Talk:Xorn

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

Untitled[edit]

I posted a fair bit of stuff to this - I corrected an error about Grant Morrison's proffesional conduct which anyone with the New X-Men TPBs can see for themselves, and I added some more comics history on Morrison's approach. Can you please not ignore those? Thank you in advance. —preceding unsigned comment by 213.121.151.202 (talk • contribs)

You said it yourself - "and adding more POV". See WP:NPOV for why that's bad. - SoM 11:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, you're ignoring actual facts about a writer and allowing something that unfairly libels the professional conduct of a writer. Anyone with eyes and the collected editions can see from the extras (Morrison Manifesto, "Riot At Xavier's" part 4 script) that this was all planned and cleared from the get-go. That's pretty objectionable, don't you think? —preceding unsigned comment by 213.121.151.202 (talk • contribs)
Two points - firstly, as your own version says, Magneto wasn't established as a Holocaust survivor until long after Lee & Kirby's last use of the character, so I don't see why their being "(notably Jewish)" is relevant. Secondly, I seem to have missed the Silver Age comic where he was herding people to be killed in ways reminiscent of the Holocaust, please supply the reference. Thirdly, the drug abuse itself is a point of controversy for much the same reasons. Fourthly, the "and the school" is relevant - there's a reason it was rebuilt within two months of story's end, and that's because it derailed everyone else's plans - the New Mutants book actually takes place in a summer term that doesn't exist because Morrison didn't tell anyone of his plans for Planet X, which involved the school being blown up three days into summer. Fifthly, Magneto being Xorn - which there were indeed hints for, including in the Morrison Manifesto (which described the "Magneto story" as occurring at the end of his second year on NXM IIRC...) - and Magneto blowing up the school (see "Fourthly") and reenacting the Holocaust are rather different matters. - SoM 23:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was more than two points. 1) Stan and Jack's Jewish identity is notable.if you're going to consider someone portraying a Jew as acting in the same fashion as a Nazi offensive the you may should also consider a facist character (created by Jews) being retconed into a Jewish character offensive. Both stances are ridiculous, though - we're talking about a fictional character who believes in inherent racial superiority. That was the ethnic identity played up in Planet X - not the retconed deconstructionalist Jewish identity. Morrison's point was that people who act in the interests of race and eugenics over the interests of common humanity become monsters. Magneto is never mentioned to be Jewish in the arc. The entire arc is (among other things) an appeal against facisim and not a comment on Jewish identity. Furthermore, Jack and Stan's Judaisim and Morrison's respect for Kirby and the Sliver age is firmly established (JLA, 7S, All Star Superman, Flex Mentallo), as is his dislike for right wing/facist agendas (Zenith, DARE, New Adventures of Hitler). You simply can't get away with such a one sided entry. 2) Silver Age comics were published in a much stricter climate. However, in that time Magneto threatened to destroy a country with a Nuke and commited experiments on living humans (all filtered through a 1960s sensibility, of course). The plotting and finale of Planet X contains strong references to silver age capers and doomsday plans. 3) In the text Magneto is under the influence of a living steroid that seeks to neutralise the mutant threat through conflict - he is in fact possessed. 4) "New Mutants" was not the responsibility of Grant Morrison. It was the responsibility of Marvel Editiorial. Second and third tier comics are often kept in the dark over big crossovers to prevent leaks - see the current state of affairs in Nightwing regarding Infinite Crisis. It is amazingly unfair for you to be pinning blame on a hired writer when such blame should fall on editorial - the Magneto story was planned well in advance and you've yet to cite a single source. That gaffe falls at the feet of the company, not one of their writers. 5) I don't really see how this affects anything, to be honest.

I've cited sources and I've used nothing but facts - I have a better foundation to base my claims on than mere hearsay (find at least) one source to back up Morrison being behind on scripts, please. I'm reinstating my edits. Just because a certain character treatment is distasteful to you for whatever reason doesn't mean you have the right to debase Grant Morrison's reputation on a public encyclopedia. I'm reinstating my edits.

Have you considered investing in some non-bunching panties?

Background[edit]

I really don't like how for behind the scenes info about Xorn all that is provided is a link to the "Planet X" article. This article shouldn't be just an attempt to portray the comtemporary interpretation of who and what Xorn is in the form of fictional biographies; the behind the scenes info is very important regarding the development of the character. Something should be added about the whole "Who is Xorn" debacle. WesleyDodds 03:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be cleaned up, but most of the controversy stems from the Planet X storyline. It probably wouldn't have been retconned like it was if Magneto's behavior wasn't so extreme. --DrBat 16:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revamp[edit]

I've started revamping the article to better illustrate the character's alterations in real life. I've found a few sources for the various explanations behind Xorn ([1], [2]) and any more would be welcome. WesleyDodds 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please include those in a References section. (And I'm glad I'm not the one trying to figure it all out - thanks.) CovenantD 01:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I'm just including the links in the article and plan to turn them into citations later when I have more time. however, if anyone else wants to go ahead an do that, that would be grand. WesleyDodds 01:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Additional reference: the Xorn bio at Marvel.com [3], a Lying in the Gutters column on the subject [4], and another Grant Morrison interview [5] WesleyDodds 05:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. It actually makes sense now. CovenantD 06:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know of any articles (such as from Wizard) on the subject? Also, can anyone find an explanation from Marvel as to why they retconned Xorn? The best verifiable thing I have found is that LITG link (which suggests Marvel wanted to be able to continue using the Xorn character), which even then is mere rumor. WesleyDodds 21:14, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And can someone upload a scan of the last page of New X-Men #146 where Xorn is revealed as Magneto? WesleyDodds 23:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still need this? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you can upload it that would be grand. WesleyDodds 17:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Magxorn.png --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Revamp" and the Writer's Intent[edit]

Wesley, I respect you mightily, but you are clearly biased in this matter, and incorrect about putting another Grant Morrison statement about his "intent" at the end of the body of the article that sums up the current state of Xorn. It should be removed altogether, but I think we can all compromise, and put it in the body of the "Return of Xorn" section, where it belongs. Even there, having two whole quotes from Mr. Morrison about his intent seems needless. Morrison isn't referring to the preservation of his own creation, Xorn, but to his destruction of a long-standing, classic and much beloved character, Magneto. This is unusual, to say the least! Moreover, if you had every creator's intention listed at the end of every article on these comic book characters, you'd have articles a dozen pages long. Claremont intended for Mr. Sinister to be a little boy pretending to be a man, he intended Maddie Pryor to be a woman who happened to look like Jean Grey, not Jean's clone -- you can cite these trivia facts in either the body of the article were it is pertinent, or in the trivia section. But citing quotes from Claremont at a comicon today, or even worse, at a panel from a rival comic book company, where he is insisting that he still refuses to accept Mr. Sinister is a Victorian era scientist, and Maddie is a clone of Jean, would be silly. In fact, it would be silly of Mr. Claremont to be still insisting on it. And the only reason Mr. Morrison still does it, is to stir up trouble; he was on the Wildstorm Panel, not a Marvel panel. It has been two years after he left Marvel. It is definitely not the stance of Marvel that Xorn was ever Magneto, and it hasn't been for over two years.

Moreover, you need to make it clear throughout, that just as many readers, maybe even more outside the small band of internet Morrison fans, found many reasons why Xorn could never have been Magneto, and posted these as well. Marvel did nothing strange or unethical when they brought back Magneto; he's their character. Morrison left Marvel, unexpedtedly, they didn't fire him. He was playing in their sandbox, with their characters. I can see him complaining about what happened to his concepts in the first few months after his departure; but in truth, in his earliest interviews he is complacent about the subject. It's a year later that he starts getting snippy, and seems to delight in stirring up controversy for Marvel, making remarks about Xorn, and his intentions for Magneto. What he said two years later, at a Wildstorm panel, really isn't relevant. But like I said, since it's important to you, I'm willing to compromise and put it where it belongs.

Oh, and reverting text of articles -- you've done it twice now. You feel strongly about this issue, and I can sympathize. But you should try to avoid reverting. I respect the fact that you've compromised with me and others already regarding the text of this article. But I'm not the only one who has been trying to move this second Morrison SDCC quote. While I don't think it's trivia, like I said, it doesn't belong in the body of the article either. Maybe there should be a separate section for these comic book characters about the "intent" of the creators and writers. But the "intent" is not the publishing history. In a way, it is triva, but I can see how the word "trivia" would upset some people. It would upset me, too.- Myst3 12:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Powers[edit]

Why was my bit about how he was able to impersonate Magneto given he has a star for a brain deleted? Fil-mex91 16:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It had nothing to do with section, and asked a question that really didn't need to be asked. WesleyDodds 10:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current edits[edit]

