Talk:Mystique (character)

message: Why was the tag for "Category:Fictional gays and lesbians" taken off?Zephyrprince 16:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to have been restored by now... I've also added a trivia bit on her being the only character in the Marvel Universe openly depicted as bisexual... I'm guessing this can be taken as fact...?Zeppocity 03:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the LGBT category? I think someone might have removed it because they didn't know what it meant when they saw "LGBT"; when I first saw it I didn't know what it meant either. -- VederJuda 13:40, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was removed when it was under the category :Category:Fictional gays and lesbians. It was done by the user Merman, who also removed the gay content from the Alan Cumming article. --DrBat 14:31, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I'm thinking that Mystique may be the most well-known bisexual character in the Marvel Universe. There has not been a great negative reaction to this, due to the lesser stigma being attached to bisexual (especially female) characters than the few of those who are male homosexual, as shown notably by the popularity of lesbian pornography among young celibate men, composing the core audience of comic readers. can be trimmed down to remove the theorizing. Thoughts? 204.69.40.7 13:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Overstated and unnecessary - her (questionable) bisexuality does not need to become a mini-treatise on the [greater] acceptability of female homosexuality.  Nevermind the presumption that the "core audience" of comic books are "young celibate men".  There's no evidence to support that statement, nor is there any reason for it to be in an article about Mystique.  The whole paragraph is pretty much useless for this article.  Godheval 14:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see this was trimmed to "There has not been a great negative reaction to this, due to the lesser stigma being attached to bisexual (especially female) characters than the few of those who are male homosexual."  That still seems questionable.  A lesser reaction -- assuming it's true -- could also be explained by the fact that unlike with characters like Northstar and Ultimate Colossus, Mystique's sexuality is never directly stated in canon.  Instead, there are a few small references to her relationship with Destiny, of which the first was disguised by using an archaic term and the second found only in a recap.  Also, by the time it was made unambiguous that they were lovers, Destiny was already dead.  I'm not sure if fan reaction is important enough to be worth getting into this in the article, so I've cut the sentence for now. --Celithemis 11:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And so now, barring the relationship with Destiny, what evidence do we have for her bisexuality? Godheval 14:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not so sure the Destiny article is correct as the "not" was recently edited in. Seems to be a revert war in the making to me. Destiny is called Mystique's "leman" in Uncanny X-Men #265 and I believe that X-Men Forever just flatout confirms it, but I don't have the copies of that here so I'm not reverting until I have checked. Dizzy D 02:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was always her solo series which has her in male form checking out a girl. Of course, it could be argued that she was doing this to blend in, but that seems a bit loose. I was at an X-Men panel in Wizard World Chicago and I had asked a question about whether or not her sexuality would be discussed in her title and they said it wouldn't in order to keep the book's current rating (can't remember if it was PG or PSR at the time) but that they may hint at it.--Tuberculosisness 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Hi All. I did an extensive re-write of the article. So much so that Wikipedia's auto-vandalism feature warned me when I saved the page.
Anyway, I have tried to make it more encyclopedic, but I know the article has a long way to go. I tried to cut the most blatantly non-notable or non-encyclopedic content. I am by no means an expert on Mystique so I cannot really deal with the fictional character biography section without making it more of a mess than it already is. The same goes for "other versions."
If someone with a more thorough knowledge could clean up these sections, the article is well on its way to becoming respectable.  ZedZed77 (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It pains me to do this, because your edit has some good aspects and it was good faith, but a lot of what you edited is contrary to the format and guidelines of of the comicbook character pages under the WikiProject, of which you are familiar, so I'm going to revert it for now.  Luckily, what is good will be salvaged in the archives of changes and can be selectively added back in or used for reference when re-edited.  One of the first problems is that you reduced the opening section to lines, when the style guide favors full paragraphs with notable information.  The sections have been misplaced and burned to the ground.  What I notice most is the gutting of the FCH section.  While I also believe it needs to be pruned, FCH's provide enough context detail to describe what happened.  Publication histories can afford to be sparser, but an FCH can be a little more elaborate.  Not to mention, by gutting it, the sections have been reduced to "sections" that only contain one line of information.  If you're not an expert on Mystique, then I would stick to copy editing the page to other standards of good comic articles and locating references for the claims in the text and request that someone who is more familiar with her character history re-edit the content itself.  As of now, despite some good changes and good faith, the page seems to have taken a step backwards.Luminum (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally agree with your assessment Luminum, but would be welcome to examining parts of the article individually rather than the whole shebang all at once. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Sorry to cause trouble. I hope you got something useful out of it. ZedZed77 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You weren't causing trouble, and new editors are always welcome.  To get a feel, take a look at some Good-rated (and higher) articles on comic book characters at the category links here.  A lot of people at the Comic Project can also give you some pointers or answer any questions you might have. :)Luminum (talk) 05:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-write 

message: ... Someone please change mystique will appear in to mystique is a playable character in in the video game section for lego marvel?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DangerousJXD (talk • contribs) 21:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Can...

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Mystique (comics). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103152810/http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=7711 to http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=7711
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080516194547/http://vu.morrissey-solo.com/moz/perez/info/cockrum-tribute1.htm to http://vu.morrissey-solo.com/moz/perez/info/cockrum-tribute1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100424065205/http://www.experiencefestival.com/mystique_comics_-_destiny to http://www.experiencefestival.com/mystique_comics_-_destiny
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101028081652/http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2010/10/lawrence_on_the.php to http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2010/10/lawrence_on_the.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eonline.com/news/391827/jennifer-lawrence-i-m-sinking-into-a-bit-of-depression
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.littlebigplanet.com/en/downloadable_content_items/1105?t=US
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified