Talk:Jean Grey/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Image copyright problem with Image:Endsong1.png

The image Image:Endsong1.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• Image:Weaponx1.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --12:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Death

Ok. I am confused. Is Jean Grey dead or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.150.154 (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, she is dead or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Jean pic vote

okay let's vote. i'm tired of the back and forth. it seems like you both just want to change because the other changed the pic. so let's vote, then it doesn't matter what metastar or drbat wants::

• Greg Land from Endsong
• White Phoenix
• X-Men: The End

Exvicious 01:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Greg Land from Endsong--DrBat 01:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Greg Land from Endsong Joeyconnick 06:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

White Phoenix CovenantD 18:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Greg Land from Endsong --DDG 20:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Greg Land from Endsong Badbilltucker 20:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like Greg Land from Endsong it has Jean but it adds Cyclops and he doesn't belong. I vote for finding another pic cause White Phoenix is too thin vertically and I don't like X-Men: The End which has Jean with short hair. Facto 22:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It shows key moments of Jean's life, some of which include her romance with Cyclops. --DrBat 23:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If she likes him so much, she should marry him! Am I right? --Chris Griswold 19:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Rather redundantly (seeing as how the only one who wanted to change was User:MetaStar, voting is closed! 'endsong' wins 4 to 1. Exvicious 22:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Boy, you must be blind. There's two other people who wanted something other than Greg Land. CovenantD 01:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

they should've spoke up when we had the vote then facto just said he hated everything and you're the only one who voted for a different picture. which was also by greg land--Exvicious 19:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

User Dstorres insists in disrespecting the pic vote. —Lesfer ^(talk/@) 05:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Dstorres's preferred pic isn't even a choice in the vote. I think we need to compile more choices and have a revote. Facto 06:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support Facto. I wasn't even aware of this issue until Lesfer pointed it out to me last night or I would have been more understanding. I agree with you and would like a new vote. Dstorres

I vote against any image by Greg Land. I think Jean should be portrayed by Byrne, Cockrum, or Neal Adams, since they created so many iconic images of her. Perhaps an image of Jean from UXM 122 chasing after Proteus? 69.210.141.65 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Psychokineticist???

Is "psychokineticist" even a word (in reference to Category:Fictional psychokineticists)? Shouldn't it be "psychokinetic" (like it used to be "telekinetic" as in "Jean is a telekinetic" not a "telekineticist")?

In my experience, Marvel has always used "telekinetic" in the mainstream continuity, and "psychokinticist" in the Ultimate line only. 69.210.137.196 (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Red Queen additions

Until anything is actually stated, the section containing the events of Uncanny X-Men 509 - 510 is original research and speculation. Therefore, I have removed it. "Strongly suggests" only means OR/Spec and that suggestion is debatable.Luminum (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Since this is happening frequently, I'm going the several issues with adding the "Red Queen" section.

"Reading Uncanny X-Men 509 and seeing previews for 510 and 511": Reading 509 may give a suggestion that Jean Grey is a possible individual being described. That alone makes the information dubious--it's a suggestion, and not really a strong one. The language is ambiguous. Does Madelyne mean Jean Grey? Does she mean Emma Frost (who was "captured" in that same issue?) Regardless of the arguments for or against, the information is temporary and unclear, therefore that information does not belong here as it is original research and speculation (see Wikipedia:No_original_research).

Even so, the preview for Uncanny X-Men 510 only shows the X-Men fighting the Sisterhood and explains that everyone is fighting. The variant is of Psylocke. Not much there.

As previously addressed when 511 was used as the basis for another "Jean Grey returns" addition, a preview/solicitation is not sufficient basis for a factual claim on Wikipedia. Solicitations are frequently intentionally misleading and meant to build anticipation. A cover with Dark Phoenix on an X-Men Legacy issue lead people to believe Jean was back and that was only an issue about Xavier thinking about Dark Phoenix. That cover for 511 gives no information and means just as little as it's still only a suggestion. For all anyone knows, the plotline for that issue could be Madelyne tricking them all with a psychic attack into thinking that Jean has arisen or that she has become Jean or anything else. It's completely ambiguous.

The image that was added also does not meet Wikipedia:Images requirements nor does the writing of that section meet the quality standards. As pointed out previously, it's sloppily written and filled with errors.Luminum (talk) 03:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I want to reiterate the statements I made above as the continued reason not to include the solicited cover for Uncanny X-Men #511. As other editors and myself have mentioned, solicitations are not good sources. Even if they depict something happening, what one may interpret from it has no true bearing on what may happen in the comic itself. For example, on the cover of issue #510, the cover would lead you to believe that an all out brawl happens and that madelyne and Emma end up strangling each other. And of course, if you read the issue, nothing like that happens. In just the same way, the cover of #511 may depict Jean rising from her grave, but until the issue is out, that remains only an interpretation of the cover with no way to verify the accuracy of what will happen.

Though reforming the information as an out-of-universe statement seems like an okay way to mediate, I argue that it isn't. That essentially reduces the statement to "There is an isolated picture of [this] happening." And in that way, it does not inform a reader of the article in any substantial way or further a reader's understanding. All it can be is a description of an image, that cannot have any meaning since it would be a baseless interpretation and therefore violate No OR/Spec.

