Talk:List of X-Men members/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Requested move

Because the page is more a list of members of the X-Men and related teams than a list of the teams themselves, I suggest that the article be moved to List of X-Men members.--Darknus823 (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnamed Students

Should unnamed students who basically appeared in the background even be included? Plus some of these facts about them seem to be fictional and/or unofficial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BuXom19 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed the "The"s from character names

Removed some "The"s from character names. Some characters might be referenced that way: "Look! There's The Beast!" However, that isn't their character name. One wouldn't say: "The Beast, please come here." One would say: "Beast, please come here."
See: Talk:List of Marvel Comics characters
UtherSRG 20:22, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Imposters

If you're going to include Warskrulls or Phalanx as "members" - even though these characters only posed as members of the team for one or two issues - you might as well include every character who's ever possessed or impersonated an active member of the team. -Sean Curtin 02:13, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'd include everyone that was an original creation for the comic --Jamdav86

Handbook Marvel Teams

In the new Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe Teams 2005's X-Men Entry it includes the splinter cells members as X-Men Members:

Muir Island X-Men from Uncanny X-Men #254-255, New Mutants Graduates X-Men from Uncanny X-Men Annual #15, Interin X-Men from Uncanny X-Men #392-393, New X-Men Street Team from New X-Men #149-150

I was wondering what we should do with the splinter cells here. Should we add the entrys from it to the list or... I have a idea because if we add more splinter cells it might look cluttered: We take out the splinter cells from main list of X-Men. Put Forge, Northstar and the rest who joined the X-Men, after being part of a Splinter Cell, back into the list when they joined the Main X-Men. And than Under the Main X-Men list but above the other X-Men Teams put each group in there own group giving all those who had been a member of that splinter cell? Does that sound good? -Jas0n22193

IMHO the splinter groups should be listed, but kept separately. If that means that Northstar and Cannonball get listed twice, so be it. -Sean Curtin 05:24, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sean on this. Plus, that Handbook listing's kicked up such a firestorm elsewhere with its... lax... definition that the guys who put it together publically regretted not seperating the two out. - SoM 18:58, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could these teams be listed under a heading of, perhaps, 'Single mission X-Men teams' with a paragraph regarding their appearance and a listing of members in bullet form rather than boxes? As mentioned above almost all of these characters do appear on the page under the main or one of them other teams so it would go a long way to decluttering this segment. Also, should the 'Secret krakoa mission X-men' (vulcan etc) be included as a single mission team rather than in the main table? 60.230.99.223 (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Xorn

I have a question about Xorn. In X-Men #162 Shen Xorn says about the Xorn storyline that Magneto wasn't Xorn but someone else. Someone still in the X-Men's Midsts. And He didn't know who the individual was.

I thought by Magneto revealing he was Xorn took out Kuan-Yin Xorn as being the Xorn who joined the X-Men. And than Shen Xorn revealing Xorn wasn't Magneto made it someone Unknown still. But in Xorn's entry here on wikipedia states: "Later issues of X-Men have stated that Xorn was an actual person who was under the influence of the entity known as Sublime." Can anyone explain where that came from? I must have missed something somewhere. -Jas0n22193

This is the sort of thing that happens without a clear plan, when you get two writers to retcon bits of a third story, then expect everyone to fit it together. In a nutshell, Xorn I was Kuan-Yin Xorn, and he joined the X-Men in his right mind. According to Austen's story (the one you mentioned), he was possessed, which caused him to go nuts, impersonate Magneto, etc. Now, in Morrison's story (the one being retconned), "Magneto" had been taking Kick, a power-enhancing drug which was actually a sentient... thing... called Sublime that influenced, and in some cases took over the hosts. Whoever wrote that bit of the Xorn entry just put two and two together. Meanwhile, over in the third story, Claremont's been saying that Magneto's not only alive, but he's not such a bad chap really, to back up the other retcon. - SoM 22:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh Thanks! --Jas0n22193 08:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Issue numbers

Hey I had a idea and was wondering what the rest of you thought, to include issues of when the members of the other X-teams joined. Maybe not with all of them, like with the villian teams (with all those Brotherhood teams and all those Acolytes), that might be a little much. Im just throwing that idea out. But also adding to much information on other teams could distract from the main point of this article, being as this is the List of X-Men. So either way I think the list is still great. --Jas0n22193 06:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think that they all ought to have issue numbers for when the character first joined or was first active in each group. Annotations like that are one of the biggest advantage that lists have over categories. -Sean Curtin 00:15, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Good idea

Footnotes

Hey I just had a idea for this page. Footnotes. The 2 main reasons why i think this list deserves it is: 1. This list is growing very well, but there are some places that need additional information that would look odd in the list itself. 2. Marvel is extremely confusing, and additional notes in certain places could be added to clarify any uncertainty. It would be so easy, and so much more helpful, to simply put a number beside the places that need additional notes that would be a link to the corresponding number in a list of notes at the bottom of the page.

Some of the places that I think would need a footnote would be: 1. Original X-Men: Explaing that Marvel did two origin storys for them 2. First Flight: though they are not on the list, they possibly could be added to it. But where a note would be needed is stating how in Marvel Handbook Wolverine there stated as former members but in Marvel Handbook Teams there not stated. And stating how they are the team that would be Alpha Flight but (if im not mistaken) was not yet called Alpha Flight during there first mission 3. On some members like Xorn II and Sabretooth who were mentioned in Marvel Handbook team who have very questionable X-Men status, let's mention the questionablity. 4. Mention how some splinter teams never were called X-Men but Marvel created there names later on. 5. Mention how Marvel created the names for some of the New X-Men Street Team members later for the Handbook And seriously there could be even more. Just throwing that idea out.

Seperate thought, with Alpha Flight, should we add First Flight and the Alpha Flight from the past now in the present? --Jas0n22193 04:13, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Clarity/Entry Heading

This is a useful resource for seeing which characters were in which teams. Therefore, the heading should be changed to reflect this.

Hoewever, with this heading, you coud create a bare, alphabetical list of every X-Person (including real identities, changed codenames etc.), possibly as a sub-category of the main Marvel character list. --Jamdav86 09:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Good Point. --Jas0n22193 21:20, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have a idea with the Heading: Could we change the name of this article to List of X-Men Teams than set up the X-Men members somewhat like the X-Men: Splinter Cells. So it would be title, than table of contents, than X-Men category. So it would move "The X-Men is a team of comic book mutant superheroes, as published by Marvel Comics. An asterisk (*) will denote a current member of the team" down below the table of contents.

Under the table of contents would be X-Men with 2 =, than the description, than Original X-Men with 3 =. How does that sound? And what about changing Original X-Men, All-New All-Different X-Men to 1960s and 1970s? To make it go well with the rest? And we could under 1960s and 1970s say Original X-Men and All-New All-Different X-Men in the description. What does everyone else think? --Jas0n22193 02:14, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

I vaguely get you with this. I thought that heading up but never posted it, so definitely change to that. The only thing I couldn't understand was Under the table of contents would be X-Men with 2 =, than the description, than Original X-Men with 3 =., so could you please clarify this or, beter still, post an example of what you're proposing here in talk to look at and review.

