Talk:Rachel Summers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rachel Summers article.
Article policies
WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Rachel Grey

Does anybody actually believe that Rachel Grey and Rachel Summers are the same person? They act completely different and many of the things Rachel Summers knew and was capable of doing, Rachel Grey is not (like walk in heels, Rachel Summers not only walked in heels, but one of her costumes was known for it's heels. Rachel Grey, however, is incapable of that). Rachel Summers also is suppose to be without the Pheonix Force, but Rachel Grey has had several phoenix manifestations. 216.215.245.26

  • I have noticed this aswell. Rachel had the power cosmic through Phoenix, and thereby access to all the knowledge of the infinite cosmos, and power unimaginable. In her adventure in Excalibur she did things on the same power level as Dark Phoenix. Without any training, she was able to travel through time and dimensions. She was able to cause any sort of molecular rearrangement she wanted. She may have lost her source of all that power, but I don't see why she should suddenly lose all her natural skills, and forgot how to use telekinetic abilities. This woman went to the end of time and had infinite knowledge. Then she decided it was time to go to college? How about her personality? She has been married, seen her husband killed before her eyes, and been a mutant assassin, and that was all before she joined Excalibur. How does she have the personallity (and appearance) of a 16 year old all of a sudden? She used to have a rebellious independant flare to her personality, and now she just seems like a naive, depressed little girl. Dorin 19:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I tend to also agree. The Rachel I know from Excalibur only resembles the one in the X-Men comics. I too also thought back to the high heels moment and thought that Rachel always wore 6 inch stelletos when she lived in England. If anyone, Kitty would be the most uncomfortable in high heels. With the number of psychic battles she's had, which includes the years she used her telepathy in her alternate future, I also find it hard to believe that she could be so helpless against Emma Frost. I'm wondering if sometime in the future Rachel Grey will be met by a Rachel Summers. A little too much like Psylocke's story for my taste, but its the only thing that makes sense. Artemisboy 21:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachel Pic

DrBrat, why do have this vendetta against me, and the tought of ANY good pics on Wikipedia. I didn't delete your pic, I just put Rachel in her current costume in the SHB. Its people like you that really tick me off, people who think that they are beyond the rules they themsleves proffess to follow. You've questioned my maturity, yet you have went and changed any pics I have put up like a toddler knocking the pieces of a board game they've just lost. Your only argument is that "My artist is BETTER", which is completely POV and biased. You're only doing this becuase you have this sense of entitlement, and think that if it doesn't look good to YOU, then it doesn't look good or is relevent. First rule of Wikipedia, people will edit your stuff. Everone here has a right to contribute to this site, and you need to grow up and stop being an online version of a playground bully. I will not stop making edits here becuase of you and your sorry attitude. I won't leave like others have. I will not give up. So accept it, or prepare yourself for a LIFETIME of reverting my edits. Because, you, little man, don't scare me. MetaStar 02:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This controversial change needs to be discussed on the talk page before either of you revert it again. CovenantD 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If I'm correct, in edit disputes the prior edit should remain until a consensus is reached. --DrBat 19:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

SIGH, and JoshuaZ just thanked me for helping with a compromise. Why is having that pic there so important to you, bro? None of we users removed it, we just moved it (hey that rhymed). Rachel is my fav X-Man, she needs a totally smokin' pic, and the one you reverted to again ain't smokin' DB (is that a knee near her elbow, I keep lookin' and I can't tell), and I was going to use a scan from my new X-men posterbook, but ExcaliDragon already put up the pic. MarvelousGirl 22:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any way we can make this not a panty shot? A gx7 09:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relatives

Looking for a list of her relatives and there's no section in the superhero box. how strange. heard on the FF page that her and franklin richards had an offspring in a future (alternate universe) and was looking for its name. thatd be one powerful offspring -- a Richards and Summers kid? wow.