Information on this page should be verifiable. The only way to verify what may be implied by the cover is to actually read the issue. If the issue has Jean actually reviving, then the content of the comic would be included, not the cover. If it turned out it was all a gimick, then neither the cover nor the comic content would have any reason to be included on the page.Luminum (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The section the entry is written in is "jean greys future" the entry states what is shown on a page of uncanny x men #510 concerning Jean Greys future in the entry did not state that Jean would be appearing in any issue only that the picture illustrated in uncanny x men #510 depicts a scene suggesting Jeans resurrection along with the other content in that issue, such as the conversations Madeline has with other members of the sister hood, is ground enough to support the illustration refered to. The only user that seems to have an issue with this entry is "luminum" also taking cheap shots such as calling my entry "badly written" and calling it trivial, the statement trivial is a personal remark on the subject no other users seem to find it trivial, no one else seemed to feel the need to edit it base on its "triviality", I find much of the information on wikipedia to be trivial but i do not remove it as i dont feel i have the right to dictate what people may or may not find trivial.

This entry is a factual piece and while i do not deny that the entry may need to be changed in the future but the same could be said for any entry on wikipedia.

finally comparing the illustration to other "front covers" is not a relevant argument as the issue referred to is a story line directly involving Jean Grey and not a story line directly involving say professor x for example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmed&dangerous (talk • contribs) 16:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't use previews or puff adverts because they are often misleading. Let me give you a example, the most recent issue of Fantastic Four featured the Watcher dead on a beach, his guts cut out - ZOMG! Various people rushed to add it to a number of articles.. and then it turns out the preview is completely misleading and it's watcher from an altenative universe. Once the issue comes out we can see what actually has happened and work from that not guesswork. We aren't a newssite, we have no deadline to publish. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny that because there are many many other such entry's on wikipedia (specifically the speculation on the hope summers page regarding her possible connection to Jean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hope_Summers_(comics)) just because something is implied by a person rather than a picture does that makes it more reliable? no it doesn't people are just as if not more misleading and is that not news? yes it is news in the same way Jean may possibly e rising from her grave Hope may be connected to Jean yet i dont see people rushing to pull that entry off Wilipedia. not to put too finer point on it i feel very victimised that my entry keeps being deleted when all this other similar information is left untouched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmed&dangerous (talk • contribs) 19:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There may be other poor examples of what we're describing here on other pages, but despite that, citing other things on Wikipedia is never a sufficient argument. That just means that there is other bad form that should be fixed and hasn't been fixed. That's far from an argument to maintain bad form on this page. I don't watch Hope Summers(comics), so I don't know. Don't assume you're being "victimized." Jean Grey is a popular character, which means there are probably a significantly larger number of editors watching and maintaining the page than some other character, and that means that something that is deemed incorrect is more likely to get reverted and consistently so here than on a less popular and less watched page. If you are noticing these issues on other pages, then I would advise that you take the initiative to fix them (and appropriately so) as you come across them and, I can only speak for myself, I will do the same. A quick look at the page, though shows that it clearly has tags that show that it needs a lot of work and verification from legitimate sources. So it's not a example of a good article, so why you would use its content to support the questionable edit here is unclear.Luminum (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2009 (

clearly neither of you will let my post stay on so there is no point in me keep re issuing it. i have stated my reason which i consider valid if people are so narrow minded as to be so critical of entry's on what is supposed to be a free encyclopaedia then good luck too you, you clearly have a lot of time on your hand s to do such thing, i how ever will not be changing peoples entry's solely on the basis of my personal opinion i have respect for people's right to post information which is all i was doing this is getting so nit picky and childish i really cant be bothered any more.

You can throw a tantrum if you like along with some childish accusations, but I've explained that the reasons for the edit challenge are based on Wikipedia standards and guidelines for content, not my "personal opinion." Just because this is a "free encyclopedia" doesn't mean that entries can have any kind of content possible, otherwise it'd be no better than one big fan-site. If that isn't enough for you, well then there's really not much else I or anyone else can do. Have a good life.Luminum (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The concerns raised are legitimate - we can't use solicitations for anything other than the basic information. As has been said, they have been misleading and if a publisher can get some extra sales with a bit of misdirection you can bet they'll do it. Also remember there is no deadline (or a prize for adding the information first), we can afford to wait for comic book, and also accept that even then it may not be clear so we'll wait and see. (Emperor (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC))

Hardly a childish tantrum lumium, merely my view which i believe i am allowed to express on this discussion page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmed&dangerous (talk • contribs) 10:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, calling other editors narrow minded, insinuating that they're doing it just to spurn you and be disrespectful, resorting to personal attacks, and not investigating Wikipedia standards and content rules to see if you were actually incorrect. Not childish at all.Luminum (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This is how i see things, i have see numerous other such entry's which no one has seen fit to remove. the fact that you are calling my opinions childish says a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charmed&dangerous (talk • contribs) 13:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you started that one yourself. Did you forget: "...i was doing this is getting so nit picky and childish i really cant be bothered any more."

Anyway, to respond your point, which I've already addressed before: Again, if you have noticed the same problems that we mentioned here on other pages, then you're absolutely right--they should be fixed. There could be a problem on any page on Wikipedai, like Pierino_Gavazzi, and if an editor sees that, he or she should take the time to fix it. But, Wikipedia is up to the volunteer editors to take the time to make that happen. You don't watch every Wikipedia comic book page out there and neither do I. I can only work on those that I actually watch and those that are brought to my attention here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics. So if YOU see a problem, don't use it as an excuse to let another problem on another page stay. Fix it or throw an appropriate tag on the page or section so another editor with the time and initiative can take a look at it and fix it. "That's bad, so it's okay for this to be bad too" is far from a sufficient argument. That only means another article needs to be fixed. You may want to check out the links I've posted below. If you want to look through the Wikipedia manual of style and find precedent to support your argument that the solicitation should stay, like I and other editors have to you, then feel free to. That will make an actual case for your edit. Good luck! :) Luminum (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009(UTC)

HEY BACK OFF AND LEAVE CHARMED AND DANGEROUS ALONE! i see nothing wrong with what he's done he put up an edit that was about jean greys future in the jean greys future section why is that such a bad thing? you say that siting wikipedia pages is never valid, why not? there are numerous other pages with speculation on them one post identical to the disputed here is on the Mr Sinister page yet that one is not valid either y your standards? if these standards are that of wikipedia and not your own then wikipedia should enforce them seems to me the fact they are not enforced by wikipedia mean that they are mearly guide lines and not strict rules as seems to be implied, how ever i am ne to wikipedia so i dont know but it seems to me that people are eing a little too over zelous removing entry's by other members simply because the source isn't considered good enough, especially which would most likely be removed when they jean grey story advanced so why not leave it up there? why be so, what i see as, picky and disrespectful to a post that does nothing more than inform? and no differently to many many other wikipedia pages obviously these other edits are considered valid by many other users. Badwolf1 (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. See above. If you're interested in learning more about the standards of Wikipedia, go here Wikipedia:Five_pillars and here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style. Luminum (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out (for those who haven't seen) a more clear explanation as to why solicitations are not credible sources - found at that link. It's worth looking over. -- A ^talk/_contribs 21:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

cheers for the support badwolf1 nice to know there are some non pompus people on wikipedia Charmed&dangerous (talk • contribs) 20:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Jean's name is Jean

{I deleted an obscene and contentless comment}.

Jean Grey's primary name is "Jean Grey" not "Phoenix" so please use Jean Grey to refer to the character. Here are two quotes and a dialogue that show the importance of Jean simply being Jean.

Jean: "You might believe that. But I've already LIVED my worst nightmare...MORE than ONCE. Would you like me to SHARE it with you? In my worst nightmare...I'm JUST myself. Not the PHOENIX. Not MADELYNE PRYOR. Not even MARVEL GIRL. I'm JUST Jean Grey...one of the most POWERFUL PSI'S on the PLANET. The frightening thing is, in my dream, I'm not afraid to LOSE MYSELF in my mutant ability. I CUT LOOSE. Completely. THAT'S my worst nightmare. SEE?" (Uncanny X-Men #300)

Wolverine: Jean, these kids don't know what's what, but you and me, we've seen it all before. You ain't here as anybody's servant...yer the Phoenix. Yer an A-grade telekinetic talent tapped into a cosmic power source. But yer still Jean Grey-Summers! (New X-Men 154)

Jean: I'm going now, Scott. I'm so scared... Scott: Who are you? Jean: ... Jean. Jean Grey. Scott: That's right, you're Jean Grey, and always will be. No matter what happens, no matter where you go or how you grow or what the cosmos tell you. (Phoenix Ensong #5) Facto 03:04, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

But her codename is still Phoenix. When she wasn't connected to the Phoenix force, she still adopted the codename Phoenix after The Adventures of Cyclops and Phoenix to honor Rachel (who assumed the mantle of Phoenix in her abscence). She also assumed the identity to empower herself. She never quit her using her codename. And consider that in Morrison's New X-Men storyline, Jean is referred to as the Phoenix by friends, enemies, and even in the character roll-call. The Phoenix Force itself tells Professor X, that "Jean is the only house where I live". In Endsong she tells the Phoenix Force "I'm you". Also, in every alternate Marvel reality, Jean is Phoenix. In 2005's What If, Professor X says that the comatose teenage Jean is a force that resonates through the multiverse, and when she awakens from her coma, she is Phoenix. Jean is the Phoenix, always was, always will be. MetaStar 04:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Jean's current codename is Phoenix but her original codename was Marvel Girl. But Jean Grey is the name that sticks with her throughout her comic book history, in X-Men videogames, X-Men movies, X-Men cartoons, etc. The title of the article is also Jean Grey not Phoenix. Also, why do you want to use that picture of Jean from X-Men: The End as the main picture. I think that should be moved to the X-Men: The End section (which doesn't exist yet). X-Men: The End is non-canonical, and also has more than one Phoenix. {{spoiler-about|(X-Men: The End Vol. 3 Issue 5)}} Now and forever -- -- Cassandra Nova is Phoenix! (after she blasts a hole through Jean's chest)

So there's only one Jean Grey in the comics, and several Phoenixes. Jean Grey is her most unique, most established, and most frequent label, and it should be used first and Phoenix second. But I'll hold off editing Phoenix back to Jean Grey until this discussion is over. Facto 05:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

her current codename *is* Phoenix (she's still kinda dead right). rachel grey is also phoenix. it was revealed jean grey is the "white phoenix." the name of the article is Jean Grey. i think this article should very much start like Dick Grayson's.

