Talk:Mystique (character)

Is her last name Darkholme or Darkhölme? I'm imagining I've seen it with an umlaut. Ventifax

Limitations

Just human shape? In the movie, she assumed the shape of a minature Statue of Liberty. --Menchi 07:43, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It wasn't a miniature, it was a human sized statue. On the X-Men 1.5 DVD, Bryan Singer says he doesn't know if her becoming a statue was allowed in the comics. --Sketchee 23:32, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Essentially. They've stretched things a few times - having her take on Angel's (feathered) wings and imitating Mojo, but she's always been humanoid or near enough - SoM 00:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

How far can she heal can she grow arms back or is it like Wolverine

She has an accelerated healing abilty, but it's nothing like Wolverines. With her, if you cut something off it pretty much stays cut off. ChlorineFriday 01:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Creators

It's been stated several places that the character was actually designed/created by Dave Cockrum. At least in an old Wizard article done while he was in the hospital as well as a brief mention on a few websites who reported his death.

He also sued Marvel and settled, receiving character royalties. http://www.comicsbulletin.com/news/107956708897842.htm

Grammar

The grammar in this article needs to be combed through and cleaned up. Also, at one point, we have a reference to Graydon Creed being homo sapiens as opposed to homo superior, or mutant. However, has it not been revealed that mutants are actually homo sapiens superior and humans are homo sapiens sapiens? Zephyrprince 20:42, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Did some of this today, but only by sections. Probably missed some, since I'm not a Mystique-expert (actually came here reading, not editing). -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:52, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality?

Why was the tag for "Category:Fictional gays and lesbians" taken off?Zephyrprince 16:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems to have been restored by now... I've also added a trivia bit on her being the only character in the Marvel Universe openly depicted as bisexual... I'm guessing this can be taken as fact...?Zeppocity 03:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean the LGBT category? I think someone might have removed it because they didn't know what it meant when they saw "LGBT"; when I first saw it I didn't know what it meant either. -- VederJuda 13:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No, it was removed when it was under the category Category:Fictional gays and lesbians. It was done by the user Merman, who also removed the gay content from the Alan Cumming article. --DrBat 14:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I'm thinking that Mystique may be the most well-known bisexual character in the Marvel Universe. There has not been a great negative reaction to this, due to the lesser stigma being attached to bisexual (especially female) characters than the few of those who are male homosexual, as shown notably by the popularity of lesbian pornography among young celibate men, composing the core audience of comic readers. can be trimmed down to remove the theorizing. Thoughts? 204.69.40.7 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Overstated and unnecessary - her (questionable) bisexuality does not need to become a mini-treatise on the [greater] acceptability of female homosexuality. Nevermind the presumption that the "core audience" of comic books are "young celibate men". There's no evidence to support that statement, nor is there any reason for it to be in an article about Mystique. The whole paragraph is pretty much useless for this article. Godheval 14:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I see this was trimmed to "There has not been a great negative reaction to this, due to the lesser stigma being attached to bisexual (especially female) characters than the few of those who are male homosexual." That still seems questionable. A lesser reaction -- assuming it's true -- could also be explained by the fact that unlike with characters like Northstar and Ultimate Colossus, Mystique's sexuality is never directly stated in canon. Instead, there are a few small references to her relationship with Destiny, of which the first was disguised by using an archaic term and the second found only in a recap. Also, by the time it was made unambiguous that they were lovers, Destiny was already dead. I'm not sure if fan reaction is important enough to be worth getting into this in the article, so I've cut the sentence for now. --Celithemis 11:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Destiny article states that it has been confirmed that she and Mystique are NOT lovers, yet this article says that they were in a "relationship", within the context of her bisexuality. The implication there is misleading, unless the information cited in the Destiny article is false. I'm going to fix it. If I'm wrong, feel free to change it back. Godheval 14:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And so now, barring the relationship with Destiny, what evidence do we have for her bisexuality? Godheval 14:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure the Destiny article is correct as the "not" was recently edited in. Seems to be a revert war in the making to me. Destiny is called Mystique's "leman" in Uncanny X-Men #265 and I believe that X-Men Forever just flatout confirms it, but I don't have the copies of that here so I'm not reverting until I have checked. Dizzy D 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