It worries me that we're the only 2 people discussing this, Jas0n22193, as, if these proposals are put into action, they are pretty major and will effect layout and even links to this page. Someone should spread the word ----Jamdav86 16:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think the tables are too long. There should probably be a split at each table sub-section, eg. 1990s recruits, 2000s recruits, etc. Also the paragraph under Xavier Institute Students needs to be clearer, either explaining in more depth or linking to articles on the events mentioned. Journeyman 05:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

New Heading

Could someone change the heading to 'List of X-Men Teams' please? --Jamdav86 5 July 2005 17:02 (UTC)

Done. Journeyman 05:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Dates?

What gives with the dates and issues? It lists the original team as starting in (e.g.) "Cyclops, X-men #42, 1967"; "Iceman, X-Men #46, 1968." As far as I know, they all began in X-Men #1. Is this the issue that tells the recollection story of them joining? If so, it should be clarified, because it's very confusing. It makes it look like Mimic has been an X-Man longer than Cyclops. Carlo 14:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, they are when the originals graduated from students of Xavier to becoming full-fledged X-Men. Also I was wondering where I saw those dates and they come from the OHOTMU: X-Men. Originalsinner 03:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It can't be the issues where an original graduated to X-man: Jean's is listed as X-men #1 and I doubt the original five all graduated in different issues. I think the issues in question are flashback issues, but there should be some way to note that these issues take place before X-men #1, their first actual appearance as an X-man.

Jean does actually join in X-men #1. The others are already part of the team when she joins. Carlo 13:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the issue numbers listing the issue in which each of the founders joined is correct. Some of the 60's issues of the series contained back-up stories that depicted how Xavier recruited each of them (Those issues have been recently reprinted in Essential Classic X-Men Vol. 2.). I do agree that there should be some clarification, maybe "X-Men #XX (2nd story)" or "X-Men #XX (back-up story)?" Mac417 20:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Powers

Shouldn't someone put in the xmen's powers? That would make sense

I'm not too sure, mainly because the consensus won't probably say "that's what their individual entries are for". Originalsinner 22:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Leave the ones that are there. Anyone can click the individual entries if they are curious. -Eric

But some articles haven't been made, so maybe a powers section wud be handy.

Levels

Is there any actual backup for the levels that have been edited in? I know that X-men Forever stated that Jean and Iceman are Omega's, but the rest? I've edited so that all the non-mutants are at least listed as such, but some of the classifications seem rather arbitrary. Dizzy D 10:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why they're in there. Possibly because of the Omega-Level Mutants page being guarded by a few admins. Most I think is speculation though. Originalsinner 04:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this should be taken out...seems very arbitrary and quite pointless.

OK then, final chance for anybody wanting to keep the levels in to state their case. Otherwise I'll edit them out in the near future (say a week or so). Dizzy D 16:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think most of the levels are speculatory anyways so go for gold. Originalsinner 22:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Structure, Students and such

Hey, I've got a question....what the crap is going on with the structure? Some are in tables, some are in lists, some are in bulleted lists...there needs to be some unity (at least for the last two).

Secondly, I think the section on the students needs to be edited. Why make a division of the table just to say that Rogue, Iceman, and Beast were assigned students but their names and powers were never determined? I think that's ridiculous! Why not just have a note at the beginning of the whole section that explains "With the influx of mutant students, most X-Men were recruited as teachers and were assigned a squad of six students. Although every active memeber suppossedly were assigned students, some groups were either never seen, named, or given explainations of their powers." That would save a whole lot of room.

Lastly, I know that the notes section in the tables are supposed to contain relatively small amounts of information, but does it have to be so choppy? I mean "Most likely depowered. May be dead. Bisexual. Moved to single room. etc" does not make for a good read. I would even go so far as to say that irrelevant information like living status should be eliminated all together and contained to the individual pages for each character.

I've said my piece, so peace.

There is some potential to merge the Xavier Institute section with the Xavier Institute student body article. Journeyman 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Then what ? We just list names with no info? What's a good read? Criticizing is easy, making helpful suggestions tougher. Plus the Rogue, Beast and Iceman thing is that there teams have been referred to several times and even shown in Rogue's case. The students' names haven't been given but we are sure they have a team. People lika Nightcrawler have never really been established as having a squad. That's why I added them.

Plus I'd like to know where Basilik's, Rain Boy's, Forearm's and Longneck's have been revealed. If nobody is able to show a source, please remove it. Siemgi

Membership

Where is it said that Karima Shapander and Aurora will join the team in X-Men 188? Besides, #188 has been released and these characters have not joined the team. Chambervii

X-Force

Lila Cheney is listed as an X-Force Member, specifically in issue #19. However, for all the intentions of the writers it seems as though she was an ally/associate not unlike gateway was to the X-Men (as a transporter). I suggest removing Lila Cheney from X-Force Membership and possibly adding her as ally/associate status. Please discuss. http://www.uncannyxmen.net/db/issues/showquestion.asp?fldAuto=922 http://www.uncannyxmen.net/db/issues/showquestion.asp?fldAuto=4392 Tomahawk1221 (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

X-Terminators

I'm not really clear on what this is, but it has omething to do with X-Factor. The article there is kind of vague on the subject. --Chris Griswold 11:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The X-terminators was the name the first X-Factor used when openly acting as mutants, while as X-Factor, they still posed as mutant-hunters. Later the young mutants X-Factor trained, took the name the X-terminators. Dizzy D 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks; I was wondering because it's not on the list. --Chris Griswold 22:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Oversight I guess. Same for the Fallen Angels, who should also be on this list. The X-terminators (2) are mentioned in the Xavier Institute student body‎ article. Dizzy D 00:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Please Move the X-Terminators entry from X-Men Substitute Teams to appropriate section (X-Factor). Tomahawk1221 (talk) 01:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

I have a suggestion for a Disambiguation page. Having these 4 links:

1. X-Men.

2. Xavier Institute Students (Only problem the list going here is very similar to the Xavier Institute student body. Only real difference is that one doesnt seem to have when students joined and have past students. Not really sure about what is going on with that page but would there be any way we could suggest with Xavier Institute student body page adding issues they joined and just getting rid of the list of students going on this page (the x-men teams page). Than could we just list the Xavier Institute student body in the Disambiguation page.