I feel a subject like this article is best dealt with in a chronological presentation. While some fans have argued that Xorn could not have been Magento, that's after-the-fact; Marvel certainly portrayed him as Magneto for a while until they changed their minds. And while I have certainly seen several complaints about Magneto's characterization on message boards, something that that needs to be cited in an encyclopedic fashion. And as for the Morrison quote, that pertains to my point about chronology; it's been two years of Marvel tying this situation into knots and it's still a subject of debate among fans, and Morrison is reaffirming publicly his intentions. WesleyDodds 12:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were posting this as I was posting above. I disagree with you. There are no more knots. The Morrison quote belongs either in trivia, or in the body of the text with the other quote. Your own point about chronology is against you. Morrison left the book two years ago, and what he thinks now is not relevant.
And no, fans did not argue "after the fact" about Xorn not being Magneto! Fans argued at the time, just as other fans argued differently. That is just the fact, and your account is biased if you don't take that into consideration. Marvel never portrayed Xorn as Magneto after Morrison left, which was before the last arc "Here Comes Tomorrow" came out.
Magneto's characterization is a topic of consideration, since you've chosen to quote fan support of Morrison's intentions, you have to give due credit to the opposition.
So, I respectfuully disagree with you, and I believe you are wrong regarding the second Morrison quote. The compromises and corrections are minor, but reflect the facts. - Myst3 12:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Morrison says does matter; he wrote the stories and he created the character. I don't see how that contradicts placing a statement he made this year at a convention panel after the Joe Quesada interview, which happened before it. And I haven't been able to find information about people saying Xorn couldn't be Magneto during "Planet X"; I've found reviews that called the revelation lazy, but I haven't seen anyone contesting it at the time. if you can show me otherwise that would be helpful. WesleyDodds 12:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wesley, Morrison did NOT create the charater of Magneto. His Xorn was restored, and he's complaining about restoring a character that he didn't create, Magneto. Of course people wrote about "Planet X" at the time it occured. As to the Morrison quote, as has been explained repeatedly, it does not belong at the end of the article, present time. What Morrison thinks about this now is irrelevant. As has been mentioned, every writer has dozens of "intentions" and they aren't relevant to the current publishing history. - Myst3 13:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite aware that Morrison neither created the character nor owns the characters. Marvel can do what they wish with them. that's the nature of working for the company's copyrighted properties. The point is to document that they can do what they wish up to and including changing things through factual examples. This does not simply mean the current publishing history; just look at the articles for Superman and Batman. After all, Phoenix was supposed to be Jean Grey up until they needed her back for X-Factor. Retcons only apply in the comics themselves, not in real life. The stories are not of supreme important in articles pertaining to fiction; their impact on the real world is. And that impact is a lot of readers confused, Marvel throwing out a bunch of explanations, and Morrison stating what he intended is what he wrote but it was changed.
And you can't just say "people wrote about 'Planet X' when it occured". Show us that they wrote about it, or direct us to a reference if it is in a magazine. That helps an awful lot. WesleyDodds 13:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disagreeing with you, that you shouldn't show what Morrison intended. But it isn't relevant to the state of the character today. The publishing history is exactly what you are referring to above. "Retcons only apply in the comics themselves, not in real life." Exactly -- this is about the comics, and the character Xorn, and the publishing history of the character Xorn. It is NOT about Grant Morrison. Your quotes are more relevant in the article dedicated to Grant Morrison himself, not to the history of Marvel characters he happened to work on. The stories are of equal importance to the articles pertaining to the fiction! Geez, how can the stories which ARE the source of the fiction, not be at least equally important to the impact the fiction makes in the real world, and the articles about the characters who are introduced in, and star in, the stories! The real-world "impact" as you say, has a lot of readers angry, not confused. Prove otherwise. As in, you are applying personal opinions here, without reference. Now, should we get into a reference "war?" With you linking to posts that show someone is confused, and I link to posts that show how many people are happy and not confused, and/or how many people are actually just Magneto and Claremont haters who wanted to see Magneto dead and the third volume of EXCALIBUR ended?
I think you're the one confusing people. Readers look to Wikipedia for answers, and when they look up Xorn they see another, repititious Morrison quote in the wrong place, and presume there is still confusion, or that there is still some doubt, and that Morrison's opinion really has ANY relevance at all to the present publishing history of the character Xorn, these readers are going to be confused now! On the contrary, there really is not much confusion these days. Marvel and the Editor in Chief have made some definitive statements. The matter is settled. Continuing to reference anything Morrison has to say about the matter today, out of chronology, out of order, referring to an event that happened two years ago but that is not problematic today is confusing to people. - Myst3 13:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We need reference, we need context, and we need to talk about why the character is important. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) WesleyDodds 13:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Morrison is very relevent to the article. The guys who created Spider-Man, the X-Men, and the Fantastic Four, as well as Stan Lee are quoted in those articles, years after they even worked or put their names on those projects. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 16:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with CG. Those references (such as Morrison's comments) are valid, because they put the various confusions into context. - jc37 15:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