There was always her solo series which has her in male form checking out a girl. Of course, it could be argued that she was doing this to blend in, but that seems a bit loose. I was at an X-Men panel in Wizard World Chicago and I had asked a question about whether or not her sexuality would be discussed in her title and they said it wouldn't in order to keep the book's current rating (can't remember if it was PG or PSR at the time) but that they may hint at it.--Tuberculosisness 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The anon-user 69.183.73.241 removed all the references to Mystique and Destiny's romantic relationship; I've restored them. --DrBat 01:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Just in case this should come up again: I can confirm that Destiny is referred to as Mystique's leman in Uncanny #265 and as her lover in a recap in X-Men Forever #5. Sage also describes Mystique as Destiny's "true love" in X-Treme #1. I've accordingly added her to the LGBT Characters in Comics category. --Celithemis 11:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no cite for the interview with Claremont saying he originally intended Mystique to be LGBT in an interview. The cite provided is an LGBT cite that states that Claremont said he intended Mystique to be LGBT but doesn not cite the interview. Hearsay. I can't find the interview and from what I'm aware Mystique was created by Cockrum, not Claremont. Please find the interview or adjust accordingly Guinness4life (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Somebody at the IP address 200.17.83.50 took off the Category:Fictional bisexuals and Category:LGBT supervillains bottom links. I have restored them and left a message on their talk page asking them not to remove relevant links. I took a look at their history and apparently they are doing this to several gay/lesbian characters on other pages. Circleof05ths (talk) 03:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

"trivia"

the trivia section states that only the externals and exodus are older than mystique, with the publication of origin has it not shown that wolverine is, if not older, at least as old as mystique? Olthar 04:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention Apocalypse... 'Poxy is far older.

Removed the line "Mystique may be the most well-known bisexual character in the Marvel Universe." First, this is mere speculation. Second, it doesn't really add anything to the content, and seems to me like a superfluous attempt to trumpet her bisexuality even more. - Daniel

Editorializing

"The position of her naked body and the expression of pain, shame, violation, humiliation and loss on her face make her symbolic to a rape victim."

This may or may not be true, but what does it have to do with the factual description of the events. You might as well say "Mystique's blue skin make her symbolic to a blueberry".

This is not fact; It's exposition, and detracts from the article.

Mystique's Age

"Mystique is actually 83 years old...she revealed this after she put in a bid to join the X-men after it was discovered that she was posing as X-Man recruit Foxx."

That's incorrect, she's actually over 100. She mentions in her solo series, issue #17, that she "wasn't born last night, or even last century, for that matter...." So, she's got to be at least 110. In her speech to the X-Men after the whole Foxx incident, you'll notice that her exact words are, "I'm over eighty years old." - Ashes (12/06)

Someone had put a 'cite' tag on this statement... I deleted that, since the source of the quote is cited. Noclevername 02:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

feminist ?

why did you add the category "fictional feminists" ? Unixer 16:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Just becouse. Anubiz 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

If "no comics story has yet confirmed" that Mystique is Sherlock Holmes, should this unreferenced speculation be included in the article? If there's actually a cite for that I'd love to see it (and it should definitely be included). -RaCha'ar 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC) sherlock holmes was a male dectective in britan in the late 18th century to early 19th mystique is not that old, not even wolverine is, only the immortal people are and none of them are sherlock holmes was a book he's fictional...

I agree that unless it is cited, the sherlock reference is not needed. however, to say that it would not be possible for mystique to be a male detective shows that you may not fully understand mystiques powers. plus, sherlock holmes was set in the 19th century, not the 18th (there is a big difference), and wolverine was born in the 19th century in Alberta, Canada. mystiques powers allow her to become "male" for nearly all practical purposes, and she does not age (so her age cannot be know beyond a reasonable doubt). "more that 80 years old" encompasses a LOT of time.

Fight with Wolverine (movie)

Regardless of how it's phrased, saying that Mystique would have won her fight with Wolverine if she had not fled is still an interpretation, not verifiable fact. It's an interesting topic for speculation and discussion, it just doesn't belong here. Please review the policies on Verifiability, No Original Research, and Neutral Point of View rather than add this claim back in again. --Celithemis 05:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Editing please

The third paragraph has errors and an odd tone in general. I never watched X-Men Evolution, but if someone who did could fix it, it would be much appreciated. --Donquixote

Yes, there is something seriously wrong with the "Television" section of this article... "bang'n" is non-standard English and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia unless it is a literal quote ^_^ Can somebody check for accuracy and, um, fix the language? --Skyfaller 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The Senator's name

The article variously spells it "Kelly" and "Kelley". Which is correct? JamesMLane t c 20:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Robert Kelly is correct. Noclevername 02:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Impending FAC

I'm thinking of submitting this article as a featured article candidate; however, before I do, some references are needed (or otherwise the article will be soundly opposed). Can someone do that please? (I don't actually know which issues it was, since I haven't seen the comics here in Australia, let alone read them.) --JB Adder | Talk 06:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

x-men cable's

shouldn't it be noted that she is one of the x-men seen in cable and deadpool (latest issue) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackjohnson15 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC).

Spoof

Mystique is spoofed in both Family Guy and Epic Movie (in her movie form rather than her comic form). That should be mentioned somewhere. Paul730 04:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mesiah Complex

Why was the mention of mystique's coming role in Mesiah Complex deleted?

WP: Crystal Ball Lots42 (talk) 03:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Marvel Zombies

Why was the mention of her role in Marvel Zombies also deleted?

Fair use rationale for Image:Mxtr.png

Image:Mxtr.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mystfamily.png

Image:Mystfamily.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mystique15.png

Image:Mystique15.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Uncanny255.png

Image:Uncanny255.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ultimate-mystique.jpg

Image:Ultimate-mystique.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

wikilink

provided that the Art by Mike Mawhew part in the caption meets Wikipedia policies, I would like to ask for wikification of the name Mike Mawhew to Mike Mayhew (modern artist). Thanks Kushal 00:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Presumed Death

Whoever summarized the Wolverine story that just happened said at the end he walked and left her to her presumed death. I left it a bit more ambiguous, as he walked away, she screamed and cursed at him, and then it ended. No bang, no future shot, not anything, just her bleeding out with a pistol. Knowing Mystique, she may very likely get out of this, so it's too soon to presume her dead. SoulReaverDan (talk) 20:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Xxmystiquebrotherhood.png

The image Image:Xxmystiquebrotherhood.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Aliases vs. Allies

In the Info box, there is a section titled "Notable Aliases", but has been filled with names of other characters. I think someone misread "Aliases" as "Allies", and it has been this way for months. I don't know how to fix it without loosing the allies info. --76.168.56.42 (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Aliases parte deux

The Aliases section is proliferated with names which I think is intentional due to the characters shapeshifting and identity assuming abilities. Such use of the multiple identities is a bit of a misuse of the section in my opinion. The character assumes people's identities, that what she does, and plot devices utilizing the character is not the same as assuming an aliase. I would suggest begining at the removal of Prof X and Storm, and going from there. -Sharp962 (talk) 23:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC).

• Agreed. I think that only personas that she created for herself should be included. If not, about half of the Marvel universe could fit into this category. She's been around a while, and used many faces.

The Last Stand

"However, when they raid the camp, they find it populated entirely with duplicates of Multiple Man. The movie does not make it clear whether she was aware that the information she gave would only lead the government to a decoy camp or if Magneto anticipated her betrayal and left the camp with Multiple Man's duplicates to spite her. It is also unclear whether or not the cure wore off and Mystique's mutant powers returned, as it is suggested Magneto's did at the end of the film — as was revealed when he may have moved a metallic chess piece without touching it."

The whole thing just seems a bit too speculative, what with all the words like 'unclear' and 'suggested', & phrases such as 'the movie does not make it clear' and 'he may have moved a metallic chess piece without touching it'.

The movie left some things open to audience interpretation, but there seems to be something wrong with this section of the article. Maybe it would be best to either leave out the speculation, or to word the sentences differently.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.194.195 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ageless?

Is she really ageless, as listed in her abilities? I know that she's aged incredibly well, but this could be chalked down to her ability to shape shift. I'm unsure if she's got herself an eternal life span. Anyone have any sources that indicate her being ageless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.194.195 (talk) 21:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Is the main picture really appropriate for the site? I mean she's got a gun jammed in between her boobs... what if a child say that, maybe we can have a better picture not so... edgy. It does some pretty close up to it seems to be a mugshot how about a full body (more appropriate)image.74.108.143.82 (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Re-write

Hi All. I did an extensive re-write of the article. So much so that Wikipedia's auto-vandalism feature warned me when I saved the page.

Anyway, I have tried to make it more encyclopedic, but I know the article has a long way to go. I tried to cut the most blatantly non-notable or non-encyclopedic content. I am by no means an expert on Mystique so I cannot really deal with the fictional character biography section without making it more of a mess than it already is. The same goes for "other versions."

If someone with a more thorough knowledge could clean up these sections, the article is well on its way to becoming respectable. ZedZed77 (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It pains me to do this, because your edit has some good aspects and it was good faith, but a lot of what you edited is contrary to the format and guidelines of of the comicbook character pages under the WikiProject, of which you are familiar, so I'm going to revert it for now. Luckily, what is good will be salvaged in the archives of changes and can be selectively added back in or used for reference when re-edited. One of the first problems is that you reduced the opening section to lines, when the style guide favors full paragraphs with notable information. The sections have been misplaced and burned to the ground. What I notice most is the gutting of the FCH section. While I also believe it needs to be pruned, FCH's provide enough context detail to describe what happened. Publication histories can afford to be sparser, but an FCH can be a little more elaborate. Not to mention, by gutting it, the sections have been reduced to "sections" that only contain one line of information. If you're not an expert on Mystique, then I would stick to copy editing the page to other standards of good comic articles and locating references for the claims in the text and request that someone who is more familiar with her character history re-edit the content itself. As of now, despite some good changes and good faith, the page seems to have taken a step backwards.Luminum (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with your assessment Luminum, but would be welcome to examining parts of the article individually rather than the whole shebang all at once. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to cause trouble. I hope you got something useful out of it. ZedZed77 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)