"Jean Grey is the fictional superhero and mutant in the Marvel Universe. She has used several codenames, including Phoenix and Marvel Girl, as a fouding member of the X-Men."

etc etc.

why refer to her as phoenix when Phoenix (comics) doesn't even redirect here. plus, cassandra nova is the phoenix... now and forever! Exvicious 11:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

OMG, a Jean discussion! Can I say a few things? Cool. Jean's not dead, she's off finding the remains of the Phoenix Force that the Shi'ar scattered (see Endsong # 5). C. Nova's only the Phoenix in the X-men the End (which is an alternate future, and she merged which Rachel, not Jean). I think that the Phoenix (comics) page refers soley to Phoenix Force. Rachel isn't Phoenix, she lost the force back in Cable, and is Marvel Girl now. And the Official x-men website www.uncannyxmen.net has Jean's profile under "Phoenix IV" . But, the biggest thing is when you have the Phoenix Force, you become Phoenix. They've pretty much established in Endsong that Jean IS the Phoenix Force. Thanks for letting me rant, see ya :) Coronis 14:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Again... there are several different Phoenixes who have run around the Marvel U, but (discounting alternate versions from alternate universes) only one Jean Grey. Rachel might not be calling herself Phoenix these days but she's sure manifesting the Phoenix effect a lot in Uncanny X-Men right now, plus the Shi'ar just went after her and her family because of her connection to the Phoenix Force. On top of all that, Jean went by Marvel Girl for about two decades and since being resurrected has, on top of sometimes choosing to go by Phoenix, also chosen Marvel Girl as an alias on top of choosing to have no superheroic alias at all. Yet she has never chosen not to call herself Jean Grey, nor do I think a good argument can be made (especially given the quotations above) that she thinks of herself as (the) Phoenix first and Jean Grey second. Phoenix is the codename, the alias, Jean is who she is. I'm not saying that doesn't mean she isn't merged with the Phoenix Force or that she doesn't have access to the Phoenix Force or whatever but all the stories regarding her struggles with the Phoenix Force are specifically about how it is her humanity, her being, her "Jean Grey-ness" which keeps it in check. So she should be referred to as Jean Grey, with a list of her various aliases, especially in this article. Given there's copious, copious amounts of information in the Phoenix Force (comics) and Dark Phoenix Saga articles detailing Jean's relationship with the Phoenix Force, I think that's only reasonable. Joeyconnick 18:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

One small point here: Not everyone keeps up with all the latest developments in comic books. When I stopped reading more than a decade ago, another character was known as the Phoenix (I don't honestly remember the other woman's name, though), not Jean Grey. At the time the going storyline was that Jean had been replaced by the Phoenix Force, so she had never truly been the Phoenix at all. Stick with Jean Grey, as it just makes more sense to a wider group of possible readers. Sxeptomaniac 20:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if this makes any sense as I'm not a big fan, but: how about referring to Jean as 'Jean' when discussing her pre-transformation; and then use 'Phoenix' when referring to her post-transformation? ~ Flooch 23:53, 21 May

2006 (UTC)

I think what some people are forgetting here is that when Jean first manifested the Phoenix powers after saving the X-Men from the radiation, Jean reached her ultimate potential as a mutant. All of the psychic blocks were torn down and she became a being of pure thought/energy. The reason that they changed things was because Marvel's editors didn't think that stripping her of her powers at the end of the Dark Phoenix Saga was a just punishment for commiting genocide. So the whole convoluted Phoenix impersonating Jean came about so that they could bring her back and absolve her of the actions of the Phoenix. Now they seem to be coming back on track and making Jean and Phoenix one and the same. The way that it should have been all along. Drunknesmonsta (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's true that Jean's name is Jean. Her birth name is Jean Grey, but how about her codename? She took it herself after she had encountered Rachel in the future, and now Rachel and Jean are changing codenames (Rachel used to be Phoenix and Jean used to be Marvel Girl. Jean took Phoenix codename in honor for Rachel, and Rachel took Marvel Girl codename in honor of Jean.). Some quotations refer to her Phoenix codename, like in Phoenix Endsong. When she encounters Wolverine, Wolverine asked whether she is Jean or Phoenix, she stated: "I am always Jean Grey and always the Phoenix." When she rises from the ice, Phoenix Force thought that she would be helpless without its aid. But Jean stated: "I'm you; don't you remember? Now get out of that stupid body!". And Phoenix Force itself takes the physical appearance of Jean for its image. They are now inseparable characters, as they have ultimately merged. Rachel herself stated that Jean is the Phoenix, as she said: "I'm not my mother. I'm not Phoenix. I'm my own woman... and before I'm done... they'll wish I were the Phoenix." That makes Jean Grey-Summers is Phoenix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forestlicious (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge

Per the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Proliferation of Ultimate character articlesWP:COMIC talk page, Ultimate character entries should be merged into the character's main article.--Chris Griswold 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Survey

• Merge--Chris Griswold 05:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Dr Archeville 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• No Merge--Mr Wednesday 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge Markeer 16:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• No Merge The actual guideline is "until the article grows too large." This article is already 1½ times as large as recommended. CovenantD 22:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you change your mind if I condensed this one? It needs it badly. --Chris Griswold 08:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. CovenantD 13:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look. I'm a freak.--Chris Griswold 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge CovenantD 16:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and Condense there's not enough variant between the two versions. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge. -Vontafeijos 01:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Closed with CONSENSUS TO MERGE CovenantD 17:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussions

The Ultimate X-Men are completly different from their Earth-616 counterparts. I say that the Ultimates get their own pages since they have their own backstories, powers (like Rogue), and stats. Mixing the maistream version with their Ultimate counterparts is confusig, and a waste of space.--Kitsune dxb 11:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Semi-strong opinion. Might help if you vote. ACS (Wikipedian) 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Rogue's power appears to be the same in both series. --Chris Griswold 13:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Kitsune dxb. Having two articles is much more confusing; the fact that Ultimate characters are different than the regular Marvel Universe characters may not be evident to casual Wikipedians who don't read comics, which would lead to confusion about why there are two articles for what is, at least at first glance, one character. -Vontafeijos 01:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I also think it would be a better idea to keep ultimate and the mainstream combined rather than seperate. When they are seperated it might be easier for someone to find somehting specific they're lookign for, but in all reality its easier to read up and learn about one of the characters when they're combined --joshie 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Keeping the Ultimate and Mainstream together is a good idea as was said above. Having a link to their Ultimate counterparts makes it much easier for people searching for information. Especially if there are people who are not completely familiar with the workings of Wikipedia. They definately should be kept in the same article. Drunknesmonsta (talk) 00:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE!!! Could an expert or a fan create a new page focusing on the Dark Phoenix character????

An X-Men/Dark Phoenix real-fan should create an article which focus on the Dark Phoenix character with the intention of exclude it from the Dark Phoenix Saga article, so that Dark Phoenix initiate fans like me can know more about her. Thank you for your attention. Lord Hammu (Talk)

Why? Why does it need to be separate? --Chris Griswold 11:49, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Phoenix (comics) is the page for the Phoenix Force, which is Dark Phoenix. The Dark Phoenix section of that page has been expanded a bit. I think that's easier than creating a whole new page, especially since Dark Phoenix is Phoenix as well. - User talk:Anarkeya 7/23/06

you should also do the white phoenix of the crown

Dark Phoenix and Phoenix are essentially the same, except for moral allignment, for lack of a better word. I have extensive knowledge on the X-Men as a whole. Expanding on the existing articles makes more sense than just creating a whole new one.Drunknesmonsta (talk) 00:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

X1-X2-X3

Is it worthwhile mentioning that the events in X-men The movie, caused the emergence of Phoenix at the end of X-men 2, and the full blown release of Phoenix within X-3. So far I havent seen anyone state the cause of the mental blocks breaking down on the wiki article.

X-men 1, she had blocks in her mind, placed by Xavier when she was a kid, Near end of Episode, she experiences trauma as result of using Cerebro.

X-men 2 - She is having moments of increased power, and states that this has been occuring since events surrounding Liberty Island, we have no idea of how much time has passed between films though.

X-men 3 - Her mental blocks are gone, and shes kinda angry at Xavier... Understandibly. Her powers released due to the events of X-men 1.

Im surprised no one has mentioned or made reference to this, I have seen other people however, saying that it was the radiation which caused Phoenix to emerge, because in the comics Phoenix feeds on Radiation. This is however against everything we have been shown in the movie, since Jean had the powers before the radiation as a girl, and radiation wouldnt unblock mental barriers as much as a big Telepathic machine tearing them away would. Baaleos 13:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I never really got that her using Cerebro in X1 caused the blocks to weaken. Unless you can cite a script writer as having that in mind, that'd probably constitute original research. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Even if Cerebro isnt Cited as being the cause, X1 is mentioned in the script as the cause.

Jean Grey : "Ever since Liberty Island....." (Conversation with Cyclops in X2 at the museum- cant remember exact words) We can see that in X1 when she uses Cerebro, it causes visible Pain, do you think theres any room to maneuver here, to say either way if it affected her in a mental capacity? At the very least, a mention should be made in the article that Phoenix was awakened due to events from the first Movie. Whether it be Radiation from Magneto's machine as many people have posted on message boards about, or Cerebro, which is more likely, since it affects the mind, and her powers arnt new, if it was caused by Radiation Mutation, that would imply she didnt have these powers to begin with. Baaleos 12:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Angel of the morning?

"Werner (Angel), who is also attracted to her while still thinking she is a man." Not Robertius Draco? Trekphiler 12:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Time passages

Since when were X-Men #98 & #100 in 1992? Or did somebody mean 1982? Trekphiler 12:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Wolverine vs Phoenix

I have a slight problem with the article stating that Wolverine managed to kill Jean Grey in X3, Because of his healing factor alone... It makes it sound like he was superior to Jean Grey's power. I dont think she was actually trying to kill him, lets face it, if she wanted to kill him, she could have ripped his adamantium bones out of his body, as Magneto does in the commics (and Jean saves him by sustaining his body with telekinetic energy). If Jean grey wanted to kill Logan, I dont think his healing factor would have been enough to save him from Jean Grey, had Jean Grey actually been trying to kill him. She could have thrown him into space for that matter. Is it possible for somone to try and come to a compromise here, and state that Jean Grey allowed Wolverine to get close enough to her, making him suffer as he walked. (Possibly symbolizing how much he cares for her - Walking through hell to get to her) I just think it seems in-accurate to state that he survived soley because of his healing factor, I think Jean was testing him, and his devotion. Baaleos 08:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Baaleos, what you say above makes sense, but you seem to forget that as a telepath, she could have just shut down his mutant powers if she really wanted him dead. In X2 she shut off Nightcrawlers ability to teleport at the end of the movie while she was communicating with Scott through Prof. X and while she was holding back the water that was crashing down on the jet. It is speculation as to why she didn't kill Logan while he was walking up to her and what you say at the end does seem to make sense in my opinion. Drunknesmonsta (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Powers

Could someone mark which powers Jean had originally and which powers were granted to her by the Phoenix in a sub-section under her Powers and Abilities section?

Yea, well as of now the Phoenix is Jean always has been, and Jean is the Phoenix, so all of the Phoenix's powers is Jean's powers, so therefore Jean and the Phoenix are the same, Jean is the Phoenix. Jean has that power because she (Jean Grey) has unlimited potential. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.133.32 (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jean's powers, prior to any Phoenix alterations were Telepathy and Telekinesis. It was later on in X-Men history when it came out that Xavier had put Psychic Circuit Breakers into her mind in order for her to better control her powers. Her Telepathy developed after seeing her friend Annie struck down by a car and her mind was attached to hers until the moment she died, which almost caused Jean to die herself. Drunknesmonsta (talk) 00:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Messiah Complex

Messiah Complex Main article: X-Men: Messiah Complex It was believed by the fandom that the baby girl born after the M-Day which led to the Messiah Complex storyline is actually Jean Grey reborn, given that she appears to be a powerful telepath that can block even Cerebra as seen when the Cuckoos couldn't track her.

The confirmation came at the end of the storyline when Cable handed the mutant baby to Cyclops. After examining the baby for several seconds, the child opens his locket, which has a picture of him and Jean inside, Scott finally recognizes her as Jean, and hands her back to Cable to escape into the future. Cable and the baby version of Jean are currently in hiding somewhere in the future.[25]

Their adventures will apparently continue in the new Cable ongoing series that will start in March 2008.[citation needed] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.243.184 (talk) 05:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the baby is Jean and perhaps not. I'll say this though, theres more then a chance that is her I mean the kind of being shes suppose to be could never truly die away at least not for long but, but but but it hasn't been stated if its truly her so for now its completely speculation. For now.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.173.100 (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Pure speculation. The locket/Scott thing could just be an opening for Scott wanting to become a father with Emma. There's no evidence the baby is a reincarnated anyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.90.40.178 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

We might have to rethink on that one, because it seems that the baby has recently been confirmed to be her or another host of the pheonix force.

It has not been confirmed that the baby is Jean, but there are a lot of things that point to her being the reincarnation, or resurection. I believe it was Matt Fraction that said "Keep an eye on a little girl in the future." Yeah, they throw out red herrings here and there, but given that Rachel and the Blade of the Phoenix have lost their powers, it seems that The Phoenix/Jean, is reconstituting itself. This is speculation, which is why I have not added it to the article. Whether it is Hope Summers, or Jean herself coming back has yet to be seen obviously. But it does lead for a lot of us to speculate on where things might go from here. Drunknesmonsta (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Jean's family

What about Jean's family? Weren't they all horribly slaughtered? Either way, they should be mentioned more, alive or dead.

Lots42 02:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if I remember correctly, her sister Sara Grey went missing without a trace and was found during the "Phalanx Covenant" storyline to have been absorbed into the Phalanx that went after the Generation Next/future Generation Xers. I believe this Phalanx was called Harvest?--75.87.77.142 06:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, her sister was found to be merged with the Phalanx. Joey and Galyn (her neice and nephew) were rescued from Nanny in X-Factor #40, but I don't know where they've gone since then. Her parents, John and _____ Grey were killed recently in UXM in a sotryline about Rachel. THere's a section on "ancestors" Perhaps it should be expanded to "Family". 69.210.141.65 (talk) 20:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Elaine Grey is Jean's mother. Drunknesmonsta (talk) 18:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Main Profile Picture

I'm not too fond of the current Jean pic..it doesn't represent her well I think these would be some nice choices

• Cover of New X-men 134

Or maybe the collage of her from Phoenix Endsong? Something better then her just standing there in her Gold Team Outfit

agreed, #134. but unlikely since this is her Phoenix suit, most popular if that, then ,maaybe the Endsong first cover? it's better —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.162.132 (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I dislike the Land artwork because there are so many more classic images of Jean. This possible choice:

http://www.geocities.com/jeanxlogan/jean.jpg

would be better. Wiki articles have shown a tendency to default to Land's images whenever there is one avalable, even though there are better choices out there.

