Talk:Mystique (character)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexuality?[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

While I don't doubt that she could be anything she wants, or that Irene Adler (Destiny) was her lover; "X-Men Forever" probably shouldn't be quoted as evidence simply because it's explicitly an alternate continuity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:141E:1700:A44B:1585:71F0:AB42 (talk) 07:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ageless?[edit]

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)[reply]

Picture[edit]

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)[reply]

Re-write[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Can...[edit]

... 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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mystique_(character)&oldid=1209289307"