Talk:X-Men

This page was a former Comics Collaboration of the Fortnight. To see how the article improved click here.

For discussions that began before 2005, see Talk:X-Men/Archive01

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

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:

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

Sources / Clean Up

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)

Sources

Can anyone help me find sources on the following?

• "Lee has said he invented genetic 'mutants' to find a way to create a number of super-powered characters without having to come up with a separate and interesting origin for each one."

I’ve heard this too but it would be nice to find an official source

• "Wolverine consistently won awards as the most popular comic character, so between 1980 and 1984, at least one issue per year focused on him."

What awards exactly did Wolverine win?

• The X-Men as gay icons.

I’m no expert on gay culture and I imagine there are gay X-Men readers, but I have yet to see any other source stating that the X-Men are "iconic" to the gay community. I could be convinced, I’d just like some evidence.

I don't know much on the rest, but isn't the Lee quote (maybe, just maybe) from the DVD of either the first or second X-Men movie...? I have the slightest hunch... or maybe I caught it on tv or somesuch and am horribly wrong. I do half remember actually SEEING him say this. Might just be me being all hallucinatory and/or stupid, though. Try and check.Zeppocity 21:42, 9 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: fuck 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 fucking 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 homophobic.

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 homophobic comments (mildly homophobic, 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)

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 Saalfeld 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 Saalfeld 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 Saalfeld 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 Saalfeld 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 Saalfeld 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? Steve block 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 Saalfeld 19:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Featured article

Is it worth nominatinmg as it stands? Steve block 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 Saalfeld 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 eithe rXMen 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)

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)

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)