section on "Reflecting social issues" as part of the X-Men's message on the virtue of tolerance (as the other issues above it are) Yet, somebody seems to always come from behind and delete it right after me. I'd just like to know why. I feel like it's important to note amidst the other points of the section. If somebody has a valid reason for always getting rid of it, I'd really like to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.188.153 (talk) 02:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Supremacism stuff is original research, and it's debatable.


 * It's different to say "The X-Men are a metaphor for persecuted minorities" and "The X-Men are a metaphor for Adolf Hitler." (Furthermore, most of the characters you listed are more like Malcom X than Adolf Hitler in that they're persecuted minorities who are hostile to the majority, whereas Hitler was a member of the majority who persecuted minorities). I mean, if you want to add something to the Racism section comparing the Brotherhood to militant groups like the Black Panthers, be my guest.


 * As for Sinister and Apocalypse; Sinister isn't like Magneto or Mystique, in that they want to make the world better for mutants. Remember, he was responsible for the Morlock Massacre. And Apocalypse's "Survival of the fittest" views extends to everyone. It wasn't like Age of Apocalypse was a paradise for mutants. --DrBat (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * One unpopular hero named Richard Soriano a.k.a. "The Confused". It's origins are unknown. Some say it's just a normal human others say they've never seen anything like it. It's said that those who encountered it has never been the same, specially the men. Men who were with "The Confused" the night before are found withered and taken with all of their strength the day after. It strikes whenever it wants, but it prefers the night when the moon is in its brightest. "The Confused" doesn't care who you are, it seems that it has no human conscience at all. It will do anything as long as it gets what it wants. (More information about this soon.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.41.7 (talk) 12:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

But the other points in the section could classify as "original research" as well. There's no citations for the Legacy Virus as a metaphor for AIDS. I made reference to Planet X as an example. Morrison specifically made the Hitler parallel. Magneto's ideology goes beyond just Malcolm X-type rhetoric in that he believes he is the next step in Darwinian evolution and that humans, rather than being simple oppressors, are genetically inferior to mutants, similar to Hitler's views between "Aryans" and Jews.. By the same token, we should take out "Red Scare" because the parallel between Kelly's "list" speech and McCarthyism are without citations and simply implied.

And my point with Apocalypse and Sinister wasn't that they were mutants' best friends but that they found mutants genetically superior to normal humans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.189.168 (talk) 09:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The only serious parallel Magneto had to Hitler (Planet X) was a horrible story that quickly retconned.
 * Magneto has never shown anything but love for his human granddaughter Luna, he named a part of Genosha after his human wife, Magda. Ect, ect ect. He just believes that if mutants are not in control, the humans will wipe them out. --DrBat (talk) 12:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. Magneto is consistently being portrayed as a metaphor for Hitler.  Xavier tells him time and again that his choice of methods are causeing him to become that which he hates.  See, e.g., X-Men (2nd Series) #1-3, UCX #150, UNX #200, etc.  One of the critical aspects of the character is that as a reaction to his experience in the death camps, he has developed a philosophy of mutant supremacy that is analagous to the judeophobia of Nazi Germany.  It's part of what makes his character so powerful -- that he can both be a victim and a sympathetic person, and "evil" in a very real sense of the word.  It's clear as day that Claremont wanted that to be known, as when Magneto almost killed a young Kitty Pryde in issue #150, but saw the Star of David she wore and realized that he was becoming what he hated most.  76.229.162.110 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