This used to be on the main page until relatives was taken out of the superhero box. Relatives - Cyclops (Earth 811 father), Jean Grey (Earth 811 mother), Havok (uncle), Vulcan (uncle), Cable (Earth 616 brother), Nate Grey (Earth 295 brother cloned from Cyclops and Jean Grey's genetic material), Corsair (grandfather), Franklin Richards (Earth 811 husband), Hyperstorm (Earth 967 son), Dream Summers (Earth 9891 daughter) Dorin 10:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Summers vs Grey

Should it be moved to Grey because that's her name now? ~ZytheTalk to me! 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. The lass is called 'Grey' now. The name Rachel Summers is therefore no longer correct. I say Users vote. That excludes me. (Personally, I would like it even better if the article was named after Ray's current superheroine codename, 'Marvel Girl,' despite this name having been made more famous by her mother Jean.)62.194.0.236 11:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to Grey. It is a bit weird that the article is named Rachel Summers, but the first words of the article call her Rachel Grey. Either those should be made to agree, or move the article. -Freak104 15:15, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


Officially at Marvel, Rachel is still Rachel Summers. Grey is merely an alias. On her character page on Marvel.com, her name is still Rachel Summers: (http://www.marvel.com/universe/Marvel_Girl_(Rachel_Summers)). In the X-Men: 198 Files, her official name is Rachel Summers. The majority of the X-writers and editors only refer to Rachel as Rachel Summers.

Brightlady (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is Rachel really a mutant?

Okay, this may seem like a weird question, and I know that Rachel is a telepath/telekinetic, but is she a MUTANT? Her mom is Jean Grey. Basically, Jean was a mutant because her genetic make-up differed from that of her parents. It mutated so that she had telepathic/telekinetic abilities. From the looks of it, Rachel has INHERITED these abilities from her mother, so I think it might be safe to say that no mutation took place in Rachel. Successfully passing on the telekinetic/telepathic gene(s) means that these abilities are now in mankind's genepool in the Marvel Universe, and might -after a long time- become commonplace if Rachel reproduces.82.170.142.69 09:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)(Just a visitor)

In a technical sense by scientific standards, she is a mutant because of her chrono-skimming abilities. However Marvel terminology indexes anybody as a mutant who possesses a genetic "X-factor" occuring from birth (although not always active at birth) that seperates them from baseline humans.

[edit] Lobotomy?

The Women in Refrigerators article said that Rachel had been lobotomized. What's up with that? Evernut 16:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about this, too. The only thing I can find when I type "Rachel Summers lobotomy" into Google, is JEAN GREY's lobotomy in the alternate universe where Rachel comes from (before the events that lead to "Days of Future Past.") In this reality, Jean does not kill herself in the battle with the Imperial Guard. Instead, Lilandra allows her to live and gives her a 'psychic lobotomy' that cuts off Jean's access to her Phoenix powers. Her daughter Rachel would still have the Phoenix powers. Incidentally, this alternate fate for Jean was what Claremont originally had in mind, but editor Jim Shooter thought Jean couldn't be forgiven for her genocide of billions of people and had her killed off. Anyone help if Rachel ever got a lobotomy, though.194.171.56.13 09:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remove Omega declaration?

"Rachel may be an Omega-level mutant who possesses the psionic powers of telepathy including psychometry and telekinesis as well as limited time manipulation abilities. [Rachel was only ever referred to as an omega contact by a Sentinel fifteen years before the term had a definition. It should also be noted that a variety of other super-powered characters, mutant and non-mutant alike were also referred to as contacts. The term 'omega' was coined by Charles Xavier, and no Sentinel would have had access to his terminology prior to the Operation: Zero Tolerance story arc, which occurred in 2001. Thusly, it is unlikely that this one-off usage constitutes Rachel being an omega mutant under the current understanding of the word.]"

Since the term 'Omega' had no meaning in Marvel canon(as the story took place fifteen years before omega had an established meaning), and a sentinel would have no way to access Xavier's files (who originally created the term), does a mutant hunting robot labeling her an 'omega contact' really justify adding this 'maybe an omega mutant' line? The sentinel identified other threats(non-mutants) as contacts as well, so it is clear that contact DOESN'T mean mutant. Thusly wouldn't omega contact NOT mean omega mutant? It would seem to make more sense to say, simply, "Rachel is an extremely powerful mutant who possesses...."

That is, unless someone ELSE has evidence that she's an omega. I know in the "198 files" it lists all the mutants. All the CONFIRMED omega mutants are noted as such in these files. Rachel's file, however, makes NO NOTE of her omega status.

Coincidence? Doubtful.


Further more; here is the ONLY reference to Rachel being an omega ANYTHING (to my knowledge);

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/9538/11yd0.jpg http://img514.imageshack.us/my.php?image=uxm208page08sf6.jpg

As you can see from these two pages, an omega contact is simply a contact (mutant or otherwise) who is on par with the Nimrod unit. It has nothing to do with omega power level. This occurence is the only time I know of that Rachel and 'Omega' were ever even mentioned in the same sentence in-canon. Fifteen years BEFORE the first mention of an 'omega mutant,'

http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=jeanbobbyqy0.jpg

Seen here.