As I have seen done in other articles, I moved three sections to a new section called "controversy". This way the discussion is chronological, but it also doesn't break up the character history. I didn't edit any actual text (except removing an "i" from explanation). - jc37 16:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your assistance, buit I feel separating that material from the character history takes away much of the context from the way it was written. Additionally, "controversy" is a bit much; Marvel simply wanted both characters to use, and some fans grumble about the "Planet X" arc and some grumble about what they see as a dismantling of Morrison's work. But the actual events surrounding Xorn after Morrison left are more confusing then controversial. WesleyDodds 17:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As it "was", to me, it made the character history nearly impossible to read with any sort of unified clarity. This is similar to why references are placed at the end, rather than intermixed in the text. "Controversy" is the term typically used in articles for "confusion" and "fan outcry". I can find some other examples if you would like. If you can think of a better title, though, I'm all ears : ) - jc37 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing; beyond the New X-Men run the character history has no unified clarity. Marvel kept throwing out explanations and retcons without really clarifying what they were doing, or, to this day, why. That's why all quotes and descriptions of the changes in the character's history were intermingled, to give a sense of why the stories were like that. WesleyDodds 20:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about a parenthetical note in the text at those places to read the section below? - jc37 21:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about this for about a month, I don't think the current layout is the best for the article. As it stands, it's fixated on the fictional aspect of the character rather than the character's impact on real life. A character with as limited appearances as Xorn doesn't need a whole character history section; most of the character's appearances during Morrison's tenure took place in New X-Men and afterwards the problems that resulted from changes to the character were quite well-known and reported on in the comics press, as the citations show. After Morrison left, the character history decreased in importance as Marvel decided to chuck out what had been built up, necessitating an entirley new character history (or three). I'd like to change it back to the previous layout (where Marvel's changes regarding the character are mentioned in the same sections where those changes were enacted in print). As your main concern was confusion regarding the article, we can certainly work to reduce that confusion, but I feel going back to the previous layout will restore a more sensible out-of-universe perspective. WesleyDodds 09:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the same team as WesleyDodds. The article's sections should be re-integrated. Ford MF 17:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since I was the one who created the "controversy" section....

  • It isn't as if I had to "unmerge" the sections. They were three, rather distinct, paragraphs [6].
  • Also remember that this solution ended a reversion war that was going on at the time.
  • And finally, as I said at the time, "controversy" is a rather common section in articles.

