Talk:X-Men/Archive 1

message: Hi Nick -
I couldn't disagree more with your points. :-)
First of all, I was one of the major architects of the previous revision, so I obviously have a preference for a lot of the formatting and wording therein.  To address specific points:
*It's pretty standard in Wikipedia to refer to specific comic book issues by month and year, so September 1963 should remain.
*It's standard and correct to credit creators in the introductory paragraph.  They are, after all, the ones ultimately responsible for the creation.  While Claremont's place in X-Men history is significant, I think his role is clearly subordinate to that of Lee and Kirby.  Heck, Claremont didn't even create the "new" X-Men - they were created (mainly) by Len Wein and Dave Cockrum.
*The introductory section definitely should not list individual characters.  First, these characters have their own entries in the 'pedia.  Second, they are prominently listed in the sections below.  Third, this article is about the group, not the individual members.  Fourth, which members are the "defining" or "prominent" ones is a matter of opinion (I definitely do not think that Rogue or Nightcrawler belongs in such a list, unless the list is going to include 20 or 30 individuals).
*"Evil mutants" was a key part of X-Men mythology for over 25 years (1963-1988), and is included directly in the name of one of their major enemies.  The team was founded in part specifically to defend against "evil mutants", so its mention is appropriate.
*I don't see any reason to stress that the X-Men were created during Marvel's 1960s renaissance.  Indeed, this seems counterproductive because the 1960s X-Men stories were neither creatively nor commercially successful.  The book, was, in fact, such a flop that it was one of the few early Marvel titles to get cancelled during the 1960s.
*Actually, the early Phoenix/Shi'ar story were mostly drawn and created by Dave Cockrum, not John Byrne.  The story itself actually isn't especially noteworthy historically, except for the mutation of Jean Grey.  The first major storyline drawn by Byrne was the Magneto yarn a few issues later.  The Dark Phoenix Saga is certainly significant (and X-Men #137 is probably one of the most important single issues in comics in the last 50 years), but the background to that story can be easily summarized without resorting to an overly-detailed explanation of X-Men #100-108.  (Indeed, such information really belongs in the Phoenix or Jean Grey articles.)
While it would be nice to find a compromise, right now it sounds like we radically disagree on the structure of the article.  I've mostly adhered to standard met by many other comic book-related articles, and would prefer to stick to them.  In particular, where possible we should avoid the temptation to be overly wordy and (especially) to recapitulate the entire history of the team, rather than hitting the highlights, which casual- or non-comics fans would be most interested in. -mhr 22:01, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Response by [[User:Michael Rawdon]]

message: In brief:
* Just because some other comic book articles don't mention a month doesn't mean that it's wrong to do so. References to a specific issue of a monthly periodical ought to mention the month of release.
* Lee and Kirby created the X-Men. This is a fact. Obviously they didn't create all of them, and didn't write or illustrate them at the peak of their popularity, but they did create them.
* The problem with listing the most notable X-Men is that nobody's going to agree on exactly who the five most notable X-Men are (other than Wolverine, of course).
* "Evil mutants" were their main enemies for decades. Another fact. The fact that the franchise has moved past this point does not invalidate the fact that this was the case.
* A link to Silver Age of Comic Books has been added.
* The original Phoenix Saga is not really that notable. The event of Jean becoming/being replaced by the Phoenix is notable, but the actual story is not.
--Sean Curtin 01:04, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Another response