otheruses is getting out of hand, how about X-Men (2000 film)?
I've seen other titles on wikipedia adding the year date inside the disambiguation section, this seems like a good idea here. The more clear and specific an article's title the less need there is for an unwieldy otherusers template at the top of the article. Note: this increased movie title disambiguation specificity discussion started at: Talk:The X-Files (film) about whether to rename that article to The X-Files (Fight the Future) which is that movie's subtitle/nickname/working title or whether to rename it to The X-Files (1998 film) or neither (there is a second X-Files film scheduled for release July 25, 2008 titled The X-Files: I Want to Believe). Convergence Dude (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as X-men: Dimensions novels!
I searched around the internet and through Marvel's own catalog of products and there is no proof that something like X-men Dimensions exist. If anyone can proof it's existance as official legitimated Novel produced by Marvel, i'm okay with it. But if not, i would like to see it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.6.232.115 (talk) 15:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I can't find anything either, and the second hit on google is for a forum where they are trying to figure out if it's a hoax or not, so I'm being bold and removing it.  If there's a source I missed, please feel free to add it back in.  Templarion (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Article image
I've removed the image " giantsize1.jpg " because it is a varied form of the X-Men team. The image I've added right now actually features a cover of the X-Men that is clear, definate and modern - it's also an Uncanny cover, a part of the core X-Men series. -- A talk / contribs 00:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure about that. We should be reflecting a classic line-up and avoiding new-for-the-sake-of-new images. The Giant Size X-Men being an important issue as it showed the new team but it also showed the old one too. I'd rather we kept that one personally. (Emperor (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Yikes, sorry for the longest reply - this page isn't on my watchlist yet. Well, I see what your getting at. But if it's portraying the classic (but varied) X-Men, shouldn't it be (at the very least) moved to the main body of the article? I'm not one for new-for-the-sake-of-new-type images, but it seems (to me) more like a "publication history" image, rather than a modern image to visual the members of a team. -- A talk / contribs 22:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Publication history
I've tried to go about making a timeline to make the (core) titles easier to understand. I've run into some readability problems. Anyone who's a template wizard willing to help out?

Current Roster of Every X-Book
I wrote current roster for every x-book in table form but it was undone.actually it is an easy and clear way of seeing current roster for every book then why it was undone???????????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoxee1214 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because, as has been pointed out to you in all the summaries, they are NOT needed. It makes the page already larger than it needs to be, and there is a full roster list of the actual X-Men in the infobox.  Furthermore, if readers need a roster list for a specific book, they can go to that books page via the X-Men Comic Books template at the bottom and view the full roster lists on those pages where they belong, instead of making it tedious and overdone on here.70.226.117.142 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This book is the highest selling book in comic book history (selling close to 8 million copies)
This is not the first time I came across this statement about the first copy of the 90s edition of X-Men. This statement is false. How can a book be the highest selling book in history with 8 millions when the Asterix series, to take the most popular European series, has sold 325 millions copies with 34 books, making an average over 9 millions per book. I suspect that the Dragon Ball series (a Japan magan) also have some books over the 8 million mark (its average is over 6 millions) (see Wikipedia articles on Asterix and Dragon Ball for sources). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.244.181 (talk) 07:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Change to the Navbox
Last year, the X-Men titles were split between "Team Cyclops" and "Team Wolverine", I wonder if it'd be pertinent to change the navbox to reflect this? I am more than willing to do it myself, but I'd like to wait until all the Marvel NOW X-Books have been released so we can be sure where each title lies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.79.73 (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because it's not needed. X-Men are X-Men.  It was shot down multiple times when it started after Schism, and it is needed even less now. The schism has essentially ended with all the X-Men except for Scott's little group are all essentially back on the same side. 68.33.140.207 (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete or Seriously Alter LGBT Section?
I would like to take issue with much of the inclusions in the "LGBT" section in the "Reflecting Social Issues" group. The comment that Another metaphor that has been applied to the X-Men is that of LGBT rights simply because mutants conceal their powers (and rightfully so from a population that at best distrusts them) and because of the age that they realize these powers (puberty brings on many body changes, not just sexual ones) is an extreme stretch. And then to say it points to homosexuality is basically basing an opinion upon another opinion - original research at the worst.

Then the author goes on to say that Several scenes in the X-Men films, two of which were directed by openly gay director Bryan Singer, illustrate this theme. Instead of proving the point, the only that it MIGHT prove is that Singer intruduced these scenes into the X-Men movie to either prove a point or further an issue. I have the same comment about the next section that attempts to link the X-Men and homosexuals teaching/Section 28 simply because Ian McKellan was involved in Section 28 and he happens to play Magneto. That's like saying that the movie Bull Durham is all about liberal activism just because Timothy Robbins and Susan Sarandan starred in the movie. The issues that mutants, and the X-Men in particular, have to deal with have similarities with many disadvantaged/discriminated people groups - I could just as easily say that the X-Men having to hide their powers equates them all to green aliens trying to hide within the American public. Come on.

And then we get to the point where because Angel binds his wings and Mystique can shapechange into men means that the X-Men comics point to trans-gender issues... I also agree with a previous talk section that states that the similarities between AIDS and the Legacy Virus are just that - as it appears that the reference that the author uses is someone's personal website (which I'm pretty sure eliminates it as a source).

At least a third of this section is original research and most of the rest is opinion based upon biased sources. Nothing against the LGBT movement, but IMHO Wikipedia isn't the time or place. Leave the parts where it talks about real, factual, info (like the X-Men who are Bi), and lets ditch the rest of the unsupported "stuff". Ckruschke (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * No comments were made pro or con, so I made the edits I deemed appropriate based upon my above assertions/arguments. Ckruschke (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke

Members?
After Nightcrawler was deleted from the "members" list by an editor because he is dead, I was wondering if this huge list is actually made up only of members of the "X-Men" team. Granted it's been awhile since I've read the comic, but I can't believe that everyone on this list is really on the "X-Men" and not a member of one of the other teams - this isn't a list of hangers-on or just mutants associated with the "X-Men" - right? Also if Nightcrawler is deleted because he's no longer alive, why is the Sub-Mariner kept? Even if he does live in Utopia, I don't think he's on the "X-Men". Does this list need to be scrubbed? Ckruschke (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * Nope, all of the people listed are full current members of the team, which is why X-Men-in-training members aren't included in the list. The X-Men's current status quo is quite different now from how it has been in the past: They're pretty much an expansive army under Cyclops's control, and different members are put together on squads as needed for any given mission. Namor is most definitely on the X-Men, and in fact he's part of the core leadership group. The fact that the team is so large now is a main reason why the list on this page is limited to current members; if we included past members, it would be gigantic! DeadpoolRP (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Omega Gang


The article Omega Gang has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A search for references found no published (gBooks) support for the article content or subject. A few blog and fan sites have the subject, no WP:RS found, fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

WHY IS NIGHTCRAWLER NOT INCLUDED ON THE LIST OF X-MEN!?
I happened to notice that Nightcrawler is NOT on the list of X-Men. I doubt that all of those mutants are still currently members of the X-Men so I demand that either Nightcrawler get added back to the list or others get removed right now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.114.7 (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nightcrawler is dead, so he's not a current member, while everyone on the list is. That's why! They're currently a very large group (and we're not even including the students in the list)! DeadpoolRP (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Nightcrawler is dead!? You mean my favourite X-Man and superhero of all time is DEAD!? Way to find out the news... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.45.114.7 (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry! I'm sure he'll be back in a few years, so don't worry . . . DeadpoolRP (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Moonstar/Mirage
As said in the edit summaries, Dani has not gone by Mirage for awhile, especially not since losing her powers, and from what I can remember, she hasn't gone by anything but Moonstar since just before she joined the X-Men proper years ago. If you have something that says differently, please mention it here. Also, using handbooks is not a proper source for it, since they will list ALL of a character's codenames. We are going by what she is recently using. For the most recent issue summary in the last issue of New Mutants, you can view here, and as one can see, everyone is listed by their codenames but Dani, where she only has her real name listed. 69.250.56.64 (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:02, 4 May 2016 (UTC)