So, yes, I think it's a bad idea to try to force the sections back into the character history. Don't you think that the history is confusing enough without attempting to shoehorn-in creator intentions etc.? And if your concern is: "A character with as limited appearances as Xorn doesn't need a whole character history section", then let's see how we can pare down the section. In any case, there's a reason that articles have sections, and this is one of them. - jc37 09:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying a controversy. I just feel that the material in the controversy section best works in the context of the material present rather than being a separate section. So someone comes to the section about Magneto being alive and a new Xorn appearing. Why did that happen? Well, because that's what Marvel wanted, so they did it. And here's the citation for it. It gives the fiction context, backed with real-world references. That to me fits the Wiki format more appropriately. WesleyDodds 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I personally would prefer the character and publishing histories to be combined. ---Chris Griswold (☎☓) 09:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed since the last time we had this debate. A compromise was worked out. Wesley, you wait a few months and then go and revert the article back to exactly where you wanted it before the compromise. This isn't about combining or integrating the chronology and history of the character, it's about inappropriate and excessive citations of the "author's intent" which are unnecessary and confusing. This only serves to confuse readers, and present a false impression that the work-for-hire contribution of a writer who left the ongoing comic book series over 3 years ago, has greater weight than the current direction of the X-Men series. Grant Morrison fans think his every thought and every word is important, but in reality, repeatedly citing what he "intended" and what he thinks of the current storyline, in the midst of the chronology of the character Xorn, is arbitrary, prejudicial, and redundant. Putting the issue in a "Controversy" section is the only appropriate place to put it, since it is not universally accepted that what Grant Morrison thinks now has any bearing on the current X-Men series.Myst3 00:16, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it because consensus changed. I even waited about a month before changing after we got more comments in case anyone had objections.
Back to the point about "what Morrison intended", it's important to focus on because he, a real person, was hired to write these stories. Accordingly, he created the character of Xorn and used him in a certain way. And Marvel, the real-world company that publishes the X-Men comics, changed what he intended (as is totally in their power), which in turn affected the fictional creation that this article discusses. The current in-story direction regarding Xorn isn't the end-all be-all of how the character is understood, because of all this other stuff that happened and has been reported on in the comics press. WesleyDodds 06:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As do I. I merely disagree with the choice of presentation, since I think it may be confusing, and because there is precedent in other articles to have a "controversy" section. That said, however, I'm not certain, but I think that the "re-integration" is actually at least somewhat clearer than it was prior to the previous compromise. (The fictional and non-fictional information should never be in the same paragraph/section.) I would be interested in seeing how it would look with further clean-up. - jc37 09:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is still unnecessary to repeatedly cite Morrison's intent. Once is enough. Twice is barely acceptable. Citing it again at the end of the article is redundant and unnecessary and demonstrates your personal prejudice, not the facts. The "end-all and be-all" of the character is discussed throughout the article. But this article is also chronological, and what Morrison thinks at every comic book convention for the next 20 years is irrelevant, as you've already cited his opinion on the matter. Also, your "concensus" consists of three people, and you've predetermined the outcome. Again, the real-world stuff that went on concerning Xorn is amply discussed in the article. If you insist on some kind of chronological order, then there is no need to cite Morrison that one last time at the end of the article. That is my main objection. Myst3 19:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I included his comment at the end is because it wasn't long after Quesada gave his regarding the Collective, and interviewers were asking for Morrison's definitve word on the matter in response. WesleyDodds 00:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to change it back again, although you are still wrong. The fact that Morrison continues to make snarky comments about the situation, doesn't mean he has to be cited every time he does! His opinion was cited in the appropriate place once, and that is enough! Joe Quesada is EinC of Marvel, and his final word on the matter is the final word. What a writer thinks about what was done to his work-for-hire plot-point three years after he secretly made a deal with DC and abandoned his comic book and Marvel, is not important enough to warrant redundant and repetitive citations of what he intended for Xorn. But ... I have other characters whose bios are more important for me to worry about. While a case could be made for the Xorn article, and some serious Wiki storm-waves stirred up, ultimately it really isn't that important.

It still doesn't matter what Grant Morrison thinks in Sept. of 2006; he left the books in mid-2003, and his comments are cited too many times in the chronological article. The reader gets it the first time. His attitude, his opinion, is not the final word on the matter. He did not create Xorn if he meant for him to be Magneto; rather, he created a cover identity for Magneto in order to destroy Magneto as a viable character. That's the underlying message of his continued sniping at Marvel about the issue; *I meant to destroy Magneto, and kill him off for good, but Marvel refused to accept that.* It is pointless for him to continue to bother himself about the matter. It is only the most stubborn and prejudiced of Morrison's fanatical followers who refuse to accept the status quo, and refuse to see how lame it is that Morrison continues to carp about it years later. Every comic book writer of work-for-hire serial fiction has had some intention changed, some plot point hijacked, some character taken in an entirely new direction!

I do not see the same repeated, and inappropriate, citations in other comic book-character articles on Wiki, regarding the "intentions" of the writer. (In Morrison's case regarding Xorn, he isn't even the "creator" -- since he didn't create Magneto, and he didn't mean Xorn to be real. Kuan Yin and Shen Xorn are the "creations" of Chuck Austin and others.) Citing once that Chris Claremont intended Mr. Sinister to be the projection of a powerful little boy mutant at Scott Summers' orphanage is appropriate and interesting. What if Claremont were to continually make comments in forums, in interviews, and at conventions, that he doesn't like the direction that Marvel took Sinister, and *he* always meant for him to be ... yadda, yadda, yadda (something that Claremont has never done, of course, because Grant Morriosn along with John Byrne seem to be the only writers capable of continued griping that *their* intentions are sacrosanct and how dare anyone change them)... ? Would you continually cite Claremont's "intentions" for the character Mr. Sinister, in a chronological article, even after the most recent addition to the canon of the character, just because the writer made another comment publicly about "his intentions"? It would not be appropriate. It would be excessive. It would be redundant, because you already cited this at the appropriate place in the article.

Therefore, Wesley (who describes himself as a Morrison fan, and therefore can't be objective about this matter, in my opinion), is not correct in repeatedly citing Morrison's "intentions" for the character Xorn. Xorn is no longer Morrison's character, and really never was. He never even created a real Xorn! What Morrsion thinks and says about the issue, years later, is irrelevant. You've given him his due in the proper place in the article (when dealing with Magneto appearing in the new EXCALIBUR written by Claremont debuting in May of 2004). Any citation after that is just unnecessary, incorrect form, and biased.Myst3 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am a fan of the works of Grant Morrison, and New X-Men in particular, but my intention is not to promote Morrison's conception of the character as correct. I don't like him that much and I feel given work I've done on other articles whose subjects I have a particular affection for (for example, The Smashing Pumpkins) I can keep a NPOV balance. That's what I think, but it may not be true, I'm only human. What drew me to work on this article in the first place is the whole back-and-forth that has occured regarding the character, so much it has arguably obscured the character of Xorn itself. No interpretation of Xorn is right because Xorn doesn't make much sense as a character anymore, especially if one tries to rationalize all the explanations provided. Unfortunately there can be a tendency for fans either of Xorn or Magento to only focus on their selective interpetation of the character, and that caused the original version of this page to be quite lacking in real-world notability in its past form from over a year ago. The point I keep trying to stress is not whether so-and-so is right or wrong; given my extensive work on music articles as opposed to comics articles, my interest is primarily who has said what and if it can be verified that it has been documented, because ultimately that's what notability rests upon. So in short, yes, those quotes belong there. They're noteworthy quotes made in the press in a particular context that is important to the understanding of this article. I hope that can sufficiently explain to you why they belong there. It's not any particular intentional bias on my part. It's Wiki guidelines.
In relation, I must also question your own bias. You seem to be a fan of the character of Magneto given your edits on this page and the Magneto page. But you say things like "he created a cover identity for Magneto in order to destroy Magneto as a viable character". What is the factual basis for that? Can you provide a citation that that was his intention? Can you say you are projecting your arguments about the page from a neutral point of view? WesleyDodds 04:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The fictional and non-fictional information should never be in the same paragraph/section...."?? Then how can you defend the wording of this article? The entire section regarding the appearance of the second Xorn brother is rife with the mingling of non-fictional information (and biased information at that, in my opinion) and information about the fictional characters. You really do need to separate out the Morrison real-world stuff into a separate section devoted to the "Publishing History" according to your own criteria. Myst3 19:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, when I said "section" I was referring to paragraph/stanza. We don't indent paragraphs, so I was "attempting" to be clear, and it turned out to be clear as mud : ) - jc37 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Razorback[edit]

If Xorn now has the powers of every mutant who lost their abilities during M-Day, does that mean he's able to instinctively drive any kind of vehicle? 68.199.34.30 10:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No.199.79.168.160 21:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He has the energy-manipulating powers. I think he might have Razorcock's power, though. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Split discussion[edit]

Split. Michael Pointer is set to become the new Guardian, and he's a separate character from Xorn, so he deserves his own article.--Gonzalo84 01:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the split for Michael Pointer. But I think we should wait to find out what his codename will be. It might not be "Guardian." Bhissong 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)bhissong[reply]

All illustration up to this point has shown him as Guardian, and he was previously referred to as 'In a Guardian Suit', and he was offered the job of becoming the Guardian - why wait? Put the Collective stuff in Mike Pointer's article. 212.219.57.77 13:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikiproject Buddhism?[edit]

Uh, I don't mean to rain on anybody's parade but isn't including this article in Wikiproject Buddhism a bit of a stretch? Will we add EVERY single fictional character who is (nominally) "Buddhist?" Zero sharp 19:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuan-Yin is the name of an important deity in Chinese Buddhism. I suspect someone's bot got confused. (Also, Kuan-Yin is female. I don't know why Marvel used the name for a male character.) 99.226.239.5 (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nxm xorn.PNG Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Nxm xorn.PNG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 18 November 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Xorn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Xorn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xorn. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xorn. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 12:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph[edit]

I find it odd/interesting that with all this retconning of Xorn, no one has pointed out that they basically did the same thing with the Joseph (comics) character.19:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.254.252.48 (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Xorn. 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) 21:12, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Xorn&oldid=1211007826"