message: Responding to all of your points seems futile at this juncture, Nick, as we fundamentally disagree on many of them.  What sort of compromise do you have in mind?  All you've really said so far is that it's "my way or the highway", from your point of view.
I think the point on which me most forcefully disagree is your observation:
: I stress that the purpose of the introductory section is to summarize what exactly people think of when the think “X-Men” and what they think are names like Cyclops, Storm, Wolverine ect. [sic]
Well, no.  I think the purpose of the introductory section is to summarize what they are, and to confirm to anyone who is searching the encyclopedia that this entry may be the one they're looking for.  Articles should be angled towards people who don't know what the X-Men are.  In particular, the article should be aimed at people who aren't X-Men geeks, emphasizing the larger importance of the franchise in the world.
In particular, I think detailed information on the members absolutely does not belong in this article - it belongs in articles on the members themselves (which is why we have this wonderful hyperlinked encyclopedia).  Particularly since we already have List of X-Men for people to browse.  If we must have a full accounting of X-Men creators and storylines (and I don't think we do, but whatever), those would be best placed in separate articles as well.
I am mostly striving to make the article more generally relevant and readable, and in particular to remove excess verbiage which exists or belongs in other entries in the encyclopedia (and also to remove some hyperbole and POV statements).
Lastly, I'll respond to your comment:
:the prior version of this article is more complete, better organized, better worded, clearer and more reader-friendly than the current version
A matter of opinion, obviously.  I'd be more convinced if you didn't often misspell words like the last name of Salvador LaRocca or "scrapped".  By-and-large I think my revision contains the important elements of your revision, while generally getting to the point more succinctly (and adding a lot of useful hyperlinks, and correcting spelling and grammar).  I've also written a number of paragraphs which provide historical context for the stories, since I've been reading quite a bit about the X-Men's first 25 years or so lately.
-mhr 01:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet another response by [[User:Michael Rawdon|Michael Rawdon]]

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

message: *The introductory section seems astoundingly long, hardly a summary anymore.
**I much prefer the initial paragraph which I wrote.
**The second paragraph is POV and should be removed.  In my opinion only Wolverine comes anywhere close to equalling the popularity of Superman, Batman or Spider-Man overall.
**The third paragraph is very wordy and should be reduced to a comment that the X-Men have been successfully adapted into animation and film.  Interesting parties should then go to the appropriate section for details.
**The fourth and fifth paragraphs are reasonable but still seem overlong.
*The first paragraph under the original X-Men seems wordy.  Do any creations other than Fantastic Four need to be mentioned here?  While the X-Men were created in this historical context, the context is by-and-large not really relevant to their creation.  They were, really, only one among many.
*I feel strongly that detailed lists of characters is inappropriate in this article.  Secret identities of characters certainly ought not to be listed (other than Jean Grey, who is widely known by her real name as well as her pseudonyms), since people can and should follow hyperlinks to individual articles to learn that information.  Superpowers also should not be listed here, unless relevant to specific other information being presented in the article (which, for the most part, they aren't).  Again, readers can and should follow hyperlinks to individual character entries for that information.
*A lengthy accounting of creators of the series doesn't seem very useful, and indeed some sections feel like they are little more than lists of creators and characters.  Many creators (Whilce Portacio, for instance) were not particularly influential in the series and probably should not even be mentioned unless there is a larger reason why.  It's worth noting the creators who truly had a significant impact on the franchise (Stan Lee, Kirby, Thomas, Adams, Wein, Cockrum, Claremont, Byrne, Jim Lee, Warren Ellis) or who are giants in the field who are worth noting for their simple presence in the franchise's history (Steranko, and, uh, no one else who comes to mind), but otherwise I think we need to consider at length whether it's worth listing them here.  A separate article, such as X-Men creators or something otherwise appropriately named would be a better place for such info.
These are my main goals in editing the article:  Shorter, more concise, include appropriate hyperlinks and remove information best accessed through those hyperlinks.  Most readers of this article I think will neither know nor care that Paul Smith illustrated Uncanny X-Men for nearly a year (and I say this as a big fan of Smith's art), and readers who really care who Husk is can and should follow the hyperlink to learn more (that's what hyperlinks are for, after all, and many people - including myself - have put a lot of work into the individual character articles). -mhr 18:07, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on the temp article by [[User:Michael Rawdon]]