Really, though, a Cockrum, Byrne, or even a Neal Adams image would be most appropriate. 69.210.141.65 (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How about this iconic image: http://1979semifinalist.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/027-dave-cockrum.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.171.6 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That image is a comic cover and does not meet the criteria for a main character image.Luminum (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Covers are used in other articles (see Mastermind). What criteria are you referring to? 70.226.171.6 (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The superhero box image criteria are listed here and basically specify that the best image is a full-body, three-quarter angle image of the character with a clear or neutral background and in a costume that they are most recognizable in. As much as I don't like the Greg Land image that's up, it meets these criteria more so than anything else that's been suggested. For future reference, what is on another page isn't a justifiable reason for it to occur on another page, as specified here. Hope that helps clarify things! :) Luminum (talk) 02:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that it doesn't meet the criteria. The background is not white, but it is relatively neutral. The image is not a 3/4 profile, but rather full frontal perspective. On all other counts, it meets the criteria perfectly. Oh, I guess her hair is slightly obscured by the logo. It is a classic and iconic image of Phoenix. It is probably one of the images most closely associated with Phoenix in the minds of any fan familiar with the history of the character (with the possible exception of a few Byrne images).

The fact that the logo obscures the character, her face is up and not forward or 3/4ths, the comic decals cover the extremities and that the other characters are involved in a sizable chunk of the image are problematic. It's essentially a good image of the comic, or the storyline, but not the most appropriate for a basic image of the character. I've found a better image that meets allt he requirements. Let's see how that does.Luminum (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

2¢ or so...

If we want to go over this again, it may be best to start a 5th thread since we've got:

• #Main Profile Picture (this one which has had spurts of activity)
• #Jean SHB pic (2006)
• #Jean pic vote (2006 and also got a recent spurt)
• #New jean Pic vote (2006)

And do that before changing the image.

Frankly: The current image meets the project guidelines. Changing it seems to be an exercise in either change for the sake of change or "Why the hades is it Land?" Neither is really a reason to change the image.

- J Greb (talk) 01:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Per J-Greb's suggestion on image...

Forgive me for taking the guidelines outlined Wikipedia:WikiProject_Comics/Style_guidance#Superhero_box_images here to heart, but since this has been brought up again, here is why the cover of X-Men #101 is not a sufficient image:

• The image background is not a neutral one.
• The image features distracting decals and logos.
• The image features other characters, despite the fact that the character is the central focus.
• The character's depiction is partially covered, while her face is upright and her eyes closed.

My rationale for changing the main image from the altered image from Phoenix: Endsong to an image from Astonishing X-Men:

• The image is 3/4 while the previous is not.
• The image is full-body while the previous is not.
• The character's face is clearly shown whereas the other image has it partially obscured.

This is not "changing the image for the sake of changing it" or because the image is by Greg Land. I've made it pretty clear I don't like his artwork, but have also maintained that the image was the best fit at the time and should remain. I recently found a better image ([1]) and I've posted my rationale above. Feel free to discuss.Luminum (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, X-Men #101 would be a step, at least, back.

As for the Astonishing X-Men image... the only visual dif I see is seeing the full golden boots:

• Both are 3/4 views - the figure is turned slightly, not dead on to the front or the shoulder.
• "Face clearly visible" is splitting a hair here (pun intended) - both have the character's hair the brow and some of the right side of the face.

I don't see that as an improvement. There are a few other problems:

• Licensing - Astonishing doesn't have it and that is some thing that routinely gets tagged.
• Full sourcing - Both have trouble with this since neither specify where the file came from. Is it a cop off of another web page or is it a scan, crop, and manipulate? Astonishing also needs to cite the artist.
• Size - Again, both have a problem here. At best the image should be 300px across. And at that size, the Land image does provide a better head and torso detail.

- J Greb (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The licensing was an oversight and has been added. Other than that, I wouldn't consider a 3/4th body shot to be minor in comparison to a full body shot. The artist was cited in the superherobox before the revert, but for the sake of comprehensiveness, has been added to the image page as well as the online source of the image. Other than that, the only remaining issue seems to be the issue of size. Since both demonstrate that she has a green outfit on with a Phoenix emblem, I'm not quite sure what more detail the Land image actually offers other than shading and her navel. Whichever, but going on the guidelines, Astonishing meets them more than Endsong which is the only reason why I changed it. If the guidelines don't mean anything, then we can go ahead and leave the image as is. ::shrug::Luminum (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

After kicking it around a bit (sorry for the delay), I can see your point. - J Greb (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Pyrokinesis/"Cosmic" pyrokinesis