Example from the 198 files, Iceman, a KNOWN omega-level mutant;

http://img221.imageshack.us/my.php?image=icemanga8.jpg

Another example from the 198 files, Quentin Quire, a KNOWN omega-level mutant;

http://img149.imageshack.us/my.php?image=xmenthe198files33ck4.jpg

One more, just to drive the point home, Elixir;

http://img219.imageshack.us/my.php?image=xmenthe198files14vv1.jpg


Now, Rachel's entry;

http://img101.imageshack.us/my.php?image=rachelnooba5.jpg

While it says that she is a severe threat, the word 'omega' is never used. Not a single time.


129.120.244.92 19:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)1:23 pm May 5 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.120.244.92 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC).


There has been no discussion regarding this, assuming no one objects by the end of the day, I am going to go ahead and take action.13:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)~May 10, 2007

The proposed paragraph adds nothing since the wikipedia article is meant to be written so as to be capable of explaining to those unfamiliar with the subject and what you have added is not. Further, since the sentinel which referred to Rachel as such was from the future, in a time line where Xavier's school was successfully invaded we cannot work from the presumption that it would not be familiar with Xavier's terminology. Given that it would likely have access to both Xavier's and Ahab's extensive files on Rachel and is the most advanced of any sentinel observed then it is most assuredly qualified to do so.

Also, how is it important that the term was only capitalised upon fifteen years later? The comics are rife with dangling plotlines and we have no knowledge if this simply wasn't meant to be the first time it was employed. While I doubt that it was intended as such we are not the ones qualified to make that statement. Claremont and the X-editors are.

Regarding the 198 files - does this mean that anyone not on that list is not a mutant as well? Despite having seen many other mutants in the comic books. Also remembering that it is written from the (limited) perspective of O.N.E not an omniscient third person narrator. O.N.E is also less technologically advanced than Nimrod and doesn't deny her status either. Also, Mr. Immortal was not in the 198 files, yet has been confirmed by editors, are we to then presume he is not Omega by his exclusion?

Additionally, your inference of what the Nimrod sentinel meant by Omega is personal interpretation and has no place in a wikipedia article. However, a quote from either Claremont or the X-editors as to what Nimrod intended would change the literal (and thus canonical) meaning.

Finally, if you wish to engage in an analysis of the subjects status as omega - which is presented in the comic - then the Omega mutant article would be a more appropriate place in which to hold it since we may expect that article to educate the reader on just what an Omega is. Unlike this one. It also would probably be better to confine the inevitable edit wars which ensue by keeping an Omega analysis/contention contained within the Omega article instead of spreading it to the character profiles.

Ergo I'm reverting your edit - should a quote from a relevant authority be supplied then it would suffice to remove the Omega term from the article rather than inserting the quote and contentions. Otherwise that should stay as is until a relevant authority has confirmed an alternative interpretation.

203.51.77.136 04:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  • An interesting point has been brought up. If you look at the scans the user above posted you'll notice that the classification system Nimrod uses applies to mutants as well as humans. While the system for Omega, Alpha and Beta mutants ONLY applies to mutants. Meaning they were two different classification systems. Nimrod even explains what an Omega Class Subject means in his classification unique system. "Class Omega Subjects are on par with this unit"

Apart from that occurence where she was cited as an Omega Class Threat which as explained by Nimrod means something completely different to Omega Level Mutant she's never been cited one using the Omega classification system. So I feel this should be further discussed. From my perspective there isn't any evidence to warrant her being deemed one. Even now in Warsong we learn that the Phoenix Host/Omega thing was wrong as Celeste could act as one in Warsong. IRRC Mr Immortal isn't your normal Homo superior mutant, he's above Homo superior(Homo superior supreme) and in a species class of his own. Therefore he wouldn't be in the 198 files. 86.43.172.38 17:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MarvelGirlUXEM381.JPG

Image:MarvelGirlUXEM381.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Korvus

Someone should create a Korvus article, but Rook'shir shouldn't have his own article. All info about Rook'shir should be in Korvus's article. 66.189.137.113 16:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Galactus.jpg

Image:Galactus.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ExcaliburV1-44pg12p4.jpg

Image:ExcaliburV1-44pg12p4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)