message: I think I may see an essential point of disagreement, so I'll tackle that first, and then (if I have the energy!) respond to some of the lesser points.
Nick writes: Powers and the most basic details (Cyclops is a leader, Beast is a scientist, Forge is an inventor) make up the very chemistry of the team. The characters define the series.  I agree with this, but in a different spirit from the approach you took to the article:  Powers and occupations are relevant (sometimes) to particular storylines, but not necessarily to the series as a whole.  To put it another way, I think mentioning these details is worthwhile if they are important to illuminate a larger point being discussed, but on their own, in isolation, they're just a list of fiddly details which are already covered in other articles.
A few examples that come to mind:
*I don't think that characters real names (secret identities) are a defining point of the series, and should not be listed here.  Readers and even the characters themselves rarely think in terms of real names, they think in terms of code names.
*On the other hand, a case could be made that Jean Grey's real name, in particular, is worth noting since she's referred to by that name in more recent comics and in the movies.  But she's an exception, not the rule.  (Rachel Summers may be another exception.  Kitty Pryde once would have been an exception, but she seems to be widely accepted as Shadowcat now.)
*Occupations are sometimes relevant, sometimes not.  Mentioning that Beast is a scientist certainly was not relevant to the X-Men for the first 25 years of their existence.  Perhaps it is now, if you're going to discuss the details of the Legacy Virus story; if you're not, then I don't think they are.  The fact that Cyclops is the leader is a worthwhile fact; it's even more worthwhile if you're going to discuss the conflict between Cyclops and Wolverine during the Clermont/Byrne era (which is probably worth mentioning, actually).
*In many cases, I don't think mentioning specific powers here is worthwhile.  Nightcrawler can teleport and climb walls and turn invisible in shadows?  Pretty minor details, in the context of this article, unless you have a particular story which turns on Nightcrawler's abilities which you want to discuss.
Here's a perfect example of what I mean:  You also wrote: The fact that Beast is a scientist is not important but the fact that he could use his feet as hands is?  I was describing Beast's nature in this way because the visual strangeness of the original X-Men were in fact one of the few things which set them apart from other Marvel superheroes at the time.  Which is why I also went to the effort of describing Cyclops', Angel's and Iceman's appearances in that same paragraph.  My point was not to enumerate their powers, but to use those points as specific evidence for what made them - at that time - different.
That's a big part of why I was removing the lists: Because they're... just lists.  If you mention that Forge is an inventor and then don't describe why his being an inventor has an impact on the series and characters, then it's just, as you put it earlier, a "factoid".  Write a paragraph about some story you think it worth writing about which turns on Forge being an inventor, and then it becomes relevant to the article.
(FWIW, there are some X-Men stories I love which I don't think are worth writing about here.  The Mutant X storyline from Uncanny #125-128.  But by that I mainly mean I don't have anything interesting to say about it.  You might have interesting things to say about it which I don't.  Though for me the bar for "interesting" is higher than - for instance - "The X-Men faced the reality-warping mutant named Proteus and Cyclops was finally reunited with Phoenix."  It doesn't provide any insight into the story, and I don't think it's worth turning this article into a full enumeration of every story in X-Men history.)
Does this point of view make sense (regardless of whether you agree with it)?
Okay, a few more things:
*The point is that the franchise has given the comic book industry some of its most popular characters.  My opinion is that only Wolverine has ascended to the ranks of the truly popular characters in comics, among all the X-Men.  None of the others would I put on the same tier as Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Spider-Man, Captain America or the Hulk.  (I don't think anyone's clamoring for a Cyclops or Storm solo series, for instance.)  Before the movies, I doubt anyone who hadn't been a serious comics fan at some point could have named any X-Man other than Wolverine.  After the movies, they can probably name... um, Professor X and Jean Grey and Magneto, I guess.  The others are still pretty obscure, relatively speaking.
*Why the Fantastic Four?  The Fantastic Four were the first superheroes published by the "new" Marvel, and were largely the ones responsible for the company's success.  They dwarf all other Silver Age Marvel heroes in importance, and other heroes introduced from 1961-1965 can largely be seen as efforts to imitate the FF's success.
*But Paul Smith is not worth mentioning and Brent Anderson and Terry Austin are? I don’t see how your version fits this point of view.  Anderson's worth mentioning mainly because one of the stories he draw - "God Loves, Man Kills" - is given special attention in the article.  My feeling is that specific stories discussed should be attributed to the creators who worked on them.  I don't think mentioning Smith adds much to the article, and I wouldn't weep if he were removed.  I may add a blurb about how Byrne and Austin each gained popularity due to their work on X-Men (which is true; Austin was hugely popular as an inker throughout the 80s due to his X-Men work), which would make Austin's mention more relevant.
Overall, I think the article would be better served by trying to write paragraphs which provide insight into the series and its stories; how a story reflects on X-Men and comics generally.  Lists and small details don't do that, and I doubt anyone but serious X-Men fans really care about them (and if they do, they can go read the individual character articles. -mhr 21:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Nick's comments on mhr's comments