I don't disagree that the section is written poorly and lacks citations, however, some form of pyrokinesis is attributed to the powers of the Phoenix (such as in Phoenix - Warsong) and to the extent that it affects others in her vicinity (New X-Men). Therefore, it shouldn't be removed, just rewritten and properly sourced. I'll start on it when I have a second, but if anyone else wants to go ahead, please feel free. Also, feel free to discuss this issue here so it doesn't turn into an editing war. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 17:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I haved removed any mentions of "cosmic pyrokinesis". Granted, Phoenix is capabable of stimulating individual molecules to create heat, and has used the Force to 'burn' away lies; but this "cosmic pyrokinesis" buisness is a bit...silly? If Jean is manifesting any "cosmic flame", it would be more an extension of both her telepathy and telekinesis as opposed to seperate ability all together. =\ I'm not really good at wording things. 86.144.246.34 21:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.246.34 (talk)

Well see at that point, "silly" comes down the realm of fiction, which is what Jean Grey is, essentially. She's subject to whatever writers in Marvel want to give her/do to her. In terms of Phoenix Warsong, the Stepford Cuckoos very clearly generated fire and it was pointed out that they were using fire. The mechanics of that may just be a creative usage of telekinesis or a metaphorical use of telepathy, but until there's an official statement concerning it, if other characters or writings have dubbed it as "fire" and it interacts as such, I would move that it be added. Alone, the images of Beast recoiling and saying "Ow!" from Jean's flaming aura in new X-Men and the burned grass around her when she reappears in Phoenix Endsong seems to be enough to point out that she uses fire in some form. And again, the Cuckoos were pretty clear about generating fire (though we could always just chalk it up to it being another contradiction or sloppy writing device in that abortion of writing that was Warsong). I'll play around here and see if I can find something satisfactory. Let me know what you think when you see it.Luminum (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just play Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 for PS3 or XBox. there are 4 powers of Jean: Telekinetic Grip, Restraining Wave, Pyrokine Blast, and Phoenix's Fury. Pyrokine Blast and Phoenix's Fury are "Fire" based powers, while Telekinetic Grip is "Crushing" power, and Restraining Wave is "Mental" power. The description are written like this: (Pyrokine Blast) Manifests a searing wave of psionic energy; Overcome foes' fire resistance; Base Dmg: ***-*** Fire. (Phoenix's Fury) Burns foes held immobile by telekinesis; Increased chance to slow foes; Base Dmg: ***-*** Fire. It means that Jean really controls Fire. Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2 game itself admits that Jean can control fire in her own way, although it is still unknown how she does her "Pyrokinesis" thing, either by her power to access cosmic energy (Phoenix Force), or her molecular telekinetic power, or by combining both power simultaneouslyForestlicious (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And unfortunately, strictly speaking, that's a video game adaptation and of a separate Marvel universe at that. Until it's stated in the 616-Universe character's description, it's speculative/original research based on a separate adaptation.Luminum (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

X3: Jean's Death Speculation (SPOILER WARNING)

{{spoiler}} At the end of the X3 section, there is some speculation regarding whether Wolverine stabs Jean with his claws, or a cure needle. I don't know if this is necessary. The only physical object near Jean that wasn't being atomized was Wolverine himself, because adamantium is indestructible, and his body was regenerating fast enough. The cure needle would have suffered the same fate.

Just checking if there are any objections. StellarFury 07:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Wolverine stabs Jean with his claws. Otherwise she wouldn't be dead at the end of the movie. The cure needle would not have killed her. But we see Jean Grey's tombstone along with Scott Summers'. Facto 07:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the argument is she said "save me, " wolverine cures her, and they fake her death so the human's won't come looking for her. I think it would be better if she's dead. Every major character that came back could be alive anyway. Professor X transferred his brain, we never actually see cyclops die, and the jean grey cure thing. Exvicious 18:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

After Jean falls you can clearly see Wolverine's claws so there is no chance that they "faked" Jean's death. For the record. Dstorres

True. It's not as if that sort of thing might not kill her. --Chris Griswold 00:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, A cure needle wouldnt destroy Phoenix, Phoenix is essentially just a "Multiple Personality". A cure needle would indeed remove her powers, but phoenix would still be inside her mind, just a powerless violent alter ego. When he withdraws his claws from her chest, we see blood on his hands, obviously hers, since his skin heals too fast for him to bleed much.Baaleos 12:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Jean comes back its a no brainer her gravestone says "jean grey-summers she will rise again"--Cerebra 19:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Since this is in the x3 section of this talk page... No it isn't. It was just on a few seconds ago and it just lists her name.

Given the fact that Jean Grey dies and comes back to life about four times before breakfast every morning in the comics, I'm not entirely sure what the big deal is. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Jean has only died once in New X-Men #150, which I must mention was upsetting. I know that Jean remembers "her death" on the death but it wasn't Jean who died. If they were going to give a great character one of the lamest deaths just for shock value and officially make Scott and Emma sleep with one another, they should've let "Jean" stay "dead" in Uncanny X-Men #137. Now that was a good death. Elemental5293 (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Given that Jean Grey has died many times in the comices, just because she was stabbed in the chest by Wolverine (which is the most loced character and i don't get why) it is ver possible that she can come back to life. Really people look her up and see that many ways she has come back to exsistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.70.159.244 (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)