3. Other X-Teams

4. Villain Teams

What do people think? --Jas0n22193 00:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC) -

All the X-books are so closely tied together that this wont work. I think that this page shows all the information completely and well enough that we shouldn't do anything, unless it is to add info.Phoenix741 01:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the last part of this page should be redirected. The students are already listed in the Xavier Student Institute Student Body page - isn't it redundant to have them all listed here again? The other page does a much better job too, as it describes students old and new. Also, this article is about X-Men teams - the student body was never actually an official team, so they're very misplaced. 24.83.177.183 (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Name edits

Just for general users and specifically for the two waging a revert war the following have been changed:

• "James Howlett" to "Logan / James Howlett" -- "Logan" is the name, not a nickname, that the character used as his own until recently. At worst it should be listed as a codename. At best it shouldn't be listed at all since it is an alias. This is most likely the best solution though since the character is an exceptional case.
• "Erik Lehnsherr" to "Erik Magnus Lehnsherr" -- The character's full name. Separating out "Magnus" is redundant since the books have placed it as the characters middle name.
• "Forge | Real Name Unknown" to "Forge | Unrevealed" -- This is shorter, more correct, and consistent with other listings. That is unless someone is going to argue that it was shown in the books that Forge's birth name was indeed "Real Name Unknown", which would also be the only reason to capitalize all three words. (Same for Sunder)
• "Sarah Rushman" to "Sarah" -- Since the full name was an alias it shouldn't be listed unless the sources indicate the character fully adopted the name.
• "Nathan Summers" to "Nathan Christopher Summers" -- Full name as used in the source material.
• "Xorn (Kuan-Yin)" to "Xorn" -- Redundant since the name indicating which Xorn is immediately next thing in the listing.
• "Xorn (Shen)" to "Xorn" -- Same reason.

Observations:

• Nicknames in general -- Generally we should be going the the full name used in the books. If the nickname is the only name used, so be it. (example: If Iceman's given name had never been used the listing for the character would be Bobby Drake.) If the full name has been used, list that and only that. Nicknames are better left to the main articles for the characters, keep the list field simple and succinct.
• "formerly <whomever>" -- Same reasoning here. KISS. The maiden and other former names have room and a place in the main articles, not here.
• "surname unrevealed" -- Down right redundant and inappropriate. If the source material has only given one name, first, last, or undetermined, that is what should be in the listing. If a full name is later given in a reliable source, fine, we can add it then.

- J Greb 00:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with everything that you said except for the part with Xorn (Kuan-Yin), and Xorn (Shen). Arnt Shen and Kuan-Yin part of the full name?Phoenix741 01:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Then the names need to be moved from "Real name" to "Character" with N/A under "Real name"... mater of fact, I can change that after reverting the WP:OWN vandalism. — J Greb 01:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

okPhoenix741 03:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not out and out disagreeing with the way the Xorn brothers have been handled (Frankly it's a confusing situation, having both their code names be the same as their last names, and to have all 4 of said names be the same name.) I'm wondering why, if the answer has been decided to place their full names in the "character name" section, and n/a in the real name section, that the same solution doesn't hold true for Cecilia Reyes (who has her real name appear in both) and Longshot (who as far as we know has no real name)? Theoretically, it's the real name that is available, and the codename that isn't... so I'm thinking at least some of these names, and I'm none too sure which, are being handled incorrectly.

One other of your observations I'd like to point out a flaw with is the matter of Magneto's real name. It was revealed at some point in the past (I forget exactly when, or what issue of what book) that the only part of his "real" name we truely know is Magnus, and that Erik Lehnsherr was a false alias he created for whatever reason (again, I forget) at some point in the past. Like "Deadpool" with "Wade Wilson" it's usage has become so common that it's often regarded as his real name, but strictly speaking, it's not, Magnus is. He's often listed as Erik "Magnus" Lehnsherr (similar to James "Logan" Howlett), which is sometimes incorrectly written as Erik Magnus Lehnsherr, with no quote marks, and gives the impression that Magnus is his middle name, but in truth, it's not. It's just the only part of his actual name that we know. (Be it actually his, 1st, middle, or last name.) (Not to mention the X-Men movie treating it as his real name didn't help things.) So, theoretically, seperating out Magnus was the correct thing to do. As I already mentioned, it's kinda like the just "Logan" or "James Howlett" thing, only in reverse, with the single name being the real one, and the full name being the false one he frequently went by. It's a weird issue, but that's the ins and outs of it. I dunno... *Shrug* —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.201.225.126 (talk) 06:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I'll try to hit the points you've brought up:

1. Once the automatic edit war is halted (which it may be), the list is going to need to be brought into a consistent format, top to bottom. One of these things is the characters that are associated with a team without a codename being put into the "<Name> | N/A" format. This is going to cause some problems for at least 1 entry I think... Candy Southern (Article uses the nickname).
2. Magneto is a royal mess from the stand point of the character's name. To the best of my knowledge, it was introduced with only the name "Magneto" and stayed that way for a long time. Both "Magnus" and "Lehnsherr" were added later, and originally treated as aliases. That changed over time, but it was still inconsistent from writer to writer. Again, IIRC, it came to a point, without the film, where the character's full name was referred to as "Erik Magnus Lehnsherr" in Marvels publications. Again, it varied from writer to writer. All of that is material better dealt with in the Magneto article, not in this list. Keeping it simple would be to leave the 3 part name, without quotes.
3. Wolverine is a bit simpler. The character, for the majority of its existence in print has hat "Logan" for the "real" name. It wasn't until Origin that we got "James Howlett". It's tempting to just go with "birth name", but the character has rarely responded to anything but "Logan" in the mainstream continuity.
   Though, as I said before, Wolverine is an exceptional circumstance, so I think both names warrant inclusion. As for ordering... I'll always argue publication order before "in-universe, continuity order". The list is not supposed to be written as though it were in the Xavier Institute database.

Hope that covers it... - J Greb 08:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shen Xorn and Kuan-Yin Xorn are the real names of the Xorn characters. Im confused why their names are listed as N/A if we know their real names. Can someone change that?

Diablito92 19:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a situation that needs a two part fix. First, as pointed out above, a level of consistency needs to be reached. The list looks stable enough for that to be done. Second, the lead portion needs to be properly fleshed out. Part of that is going to be including an overview of how the list is structured. It looks like it may be necessary to spell out that "Character" will be where character names are listed for characters that don't have codenames. — J Greb 07:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Magneto... Erik Lehnsherr isn't his real name. It's an alias although Magnus is part of his real name.:) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 09:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Discuss list consolidation

As much as this may be a can of worms...

Right now we have to list that are effectively doing the same job: "teams" and "characters". What I'm suggesting we do is fold the additional information from the newer list ("characters") into the older one ("teams"). This would also put the article in the need of a name change, from "... teams" to either "... team members" or "... teams and members".

If this does result in a drastic size increase to this list, then some of the team lists would need to be split off. But that is a debate for after the issue of the redundant lists is resolved. - J Greb 07:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I realize that consolodation may be a good idea, but since a lot of the characters rotated teams or entirely shifted from one to another, listing them by character, instead of team, allows you to see each one individually. I think a list of X-Men teams on its own is equally useful and both should be kept separate. Mrobviousjosh 02:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

List of X-Men characters

Why haven't these 2 pages been merged yet, i mean it is all basicly the same info, but it seems it is more orgainized here.Phoenix741 19:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The other page pales in comparison to this one. It is incomplete and all of the information on it can be found elsewhere (likely on this page). Lnkinprk777 08:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok i am going to merge them now.Phoenix741 13:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

X-Man

X-Man (Nate Grey) should not be listed as a member of the "main", "official" X-Men roster. He was part of the Astonishing X-Men team only, as far as I know. He is already listed in the X-Men splinter team of Astonishing X-Men in this article. I don't think he ever joined the actual "official" team, just the splinter Astonishing X-Men team. Unless I'm wrong.

This could be true. I think he was not an official x-men. Was he recruited to the Astonishing team on the basis of joining the x-men, or was this a group that Cyclops gather following the Shattering to carry out the specific mission to go rescue little robot-alien-mutant-some-such children from Wolverine-Death's attack, and their adventures were chronicled in a mini-series titled as Astonishing X-Men?TheDreamingCelestial (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Am I alone in thinking this article is in need of some serious cleanup? I think one major thing that needs to be done is splitting the article, at least into two. One just about students at the Xavier academy, and one for the teams..even if characters do appear on both. A third page might be non-X-Men teams (that is, X-Factor, X-Force, etc..the stuff without "X-Men" specifically in the name). I realize they're all related characters, but this article is just unwieldy in it's present state. Darquis 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I say it does not, we could rename it to something else to show it has all of that info, but no I think the info is just fine.Phoenix₇₄₁(Talk Page) 11:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Renaming the article would end up creating some lengthy, undesirable name to indicate all the information stored here; as it is, the article is 110 kb, which is far too big, especially for what amounts to, in the end, just a list. Darquis 01:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the students info at the end could be separated, it is too long and they are not actually x-men, are they?TheDreamingCelestial (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"Wondra" & "Decibel"

Okay, since there seems to be some editor-waring going on about the matter of Jubilee & Chamber's (and Beak to a lesser extent) most recent codenames, I thought it only fair to start a little dialogue here in the discussion forums, so hopefully we can come up with a decision rather than just edit and counter-edit 'til the end of time...

I for one, think it's stupid to list them as Wondra and Decibel, at least within the context of this list.

Not only are these not their best known codenames (and consiquently, not even the titles to the individual character articles they link too) but they're not codenames any hero, EVER, has used while operating as a member of the X-Men... and if I'm not mistaken, X-Men is what this article is a list of.

Yes, at the end of the day, this is a list of X-Men, not a list of New Warriors. Jubilee and Chamber were X-Men. Wondra, was never an X-Man, whether Jubilation Lee was or not. Decibel, was never an X-Man, whether Jono Starsmore was or not.

Adding the names "Wondra" and "Decibel" is essentially the same as modifying Changeling's entry to say "Real Name: Garfield Mark "Gar" Logan" (That's DC's Changeling for those of you who don't know.) Is it true that a shapeshifting superhero operating under the name Changeling has the real name "Gar Logan?" Yes! Does it have any place whatsoever in a list of X-Men!? No, obviously not.

Now you may say, "But Wondra and Jubilee are both Jubilation Lee!" Well, I retort, "Kevin Sidney and Gar Logan are both Changeling!" Funny thing is, we're both right! But that doesn't make either of our statements appropriate for this article.

(*Whisper* And lets face it people, if they ever rejoin the X-Men, the odds these codenames will stick are probably the same as a snowball's chance in hell.)

Furthermore, why just these two? We didn't change "Gambit" and "Sunfire" to "Death" & "Famine". Admittedly, they're back to using their old names now (*Hint Hint* Prevous Paragraph *Hint Hint*) but I didn't see their names change anytime within the past few months, while they were in limbo, before their recent return.

We didn't change "Omega Sentinel" to "Malice".

"Phoenix Force" doesn't say "Stepford Cuckoos" for codename. Why'zat? Because it doesn't make any damn sense for the purposes of this list does it? The Cuckoos are what the Phoenix Force was most recently operating as, but her entry still says, "Phoenix Force" because to make it say, "Stepford Cuckoos" is confusing and non-sensical.

So frankly, I think that their New Warriors codenames are better left to their notes columns. It's fine to make people aware of these names, but Wondra and Decibel have no place on a list of official X-Men.

Anyone with me on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.225.126 (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I understand the points you are making, I believe giving the characters the codenames Blackwing, Decibel, and Wondra is correct. These are the current codenames of said characters, and this is the main reason I want them to be accepted.

Choosing a character codename because of their popularity is not what the list is about. Given time, these names will surely become more well known, which has worked for characters like Phoenix (formerly Marvel Girl). Despite these not being their X-Men codenames, Wondra, Decibel and Blackwing would undoubtedly count themselves as former X-Men. Just because they are a part of a new team and are living new lives doesn't mean they can't acknowledge past affiliations.

I think it is unfair that you are comparing this "codename switch" to one including Marvel's Changeling and DC's Changeling (a.k.a Beast Boy). Marvel Changeling and DC Changeling inhabit seperate universes, and do not share anything in common except for codenames. In fact, DC's Changeling is best know by another codename and has ceased being Changeling except for a few occasions. Wondra and Jubilee, however, share the same universe and are in fact ONE character. There is no other Jubilee, there is no other Wondra: both of them are Jubilation Lee. Just because this character has two different codenames does not negate the fact that she is still and X-Man and a New Warrior. Wondra is as much and X-Man as Jubilee, and Jubilee is as much a New Warrior as Wondra.

Now, your other examples are irrelevant to the current situation, but I can see the point you are making. I am in fact surprised that we did not change Gambit and Sunfire's codenames to Death and Famine respectively, but that period of time was over quite quickly. One main thing that seperates Gambit-Death (for example)case to the Chamber-Decibel case is that Gambit-Death was changed without the full consent of Gambit. Gambit's brain was affected to gain this new persona, but he most likely did not want this identity. However, Chamber fully accepted his new codename (and powers), and would most likely interact to his former teammates under the Decibel personality, which is a big difference.

Some other examples you used where Stepford Cuckoos-Phoenix, and Malice-Omega Sentinel. The big difference between Decibel, Wondra and Blackwing to Omega Sentinel and the Cuckoos is that the latter all go by their old codenames than the newer ones. They were also most unwanting of the new changes, and would promptly go back to their old codenames once they are not controlled (the Cuckoos are already back to normal). Decibel, Wondra, and Chamber have rarely been called by their old codenames and show no signs of going back to normal.

In conclusion, I believe that these new codenames should be kept under the codename section, because quite frankly, those are their new codenames. I believe their former codenames should be left to the notes section and in their profile, just to stop some early confusion that may be received.

---

While in your OPINION my examples, may be irrelevant, good sir, that doesn’t make them immediately dismissible. Your word is not law on this matter.

First off, While Sunfire may not have been, Gambit was changed with full consent. However noble his intentions in betraying the team may have been, bottom line, he gave himself over to Apocalypse willingly, to be molded as he saw fit. Becoming Death was his choice. A choice which he’s now over-turned to become regular old Gambit again. (As any X-Fan worth his salt knew he probably would some day.) Thus he remains a perfectly fine example of precedence for a character who WASN’T changed to reflect a new codename. Why? Because just like Wolverine & Archangel before him, no one ever expected his change to “Death” to last.

As for the Cuckoos/Phoenix, my example did not say, “Why don’t the Stepford Cuckoos say Phoenix?” it was, “Why doesn’t Phoenix say Stepford Cuckoos?” The Phoenix Force is a living entity, it’s listed under “Infiltrator and Imposters” on this list. One of its more recent hosts was the stepford cuckoos, yet no mention is made of this occurance. Why? Because it has no place on the list. Why does it have no place on the list? Because the Phoenix Force’s time as a member of the X-Men had nothing to do with the Stepford Cuckoos, just like Jubilation Lee’s time with the X-Men has nothing to do with Wondra, and so on..

And I notice you almost completely ignored Malice/Omega Sentinel. Willingly or not, Karima is still, right now, the very moment I type this, going by the codename Malice, and yet the change made to her entry is not in the “codename” section, but the “footnote” section. Why? Because AGAIN, let me hammer the point home, no one expects the change to stick. But why does no one expect the change to stick? For all we know, Karima doesn’t show any more sign of changing back to Omega Sentinel than Jono does of Changing back to Chamber. We don’t know the future of any of these characters. They could potentially change back next week. They could also potentially never change back. Why should Jubilee be treated any different than Karima, and vice versa? Why is the opinion of you, or any other editor, that Karima’s codename will likely change back to Omega Sentinel someday, any more or less pertinent than my opinion that Jubilation’s will change back to Jubilee someday? If you can selectively ignore Karima’s current codename, why can’t I ignore Jube’s?

Now you say, “Choosing a character codename because of their popularity is not what the list is about.” Well frankly, that’s not what I’m defending here. I’m not fighting for these names because they’re more popular, I’m fighting for these names because THESE are the codenames of X-MEN. “Given time, these names will surely become more well known.” Bulls*it is what I have to say about that. You can’t predict the future any better than I can. There’s not evidence to suggest any of these names will stick to the characters any better than “Ariel” stuck to Kitty Pryde.

And as for the characters counting themselves as former X-Men or not, I’m not saying they wouldn’t consider themselves X-Men. Jono Starsmore would certainly consider himself a former X-Man. But Jono S. would NOT consider Decibel a former X-Man, because Decibel, the persona, the character, the alias, the codename, NEVER. WAS. AN X-MAN.

We, as readers, may be able to see behind the masks, but within the universe these characters live, their real-life identities aren’t supposed to be common-knowledge. The new life that Jubilation Lee may be living has no effect on the lives that the aliases Jubilee or Wondra live. To the general populace of the Marvel Universe, Wondra isn’t now, and never was an X-Man, because if Wondra was an X-Man, than people would know things they’re not supposed to know about Wondra’s past, and who Wondra is. Spider-Man was recently made an Avenger, but Peter’s other aliases, such as Ricochet, Dusk, & Prodigy aren’t automatically considered Avengers in a backward manner, because the entire point of Ricochet, Dusk & Prodigy was to distance the lives of Peter Parker and Spider-Man.

For all intents and purposes, a superhero and an alias aren’t supposed to be the same person.

Betsy Braddock operated as Captain Britain outside the jurisdiction of the X-Men. Betsy Braddock, operated as an X-Man, as Psylocke. These two statements, do not automatically mean, Captain Britain is or was ever an X-Man or that Betsy, or anyone else for that matter, considers “Captain Britain” an X-Man. Wondra is -not- as much an X-Man as Jubilee, and Jubilee is -not- as much a New Warrior as Wondra.

So, all that rambling said, I re-iterate. The facts are simple. This is not a list of super-heros in general, this is a list of X-Men. Wondra was never an X-Man. Decibel was never an X-Man. Blackwing was never an X-Man (or, a student at Xaviers, since technically Beak was never an X-Man either.) I don't believe changing these characters codenames to their New Warriors aliases prevents confusion, I believe it adds to it. People come to this article, to learn about X-Men. To gain referential information about X-Men. People who don't read New Warriors, don't know or care who Wondra is, and it's confusing to put her name in as a primary listing, in an X-Men related article, in place of the name Jubilee. If someone came in here, simply saw the name Wondra on the list, without reading the fine print, and then tried to look her up in a back issue of X-Men, they'd find nothing. You're telling me putting the name of a superhero, who never was an X-Man, and never appeared in an issue of X-Men, on a list of X-Men, isn't confusing? I know who they are, and I'm getting headaches just writing about it.

And since I’ve seen no official word on the matter given, I see no reason why I shouldn’t be able to change them back. I’m sure you’ll change them right back next time you return, and so on and so forth, until one of us dies or gives up, but since I’ve seen many other people change them, both ways, and there are clearly supporters of both sides of the arguement, and since we have no official correct word on the matter handed down yet, I see no better solution for the time being. *Shrug*

---

Thank you for sharing YOUR OPINION, even though we clearly think very differently. I'm as entitled to say that your Changeling-Beast Boy was dismissible as any other chap who approaches your comment. Your word is not law either, which is why we are here debating.

The example you give is a little off. It is well know that Gambit did not choose to become Death. It has been stated by several writers that Gambit's mind and body were warped by the acts of Apocalypse. He did not state he wanted to become Death, nor did he choose his new powers, abilities, and personality. This, in turn, makes Gambit's change into Death much different than Jubilee's change to Wondra. Just because you, or any other fan of X-Men did not believe the change to last, it would be fitting to apply the codename Gambit carried at that time.

Now, I'm fully aware what your comment on Phoenix-Stepford Cuckoos said. The reason why the Phoenix entry would not say Stepford Cuckoos is because Phoenix is NOT the Stepford Cuckoos. While the Force may have applied its power to the Cuckoos, or it the Cuckoos may have chosen the codename, the characters are not, and will not be one. Phoenix remained "Phoenix" when it gave the Cuckoos power, and the Cuckoos remained "Cuckoos" when they received such power.If the Phoenix had taken up the codename "Stepford Cuckoos" I would fully endorse the changing of the codename: however, since this did not happen, it makes your statement irrelevant and wrong, at least in my opinion.

Now, if I seemingly ignored the Malice/Omega Sentinel comparison, it was because it follows the Cuckoos example by the inch. Malice possessed Omega Sentinel, she did not become Omega Sentinel. Malice's mutant ability is to possess other people, and as such should be treated as a seperate example. For example, once Omega Sentinel gets better, she would not say "I was Malice." Malice, would not say "I was Omega Sentinel." Wondra, however can say "I was Jubilee" as much as Jubilee would say "I'm now Wondra." Another difference between Omega Sentinel/Malice and Jubilee/Wondra is that Mike Carey, the current writer of Omega Sentinel has stated he will change her back to normal, while NO WRITER plans to change Wondra, at least not for the near future. This information would make it a litle more obvious that Omega Sentinel will change back, and Wondra, quite frankly, won't! Either way, since this is a "possesion case," I believe that the Omega Sentinel comparison is irrelevant anyways. Omega Sentinel will never be Malice in the way Jubilee is Wondra. But again, this is my opinion, just as your opinion is yours.

Just as you say that "THESE are the codenames of the X-MEN", I can say that Blackwing, Decibel, and Wondra are the codenames of X-Men as well. For example, if Professorr X were to call all the former X-Men for unknown reasons, Wondra, Decibel, and to a lesser extent, Blackwing would all come. At some point in there past, they have worn the X, and because of this they are X-Men. About how the codenames will be known in the future, your opinion that these codenames won't stick is comparable to my opinion that it will stick. Neither of use will know the future, but it is undeniable that Jubilation Lee will be known as Wondra for a few months, just like Jonothan Starsmore will be known as Decibel. This already ensures that these codenames will stick for some period of time, and many major X-Men related sites are using the new codenames (e.g uncannyxmen.net). These names are GUARANTEED to be more well-known, at least for a few months.

For your example, you say Jonothan Starsmore would not consider Decibel and X-Man. I say he does. Decibel the character is the same as Chamber the character, who is the same as Jono Starsmore the character. If Jono was an X-Man, and if Chamber was an X-man, I think it's obvious that Decibel was an X-Man. For example, if Forge changed his name to Bill, got a new costume, and used new powers, this would not make "Bill" any less a former X-Man than Forge. It is undeniable that this "Bill" and Decibel are both former X-Men, and as such entitled to call themselves so.

Ok, since we as readers know the lives of the superheroes, then aren't we entitled to call them by what they were? We know Wondra was in some iteration an X-Man, and since this article is for us readers (and not the Marvel populace), shouldn't we say Wondra was an X-Man? Despite many people not knowing that Wondra was an X-Man, we know at least some do: her teammates, Sofia Mantega, Wolverine, and any people Wondra's teammates, Wolverine, or Sofia told. For example, if a soldier were not known as a soldier by the general populace, would that make him any less a soldier? The obvious answer is NO! He is as much a soldier as he would be if the whole world knew. Again, the Spider-Man/Ricochet, Dusk, Prodigy, Hornet example is different to Jubilee/Wondra because Jubilee became Wondra AFTER joining the X-Men, while Spider-Man became an Avenger after those aliases were removed. If Spider-Man were to change his codenames again to Hornet, or whichever other one, Hornet and the other chosen codenames would be Avengers as well.

For all intents and purposes, a superhero uses an alias, but they are still the same person.

Betsy "became" Captain Britain, and Captain Britain "became" the X-Man Psylocke. Would that not mean that Captain Britain became an X-Man when she became Psylocke? Just because they do not immediately share the same alias can't mean they don't share history or affiliations. If you were to legally change your name, would you not have had the same history from the period before you did? The same applies for Wondra. I would also like to add that we are here to apply current costumes, and not older ones. In our argument, Jubilee is like Captain Britain: an old codename for a character that has moved on, but acknowledges her past.

Finnally, I can come to the final point. This is a list of X-Men, and Wondra, Decibel, and Blackwing were all X-Men, just under different codenames. I believe it prevents much confusionto change them to their new codenames, because soon they will be known like this a lot. Until Wondra is referred to as Jubilee as commonly as before, most new fans will know her as Wondra, and changing it in advance will save these new readers a lot of trouble. The whole reason for this site is to touch up on new knowledge, and not doing this will result in a lot of confusion for new readers. The fact that you know who they are is great, but we are here to help people who don't. And so, I plan on continuing this cycle we have, at least until someone of higher authority says otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.103.28 (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

---

All I keep seeing here is me pointing out case after case of examples of precedence, and you coming up with excuses as to why "that doesn't count!" Frankly all you seem to be doing is using circular, and sometimes contradictory logic to turn around all my points on me and tell me they're not valid for "x" reason, when I say "x" reason shouldn't even factor into the equasion. There are always going to be circumstancial differences surrounding similar changes in any character, but just pointing out the differences doesn't automatically invalidate the similarities.

So...

1st, Whether or not he chose the results, Gambit still made the change to Death willingly. He walked right up to Apocalypse, and volunteered to hoist himself into the machine, under his own free will, fully aware that he was giving himself over to Apocalypse, to change as he saw fit.

Furthermore, you're looking at the Spider-Man example backwards. You say it's not valid to call Hornet an Avenger because he didn't become an Avenger until after he was no longer known as Hornet. Well I say it's invalid to call Beak a New Warrior, because he didn't become a New Warrior until after he was no longer known as Beak. Now, I fully agree, that if Peter Parker were to change his name back to Hornet, while operating as an Avenger, then we could call Hornet an Avenger, because at the time he operated as a part of the team, it would have been under that alias. But as it stands right now, Peter Parker never operated as an Avenger under the alias of Hornet, So if the only reason Hornet isn't an Avenger is because he wasn't a member of the team while he was known as Hornet, and the only reason Beak isn't considered a New Warrior is that he wasn't a member of the team while he was known as Beak, why the hell shouldn't the same apply to Wondra not being a member of the X-Men? Because the order in which she operated as a member of the teams is reversed? That's just ridiculous. So I re-iterate, if Jubilee, Chamber & Beak aren't New Warriors, because they didn't use those aliases while operating as New Warriors, then the reverse would be perfectly true, that reverse being, Wondra, Decibel & Blackwing aren't X-Men.

Not to mention, you fully admit Hornet shouldn't be considered an Avenger, and then reverse the same logic when you discuss Betsy Braddock. You claim that Captain Britain retro-actively became an X-Man just because Betsy Braddock did, yet you make the opposite claim for Hornet's status as an Avenger, using wishy-washy contradictory arguements in an effort to invalidate my points.

Finally, I agree, this is a list of X-Men. I disagree however, with the statement that Wondra, Decibel and Blackwing were all X-Men. They were not X-Men. Jubilation Lee, Jono Starsmore & Barnell Bohusk were, while operating under the condenames Jubilee, Chamber & Beak. The fact multiple superhero personas each share the same secret identity doesn't automatically make their aliases operatives of all their different teams, past and present, no matter the order they were on said teams. Wondra is no more an X-Man than Penance is a New Warrior or Speedball is a Thunderbolt. You say, "Until Wondra is referred to as Jubilee as commonly as before, most new fans will know her as Wondra, and changing it in advance will save these new readers a lot of trouble." I say bullcrap. She's referred to as Jubilee more commonly than Wondra right now. I guarantee you, you could walk into any comic book store in America, and ask all the people who don't read New Warriors two questions, "Do you know who Jubilee is?" and "Do you know who Wondra is?" and you'd get WAY more yesses for the first question than you would the second. Most X-Men fans, new or old, DO NOT know her as Wondra. Now you may be tempted to say, "But most New Warrior fans do!" WELL, this ISN'T a NEW WARRIOR list! Is it!?

Now, I understand, that the purpose of this site, on the whole, is to touch people up on new knowledge. But by changing these names, in this particular article, that's not what you're doing. You're not touching them up with new knowledge, you're modifying old knowledge. You're making it seem as if Wondra, Decibel and Blackwing were all X-Men, but the NEVER WERE. You wanna change the titles of their individual articles to Wondra, Decibel & Blackwing (which they're not by the way) that's great. I support that. In the individual articles, it would be right to do so. But for the purposes of this article, this list of X-Men, it's not correct to do so, because there were at no point, past or present, EVER X-Men known as Wondra, Decibel & Blackwing. Putting those names on a list of X-Men, makes no sense, and only adds to the confusion. If you really want to help X-Men fans who don't know about this change, you should present them 1st with what they're familiar with (the old names) and then introduce the new names in the footnotes or the actual articles that are being linked too. If an old X-Men fan wants to know what's going on with Jubilation Lee in the marvel universe, and comes to this list to look her up, they'd logically try to do so under the name they're familiar with: Jubilee. As it stands now, they'd find nothing, because Jubilee isn't on the list, Wondra is. They can't look for a name they don't even know exists. NEW READERS, however wouldn't have this problem, because new readers, familiar with Wondra through New Warriors, wouldn't look her up here, they would look her up in a NEW WARRIORS list, which is where the name *Gasp* Rightly belongs! So put these names on a New Warriors list. Change the titles of their individual articles, I support that. But don't make it seem as if these were their codenames as X-Men, because they NEVER WERE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.225.126 (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Elixir

Originally, the powers topic said: "Powers: Omega level healer, capable of controlling all biology, shown so far by transmuting objects, bringing back dead and killing a person through touch." However, say that he controls biology is wrong. It's like sayin' that he would be capable of control chemistry or math. Biology is a science. So, I changed it to 'biological structures'. ShellSchocker 20:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

Angel and Storm haven't officially rejoined. Dear lord, when will people finally learn that when a former member returns to the team in a case of emergency they shouldn't be necessarily considered as having rejoined. Storm only reappeared for the Messiah Complex; also, Warren hasn't really officially rejoined, since the team is on a break right now.

Also, Armor, Caliban and Hepzibah shouldn't be considered team members - only allies. Hepzibah may truly join the team in #500 but until then, she isn't really an X-Man. Xanthi22 (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Armor, Caliban and Hepzibah are deemed now as X-Men as stated in the Messiah Complex roster. Sweet :) StarSpangledKiwi (talk) 04:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Sabretooth, Mystique & Lady Mastermind

I don't know how the supposed membership of Sabretooth after escaping Cable's island is any different than the time when the reality was just set back proper after Age of Apocalypse. Sabretooth was brain damaged and resided with the x-men and don't know if he was considered as an x-man but if his involvement before the Messiah Complex is similar, i think he should be counted among the 90s recruits..TheDreamingCelestial (talk) 16:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna take this discussion one step further and put forth the idea that we re-classify Sabretooth, Mystique & Lady Mastermind. I don't think any of them fit well in a proper list of X-Men, as they were all either there unwillingly, or under false pretenses. The only thing that really "made" them X-Men was one writers claim that they were, a claim that turned out to be false at that. Within the context of the story, Sabretooth was being held against his will, and was never a proper member of the team. He was treated more like a weapon they would selectively employ than a "team member." Mystique & Lady Mastermind, I will acknowledge, were proper members at the time, but are now both known to have been infiltrating on behalf of the Maurauders (True, Mystique had a 3rd ulterior motive to betray the Maurauders as well, but not on behalf of the X-Men.) We even have a section for "infiltrators & imposters" made already. Why are these two characters excluded from it? Just because they inflitrated under their own personas doesn't mean they didn't still infiltrate. They just weren't "imposters." I propose we move the ladies to infiltrators and imposters, since infiltrators are exactly what they were. Sabretooth, I'm not too sure what to do with. He could possibly be bumped to honorary members, or we could make up a new section for him, but that would be somewhat lame, since he'd be the only one in it. Frankly, I think we should extend "infiltrators & imposters" to also include a third heading of "Involuntary Members" and place him in it as well.

In any event, I don't think any of them belong in the regular roster anymore. If they had been given time to evolve into Hero personas similar to White Queen or Juggernaut I'd have no problem with them staying. Characters like Juggernaut and Magneto, who have since left the hero life behind, but were legitmate X-Men for legitimate reasons, I believe should stay on the list. But it's quite clear that these three always were villains, and were always meant to stay villains at the end of the arc, which I don't think makes any of them "Proper" X-Men, but more Villains that belong under a sub-heading, similar to Dark Beast.

In any case, I'm doing just that and moving them. I do this in good faith, which is why I just took the time to explain it too you. If anyone objects, and would like to revert the change, I ask that you please, continue to discuss it here, at the very least.

---

Oh, sorry. I hadn't seen this and I started ignorant editing, and I decided to explain why here. I do think that Lady M, Mystique, and Sabretooth are honest X-Men. Unlike other characters, such as Dark Beast and Skrullverine, the aforementioned trio actually were selected by the X-Men to become X-Men. Despite some probable malintentions, they had honest reasons to be on the team. They performed tasks that were beneficiary to the X-Men, and did not do any extreme harm to the X-Men until resignation. Another main reason why I don't want to include Mystique and Lady M into the infiltrators section is because they weren't infiltrating the X-Men. They did not lie of their pretenses. Alternatviely, we do not know when Lady M and Mystique changed sides to the Maurauders, and as a result I presume that they belonged to the X-Men with no immediate malintentions. Lastly, these two mutants are considered X-Men by various sources (such as Marvel Handbooks) and therefore deserve their place there.

On another note, while Sabretooth is a bit iffy, I do not think he should be relegated to a whole new category. While he may have seemed like a prisoner of the X-Men, he was shown to have some freedom and desire to be in the X-Men before his death. around issues 53-55 of Wolverine. He was also considered a member of the X-Men by Mike Carey, writer of X-Men. As by the ladies mentioned above, various sources claim that Sabretooth was a member of the X-Men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.103.28 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I disagree.

In regard to Lady M and Mystique, as you said, "They had honest reasons to be on the team and they performed tasks that were beneficiary to the X-Men, and did not do any extreme harm to the X-Men until resignation." And while I agree, the same can be said of The Phoenix Force, who now herself occupies a spot in the infiltrators list. As to the question of whether these two ladies were in fact infiltrating, I believe they were. I think Mystique was clearly infiltrating, she revealed at the end of Messiah Complex that thanks to Destiny, she knew all along how things would unfold and was merely positioning herself strategically within the X-Men to cripple them (As she did by seducing Iceman.) Furthermore, upon "Switching Teams" Sinister treats her like a trusted lieutenant, trusts her enough in fact for her to get close enough to kill him, something I sincerly doubt someone as smart as he would have done if he didn't believe she had been on his side all along. Lady M, I'm honestly not 100% sure about... but I think it's a fair assumption that she was infiltrating as well. She created the illusion which allowed the Maurauders to get the drop on the X-Men in the first place, if she had no intent to switch sides up until said attack, why would she have been so well prepared for it, much less, a key part of it? Both Lady M & Mystique show evidence of having prior knowledge of the Maurauders impending attack against the X-Men, while at the same time maintaining the guise they were part of the team and sabotaging it from within, and thus by definition were infiltrating.

Furthermore, as far as Sabretooth is concerned, don't even get me started on Wolverine issues 53-55... those are just a big ball of contradictions and plot holes, and they prove very little. During his Uncanny tenure, Sabretooth was always treated like a prisoner, all the way up until he "escaped" during the destruction of Cable's Island. Then after that escape happened, in Uncanny, we never saw him again. Over in Wolverine 50 onward however, he was shown freely roaming the mansion, still part of the X-Men, at which point Wolverine confronted him and the story lead directly into Sabretooth's Death, linearly. Basically what it boiled down too was we were given two completely contradictory stories as to how Sabretooth actually left the X-Men. I chalk it up too bad communication between two different creative teams, releasing their books too close together. Rather than treat Sabretooth as a prisoner who by that time logically should have escaped, as Carey wrote, the Wolverine team inexplicably presented him in the wrong place, and out of character, as a willing memeber of the team, basically because that's where they thought Carey's story would be by that time, but which was really something Carey never did. Now, I understand that contradictions occur in comics, but I think frankly, as the man who originaly brought Sabretooth to the team, Carey's depiction of Sabretooth as a prisoner with desire to escape is the more accurate one in regards to his position on the "Team" and thus the one that should be acknowledged. I realize Carey called him a "Team" member, but frankly, just because he was the writer at the time, his word is not infallible. I remember reading interviews during Grant Morrison's tenure where called his new chaarcters Xorn, Angel (Beak's Wife) and Dust all team members, but frankly none of them held up to thsoe claims 100% at the end of his run either did they? A writers word behind the scenes is not infallable.

This of course, creates a plot hole, as to what Sabretooth was doing freely roaming the mansion when Wolverine started the fight which started the story that immenently lead to Sabretooth dying, but frankly I think it's a small enough plot hole to ignore, in the grand scheme of 40+ years of mottled continuity.

So at the end of the day, I think this change makes sense. I remember waaaay back, several years ago, there was a similar debate going on about Dark Beast and The Phoenix Force, who at the time were both still on the main list. There were people who didn't want them moved, for some of the same reasons you stated, they were listed as members in official marvel handbooks, the writers who added them intended fully for them to be X-Men at the time they wrote them, but eventually it was decided, at the end of the day, the time for change had come, and it made more sense to move them, and I think now that Lady M, Mystique & Sabretooth are off the team, and continuing their villainous pursuits (Or, continued them shortly and then died, in Sabretooth's case) that the time has come once again for change. It may seem a drastic change, since they only left a short time ago (as opposed to the decades ago of Phoenix) but I think it makes sense. For many of the same reasons outlined in the post above yours. Gillbob316 (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Beast

It bugs me when the origins are shown different than how they were shown in the original X-Men. I try and say that the cartoons, etc. are another universe but....

Anyway, Beast (Hank McCoy) was originally shown as a 'dumb' (or at least that's how he thought of himself) muscle guy (not in the sense of Arnold S). He wanted to be smart and worked in the lab trying to come up with a 'potion' that would make him smart. He succeeded, but the side effect was him becoming the blue being he's now shown to be.

Also, in the movies, Iceman (Bobby) is shown as being way younger than Cyclops, Angel, etc. but in the original comics he was just a few years younger and looked more like a snowman (until he was able to control his powers and become more like an 'iceman' in looks).

Anyone else remember more differences? These origins were remembered from looooong ago, when comics were $.12 each!!!! Ah, the good old days!

Katladygh (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not at all how Beast was in the original X-Men stories. He was quite intelligent, verbose, and witty well before he experimented on himself and turned blue (which didn't happen until his brief solo run in Amazing Adventures after X-Men was semi-canceled in the early 70s). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.89.45 (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, in the 1st issue of X-Men ever, Beast did come off rather unintelligent, but he was quickly re-characterized into the eloquant and intelligent fella we all know now over the next few issues. 76.16.57.78 (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Young X-Men

Why ain't there a section for Young X-men? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.153.51 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Right now they're being tacked onto the end of the regular X-Men list. Frankly, I'm not 100% sure that this is the correct thing to do, since I haven't read any issues of Young X-Men yet, and I don't know if they're actually being considered X-Men... or just trainees, like the New X-Men were.

In any event, I'm not too worried about it. If they would be more appropriately listed under a sub-heading, I can't say, but if someone feels they should be, please explain why, because as I said I haven't yet read any Young X-Men, so I myself don't know. ;) Gillbob316 (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

---

In several interviews, and what not, the Young X-Men have been shown to be a fully functioning team of X-Men. Plus, in the Young X-men comics, they regard themselves as X-Men, and not trainees; in effect they are young X-Men. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.103.28 (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

---

Spoilers Ahoy...

It was recently revealed in Young X-Men #4 that the "Cyclops" who put this team together, as suspected, was not really Cyclops, but Donald Pierce in disguise. As such, I believe the validity of the team as "X-Men" has been thrown into question, as they really have no association with the actual X-Men, with the acception of Pixie, who was recruited outside the "main" book... (I believe she's slated to be joining the Uncanny team anyway, not the Young X-Men.)

And merely believing themselves to be X-Men doesn't make it so. They're being duped by an outside source. I believe the Great Lakes Avengers briefly called themselves the Great Lakes X-Men, but that didn't make them X-Men either.

As such, until they do have some sort of valid connection with the X-Men, which they may very well in future issues once this arc ends, I'm moving them to a "Young X-Men" sub-heading. If somewhere down the road they do in-fact become a sanctioned X-Men team, I'd be perfectly fine with moving them back to the main list, but as it stands right now, they're not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gillbob316 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)