message: Nick writes: Is the fact that Forge was an inventor important to the series? Yes, because it defined Forge and Forge was important to the series (at least for a time).
Is he?  Why?  That's the big problem:  You don't explain why Forge was important to the series.  Explaining that he was a member and an inventor does not justify his inclusion in the article.  We may as well enumerate the parents and siblings of every member, as well.  Until you explain why a character is important to the series, listing their real name, powers and occupation doesn't provide any useful information with regard to this article.  Certainly it's important information about Forge, but that's why there's a separate article on Forge, which any and every user can access by simply following a hyperlink (which is what hyperlinks are for).
Just because it's a fact which once appeared in an X-Men comic book doesn't mean including it in this article is appropriate.
(Incidentally, I don't know why Forge was important to the series.  In the chunks of the series I've read, he was a very, very minor supporting character.  So, in all seriousness, why was he important to the series?)
[T]he characters themselves hold their own intrinsic worth and deserve an adequate blurb, not just a meaningless, hyperlinked name floating around.  You seem to have a radically different concept of why hypertext is useful from what I do.  The hyperlink, in and of itself, provides meaning and context, and is an adequate reference for many characters in X-Men history.
However, I still stand by the statement that the franchise has produced, by a more reasonable standard, many very, very popular superheroes and still consider acknowledging flagship characters important.  And they are acknowledged, and even hyperlinked, further down in the article.
Spider-Man and the Hulk are just as innovative and influential and even more popular and timeless than the Fantastic Four and are just as deserving of mention in a brief description of the Marvel Age.  But Spider-Man and the Hulk are not relevant to the creation of the X-Men.  They were created around the same time, by the some of the same people at the same company.  But that's only a link, not a relationship.  The Fantastic Four is the direct link, and the only one which needs to be referenced.  Parties interested in the history of Marvel should follow the Marvel Comics hyperlink.
Any casual fan is going to be just as like to be interested in who the X-Men are and what they can do as they are in the fact that [...]  Which is why we have hyperlinks in the article so that readers interested in learning more can follow them and, well, learn more.  That's the whole point of hypertext.
-mhr 01:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Yet Another Response

message: Since User:Rorschach567 ("Nick") feels that we are at an impasse and he has previously requested mediation on this issue (and I accepted), at this point I think we will pursue that avenue.  User:Danny has volunteered/been assigned as the mediator.  See Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Archive_8#User:Rorschach567 for the initial set-up of the mediation.
I do now know how this will affect the status of X-Men/Temp.  Nick's forceful statements notwithstanding, obviously there's no guarantee that whatever gets created there will end up being the final article, since anyone and everyone can edit the article even after that one is "completed".  I've been making a point of not making any edits to the temp article, since I suspect the edits I feel it needs are exactly the ones Nick objects to.  So people may wish to bear this in mind before investing too much time in the temp article.
I do not know exactly how the meditation process will proceed or how public it will be, but I felt it was appropriate and necessary to inform others of this development.  Presumably other interested parties can contact the mediator if they wish to be involved. -mhr 20:45, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Because he’s [Forge] an X-Man and the series is about the X-Men."  Technically Forge was never an X-Man.  He was a member of the non-team that fought the Reavers on Muir Island, but after that never actually joined; he just hung around the mansion as a part of its support staff.  Technically, Sunfire never joined either: he accompanied the team on one mission and then refused membership when it was offered. -Sean Curtin 06:49, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: Someone should change them to jpg. It wouldn't take as much time to load, especially if you're on 56k. Maestro25 17:42, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
:Ouch, yes.. I don't have the tools at home, but if nobody does it by the end of the weekend, I'll do it on Monday. —Stormie 23:18, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
As per policy, I deleted some images that had been used in the article, from a listing that had been on Wikipedia:Copyright problems since September. There is a lot of copyrighted material we can get away with using under Wikipedia:Fair use, but please do not dishonestly label someone else's copyrighted images as GFDL or PD if it is not. -- Infrogmation 17:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures