This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Dstorres changed the image and stated: "The image used is the newest and most recent image of the character". So that means once we have covers for Ms. Marvel # 2 or 3 or 4, the image is gonna have to be replaced once again because we gonna have a newest and most recent image? Lesfer 03:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I think that there is room for everyone's image. Why is this an issue? (By the way, I like both for different visual reasons). Netkinetic 03:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
New Arguement: The Turner images is a better character represantion (almost full figure) while the one by the series artist is not. Also the 2nd image in question was placed by the powers section because she was demonstrating her powers. Dstorres
I'm with Lesfer on this one. The Turner image is... abstractly... posed and hides her feet. And, if we're going by "current depictions", de la Torre is the ongoing artist, not Turner. - SoM 01:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Reasons why the Turner pic is ok:
1) Shows more of the body than the current pic (legs missing from the knee down).
2) I'd like to note the series artist does exactly show the pic of the characters feet.
3) More dynamic look.
4) Marvel & DC Comics do not always use images by the "series artist" for their Marvel Universe Handbooks/DC Secret Files so that arguement holds no bearing either.
Overall, an irrelevant motivation for such a change. I believe this change is more in line with pushing for sexualization, as Turner is prone to do, than putting up an image that truly represents the character. The previous image, while not entirely showing her, wasn't worse than this one.
Dynamism and the MU Handbooks are not format requisites for Wikipedia. Irrelevant arguments. Plus, not seeing the character's feet is hardly a factor that should be considered for replacing a picture. If this is only to standardize comic entries with Michael Turner Artwork, I encourage people to select artwork that better represents characters as well as artistic styles.
To that effect I have changed the image to one that represents the character using one of her powers and as rendered by the ongoing cover artist at this time, which, judging by the conversation, is more in-line with what is desired. -Fetternity 7:07AM, May 14th 2008
House of M
I missed most of the House of M series, but shouldn't there be a section about what happened to her duting that time?-Giant89 01:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I concur, she was featured on many covers and it seemed to have a big effect on her character.-Tuberculosisness 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Ms. Marvel
If the article is moved to Ms. Marvel again then include:
= = Sharon Ventura
Sharon Ventura, a relatively obscure member of the Fantastic Four later known as the She-Thing, had initially adoped the name Ms. Marvel.
Sleigh 04:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Inconsistency
The page is Carol Danvers but the box is Ms. Marvel. -- Beardo 19:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone ought to change that! --Chris Griswold 23:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Early Years
I reworded the section on Carol's early years. Some of the background information can be derived from a fan page that is linked by Wikipedia ([1]). Someone said that wasn't a reliable enough source, so for now I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether or not the link and the section I reworded is enough to remove the tag. --JamesB3 23:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup
This article is a mess. The writing is all over the place, there are a ton of insignificant details, and the publication history should be merged with the character history. For example, the pub history section mysteriously references a previously unmentioned Marcus storyline. I don't have a deep knowledge of this character, which is why I came here to read about her. But this thing is a mess. Oh, and it needs more references. I will help out where I can, but the only thing I know to do right now is to start throwing stuff out. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 06:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
If you look in the section that says Avengers, the Marcus story is detailed. I guess putting the Marcus part in publication history was not a good idea; I'll change that (I'm not sure who did that originally, I hope they don't mind if I make the change). --JamesB3 06:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the publication history and incorporated most of those details in the fictional character section. What do you think?--JamesB3 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed two unsourced statements, and I agree with JamesB3; I think the entry is OK now. It seems to me that the "poor quality" tag can be removed; if others agree, let's go ahead and delete it.--Galliaz 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
In comparison to other comic entires, this one is actually pretty restrained in it's plot details and self-referentiality. Other opinions on this matter are always welcome, as are additional edits, of course.--Galliaz 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. This entry is light years from copyright violation, and this IS an encyclopedia after all. 216.232.242.145 09:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)b8amack
As explained in "Avengers" #200, Ms. Marvel is kidnapped, taked to limbo, brainwashed, raped, impregnated, released, goes through a full term pregnancy in about a week, gives birth, the son grows to adulthood in a matter of hours, and becomes his father, (the adult), Marcus. He then has to go back to limbo. Ms. Marvel wants to go into limbo with the parent/son Marcus. With the blessing of her fellow Avengers, Ms. Marvel accompanys Marcus back to limbo. After this comic book was published, Gloria Steinem, who founded "Ms. magazine", wrote a scathing magazine article blasting it. Marvel comics apologized for "Avengers #200", in "Avengers Annual #10", however, they do take a "forgive and forget" attitude as far as Rogue (comics) is concerned.24.195.241.149 04:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk
What does "forgive and forget" mean in regard to Rogue? --Chris Griswold 05:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It means that Marvel prefers not to metion what Rogue did to Ms. Marvel. For example, Rogue was allowed to join the X-Men leaving Carol Danvers, (who had just become Binary), no reasonable option except to leave with the Starjammers. There is certainly no metion of Ms. Marvel in any of the X-Men movies. Marvel is aware that including the story of Rogue/Ms Marvel in the movies would probably hurt the sales of Rogue related merchandise. They also like the leave out the fact that Mystique beat Dr. Michael Burnett to death, (in 1980), in order to gain access to his files on Carol Danvers. Marvel has been accused of treating "criminals like the real victims of crime", and the victims of criminal behavior as though they were nothing. It seems to me that Rogue and Mystique are treated a lot better by Marvel than Ms. Marvel and Dr. Michael Burnett.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.80.61.10 (talk • contribs) 12:30 July 5, 2006204.80.61.10 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk
I don't understand why Carol Danvers would be mentioned in the X-Men movies. She's not an X-Men character.--Chris Griswold 20:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
The Superman, Batman, and Spiderman movies basically used the same orgin of the superheros as was told in the comic books. There was a slight difference between one Batman movie and another, in that the Joker murdered Batman's parents in one movie and Joe Chill killed them in another, (as he did in the orignal magazine). Carol Danvers is not an X-Men character, but, she is very important as far as the comic book Rogue was concerned, and Marvel did metion her in animated series. The X-Men movies were also different from the comic book because they did not use radiation as the source of X-Men's powers, (as it did in the magazine),instead it was caused by the X-factor genetic mutation. I think if the movies had adapted the Mystique/Rogue/Ms. Marvel connection from the comic book, Rogue would have been a lot less popular and not worth as much money as far as related merchandise is concerned. (The Hulk movie was different from the comic book, just the tv show was different, because the orgin of the Hulk in the original magazine is very similar to the movie: "The Amazing Colossal Man").204.80.61.10 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk
OK, I see where we differ in opinion now. These are adaptations. Ms. Marvel is a footnote in Rogue's history. She was a plotpoint and a character motivator that has been used up in regard to that character. The reason she's not in the movies is not because they have something in for this fictional character, but because she's irrelevent and an unnecessary detail. Whereas the Batman and Superman movies have on protagonist to depict, the X-Men movies have a whole team; it's not reasonable to expect that the film detail all the minor aspects of the characters' lives. Besides, didn't the X-Men series mention Carol Danvers in some way? --Chris Griswold 21:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Other than an action figure or two, what Rogue merchandise are you seeing? --Chris Griswold 05:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Although, Rogue by herself, was only one, (or two), action figures; as part of the X-Men for many years, all of the X-Men merchandise from when she joined the team has to be taken into consideration. The books, the tv shows, the movies. I think Ms. Marvel, and Mystique, were very important as far as the comic book Rogue was concerned, and I believe, that is a part of her past that Marvel does not want to bring up. Having Rogue as bad/good crime fighter might not be as popular as Rogue the always good crime fighter. The animated series did once show Carol Danvers in a coma, in a hospital bed, but I do get the impression that is part of Rogue's past Marvel would just as soon forget, and I think they would like others to forget it as well. It's a lot easier to show the X-Men as an oppressed miniority group if a team member, such as Rogue, does not have a criminal past.204.80.61.10 20:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk
My mistake--it was Carol Strickland, not Gloria Steinem who criticized "Avengers 200". Thank you for correcting my error and adding an external link for those who want to read the article she wrote.24.195.255.68 06:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk
While Strickland's rebuttal is interesting, what makes it notable enough to warrant a mention? Who is she, and what was LOC fanzine? I'd never heard of either before reading this entry. Practically every incident in the pages of any comic has been challenged by some writer in a fanzine or on the internet. If Strickland's article warrants special mention, then the article should explain why. (GLG, Apr 8 07)
GLG, Strickland's LOC article is more than just "interesting." It is notable for two reasons: (1) it provided a very detailed, direct, and devastating critique of a questionable story development from a feminist view-point; and (2) it had an effect on how the character would be portrayed in the future. In the pre-Internet, pre-Blog days of comic fandom, LOC was a widely-read publication: fans read it; people in the industry read it. Chris Claremont, the writer who "rehabilitated" Carol Danvers later on, approvingly commented upon Strickland's analysis in the X-Men Companion 2 (1982). Here's what he said:
As Carol [Strickland] pointed out in her article in LOC [#1}, women tend to get very short shrift in comics. They are either portrayed as wallflowers or as supermacho insensitive men with different body forms, who almost invariably feel guilty about their lack of femininity. And it's always seemed to me that, why does this have to be exclusive? Can you not have a woman who is ruthless and capable and courageous and articulate and intelligent and all the other buzz-words -- heroic when the need arises, and yet feminine and gentle and compassionate, at others? That was what I tried to do with Ms. Marvel. I tried to create a character who had all the attributes that made her a top-secret agent yet at the same time was a compassionate, warm, humorous, witty, intelligent, attractive woman.
As I said, CS's LOC article was indeed a notable intervention, and deserves to be mentioned in the entry.--Galliaz 22:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Publication history
Would somebody add a bit about where she appeared prior to her own series? The lede indicates that Carol Danvers existed for years before she became MM, but the PH gives the impression that her existence started with her own title. Pairadox (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
ultimate version
should be updated to reflect her recent appearance in ultimate fantastic four. also, the cover of ultimate spider-man 115 shows a woman with a black and yellow costume with some lightning bolt patters on it and a sash, possible ultimate ms marvel? 69.254.161.136 03:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
The Ultimate section of this article has recently been made a lot shorter (and with more refs) however I don't really think there is enough information on who the character is and her history in the Ultimate Universe so far (which IMHO is quite important given that Ultimate Carol Danvers is very different to 616 Ms. Marvel) Planewalker Dave (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
There is not much information on her yet. But, given her current status as a supporting character in USM, the section will be expanded upon soon. Rau's talk 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Move?
There has been a purposed move for the past 2 mths on WP:Comics noticeboard. I wanted to quickly post a note of discussion, or rather contention to this move, due to clearly established naming convention guidlines. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC).
There is/was no discussion here for a move, I am removing the request. Rau'sSpeak Page 00:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
It's fully protected. I can't remove the request. I'll have to take it to the talk page. Rau'sSpeak Page 00:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
We should move Ms. MARVEL TO cAROL dANVERS SHE WAS also bINARY AND wARBIRD. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a clear case of common names. In all of her major publiications, she has been known as Ms. Marvel. An additional note, the notice board is protected, but to edit it you need to click on the individual sections. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC).
Ms. Marvel is what she is known by. It has been her name through most of her publication. And thanks for telling me that bit about the editing. Rau'sSpeak Page 00:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Like I said for Ice on the talk page, this page should stay where it is since this is a clear case of WP:UCN. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Insane amount of overdetail
"After arriving at Bucky's house with Luke and Jessica..."? This article cannot stand the way it now exists, blatantly violating WPC standards. I'll start paring it down, and ask other editors to do likewise. -- Tenebrae (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
And I will be going back in the history of this article to reverse anything you have pared down. This is a democracy, not you deciding you are god of the page and making it completely uninhabitable to anyone new to comics. Pick your battle carefully, there are some of us users who are tired of these articles becoming nothing useful to readers because users want to pare stuff down for no reason except boredom. Timmyfitz161 (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep that rewrite is really bad - I reverted it twice and while I was busy it appears it carries on. It is now pretty much "she appeared in X #y, then ...." and on and on. It reads badly and tells me nothing I couldn't get from a comics database. Really if someone isn't up to the job of editing and article into an out-of-universe tone then they shouldn't do it - compare Punisher (which worked) with this, Abomination (comics) and Rhino (comics). I've just done the B-class assessment - it might have been borderline before but is now a mid-C as the coverage is poor. (Emperor (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
Also I am curious about the thinking behind the change of the infobox image as we try and avoid "new for the sake of new" images. (Emperor (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC))
It is your opinion that it is really bad. What it is now is an accurate narrative that removes all that subjective point of view and fictional storytelling. This is what the articles should be. More information can be added as it becomes available (a la the supposed death, which will added once the comic is published, but not before as speculation). You can also can the snide comment about people not being up to it - all that is available is there without sourcing creator texts, which I do not have time to do. Also remember that prior to adopting this style I wrote more FCB that most anyone. Kindly direct me to the 30 + articles you have rewritten from scratch. Also remember that some of these articles feature villains, and short of expanding on the fictional stories, there's not much there as they lack the exposure of many of the heroes.
In conclusion, this is the format that seems to be emerging, and while I am happy to have others contribute to my efforts, it must be out of universe.
By the by, the supposed Ultimate image is culled as it is a small face shot that could be either mainstream or Ulitmate Carol Danvers. It also says nothing - just a shot of a female in sunglasses. What is distinctive about that? Asgardian (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Excuse me? Would you care to explain what is meant by "while I am happy to have others contribute to my efforts, it must be out of universe"? We don't do editorial dictat on Wikipedia, we don;t own articles, so I must be misunderstanding you. HidingT 10:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I am amazed by this comment - I don't necessarily feel I should have to justify myself but I have built dozens of articles from scratch and at least as many expanded straight from a basic stub to a C or a B.
I am also not the only editor to have expressed concerns about the quality of your converting articles to an out-of-universe turn - I don't know whether the choice of article has been poor (as I have seen other articles converted properly) but every one you have taken a lead on have turned out badly.
I'd also echo Hiding's concerns - we have ongoing problems with you on similar WP:OWN grounds and I had hoped these issues were left in the past but it looks like that might not be the case. (Emperor (talk) 14:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC))
No, the issue is what you said here: Yep that rewrite is really bad - I reverted it twice and while I was busy it appears it carries on. It is now pretty much "she appeared in X #y, then ...." and on and on. It reads badly and tells me nothing I couldn't get from a comics database. Really if someone isn't up to the job of editing and article into an out-of-universe tone then they shouldn't do it
Not good faith. Two other very good editors are for this style, and it is the preferred method as Wikipedia does not favour in-universe. The articles can be improved upon, but must adhere to the rules. By all means, add (no, I don't own the articles), but we need to move away from reams of in-universe detail. It is also opinion that things have turned out badly. You want to help? Source the comic creator books and add this kind of material. Asgardian (talk) 17:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not going to get into a "he started it" argument. I am simply going to point out that it ends now. The reversions, the threats, the personal attacks and the ownership issues. They all end here
and now you need to work out a way to go forwards. It is quite clear there is no consensus for the current version of the page, so I suggest you try and reach a consensus on a version of the page you can all agree to live with. If anyone's behaviour breaches policy, I will take the appropriate action. HidingT 09:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Image:Danvers2.jpg
Should Image:Danvers2.jpg be added to the article. Thoughts, opinions and consensus please. Let's see if we can resolve this without blocking editors or protecting the page. Asgardian wants it removed because it is a weak image, looking through the page history, while Phoenix741 wants it added because it shows the difference between two versions of the character. Is the article improved with teh picture, or without it. Discuss. HidingT 09:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Before we start, can I at least ask that the image stays up on the page while the discussion is going on? When images are not on any page, they tend to get deleted, and that just makes it issue null and void.-- Phoenix741(Talk Page) 14:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I am neutral, but I do recall Hiding saying he has the ability to restore deleted images, just in case such a service is needed. :) BOZ (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
If he can bring back images from the dead, then I am ok with the way it is.-- Phoenix741(Talk Page) 18:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I originally added the image because it helped show that Ultimate Carol is very different to 616 Carol. So my preferance would be to keep it. However, if it is felt that the image itself is quite weak, I can probably dig up a better one of Ultimate Carol. Planewalker Dave (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
How does it show the difference between the two? Marvel-616 Danvers has been drawn wearing sunglasses before now. It offers nothing new or insightful about the character. If there was a shot of the Ultimate version in high-tech battle gear - as she has no powers - then that would be applicable. The short of Ultimate Danvers in uniform is also weak as the Marvel-616 version has been drawn in uniform. What is needed is something distinctive and unique, a la the other images in the article. Asgardian (talk) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
616 has been in other clothes in but is she known for the other cloths. Her most iconic image is he in costume, just as well as her most iconic image in Ultimate marvel is her, with the sunglasses and the suit, or if you want to go back to ultimate Galactus, in the air force uniform.-- Phoenix741(Talk Page) 20:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
It is still not noteworthy. Asgardian (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You obviously can't grasp the issue so I'll bring in other experienced editors. Asgardian (talk) 21:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow ok, low blow there. I can grasp the issue just fine. You think that the image is not noteworthy, I think (and so did Planewalker Dave) that it is. Where am I not grasping the issue?-- Phoenix741(Talk Page) 21:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
At the moment there would be a consensus for the image to be in the article, would that be correct? HidingT 14:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks like it is a 2-1 vote to me.-- Phoenix741(Talk Page) 14:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Not really. I've sought the opinion of someone who police images and is quite good at it. I will abide by his advice. Asgardian (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on why you do not think there is currently consensus for the image to be in the article. HidingT 10:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hiding, since the bold edits have actually been to remove the image, the consensus wold have to be to make that change. If there is no consensus the status stays quo.
As for the image itself, it isn't a bad an idea... the Ultimate version of the character has a markedly different appearance from the mainline and the image does a good job of pointing that out. Though if the section were allowed to be a bit larger, the image may become redundant since a text description could be added.
Also on the note of the images... the Ultimate mugshot is actually better positioned than the other two spot image, it actually related to the text it's by. But then the 3 spots should also be the same size, the 180px range, and it would be kind of hard to justify the 1977 cover with in that striped down, disguised, appearance list only section that the article's renovator has created for the 1970s.
My understanding is that in the BRD cycle it is bold, revert, discuss. If it was bold to remove the image, the next stage would be to restore it and then for discussion to ensue. Would that be correct? HidingT 11:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That's my understanding, that the need to remove the image be discussed. Right now the image, either version that's still on the file page, has been part of the article since July 18, `07 [2]. It was removed as part of the purge of the article. The removal was reverted, and as far as I can see with good reason since the purge left 0 description of the Ultimate version of the character. Actually, all of the "Alternate versions" subsections could use a little re-inflation for context and comparison with the use and look of the character in the mainline continuity. Right now it's little more than a useless trivia section. But such a rework of the subs would likely spell out the difference in look, the image would likely be redundant at that point. And no, "Danvers has no super powers,..." is not a description of how the character is depicted. - J Greb (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Good Article?
Yeah... not anytime soon. The edit warring killed that one. Even if someone were to add commentary, analysis, and development info, the edit warring will make it an auto-fail for at least the next month or so. BOZ (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have this Marvel Masters book? I'm sure there would be a paragraph or two on the character that can be lifted. This is the kind of thing that is now needed. The creator speaking about conceptualizing a female version of Captain Marvel who became more etc etc.
Yeah, but the edit warring has to stop. Stability is a specifically-listed requirement (#5) of the GA criteria. Until that stops, you could have all your other ducks in a row and still fail.
Now, you're absolutely right on what else is needed. I wish we all had enough cash to build up a decent library of useful reliable sources, but let's just blame the economy or something. ;) In the meantime, we do have this at least, to get us started. BOZ (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Now that the article has become stable again, I think it's got a real chance. Thanks to Stoshmaster and A for getting some good text in there! BOZ (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there is some good information there, but also some POV and some flimsy terms like "shortly thereafter" etc. The FL section belongs in the PH at the end as it is indeed a legacy, but should not repeat the chronological info necessary to the 1980's. I've pulled the sentences that are merely opinion and a tad ponderous. What is needed now is some good third-party commentary such as Conway's to pad it out. Adding fan comments need to also be treated with care as that is also opinion, but can be tweaked to be presented in the right context. It's a good effort, but to be encyclopedia standard just needs to be tad (read that a tad, not a lot) more clinical. If the original FL lead sentence can be sourced so that it is all proven fact and not hearsay, then so much the better. Well, no one said creating the very best articles was easy. Asgardian (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The article is shaping up nicely, but the feminist question is once again starting to be weakened. The FL section is denuded without the discussion of the "rape" (which is now located in the 1980s history section). It should at least be broached there again. Further weakening the FL discussion is the removal of the discussion of the character's codename having the "Ms." prefix — especially given its mid-1970s historical context! Ditto the removal of the mention of "This female fights back" tagline and the fact that Carol Danvers was editor-in-chief of Woman magazine. Editors: please find a way to put that material back in! -- stoshmaster (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
The problem is that while we can all see the correlation, it is still only opinion and needs a creator-sourced fact. 124.170.101.208 (talk) 03:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
P.S. Carol Strickland's article does not celebrate writer Conway for his creation of Ms. Marvel. Rather, she sees the character as created by Conway as a dupe in the guise of a feminist. Check it out. -- stoshmaster (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Multiple Ms. Marvels?
It's come to my attention that there are (now) at least three characters that call themselves Ms. Marvel. Sure, the most predominate one is Carol Danvers, but according to author Brian Reed, as of issue #38
"It's all coming to a fatal end for Carol soon, Reed said, and by issue #38, Moonstone will not only wear the title of Ms. Marvel in Dark Avengers, but in the Ms. Marvel title too." link
That would make two Ms. Marvels. If Sharon Ventura also answers to the title, wouldn't it be time to make this article about the three Ms. Marvels? This is similar to the Batgirl article, where at least five characters calling themselves Batgirl share the article. This article also happens to be a good article as well. That's my proposition, but I'm looking forward to hearing other opinions. -- Atalk/contribs 13:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, I understand that Moonstone is a character who has had her own history, and NOT a character that immediately called herself Ms. Marvel. I'm wondering how much we should include her in this article. -- Atalk/contribs 13:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
A blurb or small subsection about Sharon should be sufficient, since she has used the name off and on. Moonstone is now using the name, and Ultragirl was using the costume if not the name. BOZ (talk) 13:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. My original inclination was to keep this article focused on Carol Danvers, but I see A's point, especially if Moonstone will soon be inheriting the Ms. Marvel mantle on a more-or-less permanent basis. If we were to follow the Batgirl lead, each person who called herself Ms. Marvel would get a smallish blurb, with a link to their main page? And then the bulk of what is currently on the Ms. Marvel page would move to a new "Carol Danvers" page? That would make sense to me. Thanks for asking! -- stoshmaster (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
This is a pretty similar case to Captain America and Green Goblin, the latter issuing being brought up here and it might be we want to address this there too (at least partially). It certainly looks worth having a set index article like Ant-Man, Spider-Woman, Captain Marvel (Marvel Comics), Marvel Boy, etc. (as opposed to a stripped down disambiguation like Marvel Girl) but the question is should this article occupy the top slot? I suspect Carol Danvers deserves the top slot as she is the main character associated with the name, but if there is any doubt then I suppose this could be moved to "Ms. Marvel (Carol Danvers)" and this article converted but it'd be a hell a lot of work to update the incoming links, so it might make sense to have a separate page like the Other Goblins one (which should be moved again) and take it from there when we see how long Moonstone stays as Ms Marvel (I'd assume not that long). (Emperor (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC))
Good point. If we do plan on turning this article into a potential GA, we'd have to realize it would primarily be Carol Danvers-based. I'm kind of wary about working on this article unless we all come to an even consensus about this. -- Atalk/contribs 20:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry about that - if we do make a Ms. Marvel set index then it won't impact the content of this article. The main issue will be what the name of this article will be (i.e. should this keep the top slot?). It might actually be worth starting Ms. Marvel (set index) and we can fine tune things later. (Emperor (talk) 02:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC))
"Danvers"? Seriously?
Carol Danvers is a fictional character, not a real person. She should be referred to by her given name, Carol. MultipleTom (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Fictional Character Bio
What happened to the entire fictional character bio section? It was long, but it shouldn't have been deleated entirely. Every article really should have a fictional character bio - check around, every high quality article has both the publication section and the fictional character bio. The two sections are not mutually exclusive. --RossF18 (talk) 03:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually if you check out the higher quality articles you'll find they don't: Superman, Captain Marvel (DC Comics), etc. What tends to happen is that as the articles go up the quality scale they expand the PH (looking at character development, changes in their backstory, etc.) and the FCB shrinks and disappears. WP:WAF says you don't write things from the fictional poin- of-view and this tends to really kick in as you progress above a B. Also long running characters have had changes, additions and retcons to their biography (not taking into account time travelling with future selves visiting their past selves, etc.) which makes it almost impossible to write a consistent in-universe character history (unless you just go with the currently approved continuity and even then you might have to do a touch of original research and speculation), even if it was desirable. With Marvel characters it is best to let the Marvel Universe try and tell a consistent story from an in-universe perspective. Hope that helps explain the general thinking behind the changes (although I didn't contribute anything major to the rewrite) (Emperor (talk) 04:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
It explains your way of thinking. I wasn't asking becuase I didn't understand why it was done, I was asking more in line with it should not disappear entirely. I have no problem with it shrinking to maybe 1 or 2 paragraphs, but if you look at an article like Storm which is a very good article, there is a fictional biography section that is done very well. I wasn't suggesting either that you would write things from a fictional point of view. It's possible to write a character biography from a objective point of view. Further, what does alternative or future timelines have to do with fictional biography section? The fictional biography, if done right, always dealt with the main universe, with the alternate realities mentioned in their own section, if at all. And I would think that if a character has had a retcon or an addition not inline with previous depictions, that would make a biography section easier to write, not harder, since we're ought not to be writing in-universe anyway and retcons are always for some reason that writers commented about, allowing for actual outside sitations. I don't think I was suggesting a blow by blow fictional biography which would make keeping the changing continuity straight more difficult. But often, as I aforementioned, retcons are done for a reason, and may actually provide an incite to the character. Also, your comment regarding Mavel seems to contradict your own point of view. You said "With Marvel characters it is best to let the Marvel Universe try and tell a consistent story from an in-universe perspective." The answer: no. It's in fact not good to write an article from an in-universe perspective. All articles should really be written from an objective out-of-universe perspective and that includes the biography section. Comic book characters are no different than any other literary characters like Sherlock Holmes (whose article is a perfect example of how not to do a biography section for a fictional character, in my opinion since it's written with almost an assumption that the person was real) and while the publication history should be the main portion of the article, the bio section has a place. Hope that helps explain the general thinking behind me having no objection to the current changes but also desire to maintain a short bio section.--RossF18 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
My use of the example of the Marvel Universe is that we can safely leave them to write a in-universe FCB if anyone wants that it is there and I agree it is not something we'd want to do.
It is worth noting that the Storm article is only a GA which is a much lower standard than the FA articles I highlight and precedent would suggest as it gets rewritten with an eye on higher quality classes then this will either disappear or change. As the Superman articles show it is possible to discuss things like the portrayal of a characters personality and/or their fictional history separate from a publication history. The thing is that this is going to be difficult to do in the context of an FCB, which almost by its very definition is in-universe. If you want to write an out-of-universe discussion of how the characters life story has been developed and changed over the years then that is definitely something worth looking at (as long as it isn't heavily covered in the PH which, when it expands, tends to discuss character development) but I suspect it might be better to aim for a different name for the section, depending on the angle you go for.
Also on the point of time traveling - this may not involve alternate realities just dealing with the main universe character at different stages in their life (the whole Iron Lad/Kang the Conqueror/Immortus situation being an extreme example of this as the in-universe coverage is really struggling to explain what happened when). Some parts of a character's biography may be told later on through time traveling which makes attempts to tell the character's life story on an in-universe timeline (which is pretty much what you will do with a FCB) is almost impossible. (Emperor (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC))
Yes, it will be difficult, but as you pointed out as far as articles such as Superman, there may not be a section called "Biography", but there are certainly sections beyond the publication section such as "comic book character," etc. As far as time traveling, it would only be a problem if we in fact provided a blow by blow account of character's life. As is, this is not what is ideal; instead there may be a brief commentary on the complexities of a character's life given that he/she was involved in multiple time travel/paradoxes (with proper sitations). Publication history is really not dealing with character development, or at least it shouldn't. It should really be more about, if we use Superman as an ideal article, creation and inspiration and just general series that the character was included in. It really is not about character development per se; the focus is really on the market saturation, creation of the character, influences, and any other publication related issues - not really about character development, although there are instances where you can't possible help including the character development in the publication section. I would argue that's not ideal though. Publication section should just be a publication section - there really shouln't be bleed through from other sections. If you read the Captain Marvel publication section, it really reads like a merger of the biography section and a publication section and if that's a FA article, then I would see no problem providing more biography type info in the publication section - which makes me suspect that whole FA rating - and if you check, it's a 2005 FA article, which I would argue is not the same as a 2009 FA article. I think the standards for FA go up as time goes on. If you compare FA Captain Marvel with FA Superman articles, there is a stark difference, with the Superman article much better (just look at the sitations: 28 versues over 160). Superman article, for example, has been reviewed in 2007 to see whether it still meets the FA requirements, which it did. I don't think that when the Captain Marvel article gets a review that it will pass again (but that's just my thoughts). If you want to call the section "comic book character" instead of the "character biography" (as is in Superman), I'd be supportive. But, perhaps we could get more input. --RossF18 (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, your earlier claim that most FA articles don't have a Fictional Character Histories is not really true: check out the the 2 other character FA articles: Batman (has section explicitly called Fictional Character Biography) and Anarky (has section called Characterization after the publication section). So, together with Superman, all three comic book character FA articles have a "biography/character" section and all three have been a more recently promoted or reevaluated as FA articles, with Captain Marvel being the only exception and hasn't been reevaluated in 4 years. So, yeah, if the main argument for not having a fictional biography section is that FA articles don't have them, that's just not true. All other FA comic book articles don't involve single characters.--RossF18 (talk) 03:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I'm the editor who primarily worked on the Anarky article towards its current condition, so I'd just like to interject my own reason for including the characterization section. It does not contain an "in-universe perspective", as though the events of the character's life are important. Indeed, they are not, because any attempt to summarize such a biography would rapidly descend into trivial minutia. Some stories for fictional characters are important, or indeed timeless. Batman witnesses his parents tragic murder. Superman is the last son of Krypton. These elements of the character are so important, they have survived countless revisions over many decades. They are so culturally significant that they have received cultural notice, and these biographical elements are at times more recognizable to people than the real lives of many historical figures. I would go so far as to speculate that more citizens of the US know where Superman comes from than were their parents were born. However, some stories are not important to the history; in fact, some history is overturned by retroactive continuity change-ups, meaning years of stories may not be important in a few days from now. The fictional biography section which used to be in the Anarky article was only there as the vestigial remains of the article before I got a hold of it, when it was largely based on the inaccurate Who's Who entries for the character. It had no citations, and said nothing of interest to a reader about how the character was created. It just provided an inaccurate summary a reader could get from any fan-shrine or blog. Once I researched the character utterly, scouring every Alan Grant and Norm Breyfogle interview I could find, I was able to piece together the character's history and the reason why certain stories were made. That quickly replaced the biography section, and rendered it redundant at best, but mostly pointless fancruft. My recent decision to include a characterization section is because I found such a section on Superman and Batman, which speak of the author's choices in how they portrayed the character. This was different from the character development stand point, found in the publication history section, because it focused on the author's portrayal of the character or notable cultural elements to the character—not the development. Take note that the vast majority of the Superman, Batman, and Anarky articles are devoted to the "whys" and "whens" of real people who's decisions shaped the characters—not to the fictional lives of the characters. In the case of Anarky, I'll provide an example. The first 1997 Anarky series is only noted for the fact that it revamped the character's costume and abilities, and the philosophy that thematically shaped the series. The actual fictional elements of the story are utterly unimportant. For this same reason the 1999 Anarky series, which was a continuation of the previous series, gets only mentioned in reference to the controversy surrounding its conclusion. What actually happened to the character in issue 2, or issue 7, doesn't matter unless someone felt it was important enough to talk about it, and no one but Grant has, and then only quickly enough to complain about editors telling him what to do. So the real-world decisions over the stories define each period in the character's history; not the stories themselves. The same conclusion will inevitably be true of Ms. Marvel and this article's composition, when the dust settles and it nears high degrees of quality.--Cast (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, Cast and I agree on the principle of having some section discussing characterisation aside from the publication section. However, I would only argue that the title of the section is secondary to what is actually in the section. Batman has the Fictional Biography section and Anarky has the Characterization section but both of the sections really contain what Cast is talking about, namely "the author's choices in how they portrayed the character", which as Cast points out is "different from the character development stand point, found in the publication history section." I don't think Batman has both the fictional history and characterization sections (Batman has the fictional history section), since I think they are one in the same. I'd agree now with Cast that character development may be shown in publication history section (I said otherwise in my previous posts, so I'll amend my opinion now to agree with Cast). However, I get the feeling we're arguing over semantics of what to call a section that we all agree should be there and we all agree what it should contain. If calling the section Characterization would be more accurate in people's minds than Fictional Biography, no problem. I'd agree that the majority of the article should be devoted to the "whys" and "whens" of real people who's decisions shaped the characters and not to the fictional lives of the characters. That has been a given I think in all my posts. But I just think that given Ms. Marvel's over 40 year history and things found in FA quality articles, there should be a section beyond the Publication section that deals with, to again repeat Cast's point, "the author's choices in how they portrayed the character." Then, perhaps we should actually put an effort in actually having a subsection in the publication history section or a more defined character development focusing on "the author's portrayal of the character or notable cultural elements to the character." So to sum up, I think we can at least agree that there should be more than just a publication history if we want this article to improve to an FA standard down the line. I realize that it'll be a lot of work and I don't think I'd be presumptious enough to take up the challenge all by myself. I was just concerned by the wholesale deleation of a large porition of the article without discussion for how to improve it beyond just expending the publication section.--RossF18 (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think my previous comment was so verbose, my point was lost. I repeated a lot of subjects we are not in disagreement over so that I could be comprehensively understood by others who will look upon our discussion down the road, and wonder why the article was composed as it will be in the future. Let me get to the heart of the matter here. I do not believe the "characterization" section on the Anarky article is anything comparable to a "Fictional biography". It doesn't even have element of the character's past in it. It is strictly focused on comments made by the creators in why they chose to characterize Anarky the way they did. There is a sub-section for it labeled "alternative versions", which has a bullet list of stories which are a bit more focused on fictional bio elements, but the point is to display how they contrast with the original incarnation. A similar section in this article would focus on why Carol Danvers was portrayed a certain why during the 60s, then a different way during the 80s, and again a different way today, and then have an "alternate versions" sub-section to compare this to "Marvel What If" type stories. I admit I know little of the character, but I imagine an editor could find interviews with current writers, commenting on why they've chosen to portray her as they do today. This would have nothing to do with fictional elements. And thus, it is possible to have a "Fictional character bio" and a "characterization" section. The Batman article currently does. But yes, we agree that it is desirable to include elements of Ms. Marvel's fictional history in this article, where that history is commented upon. I have included such information in the "publication history" section of Anarky, always backed up with commentary by the authors. Further, there may be other articles related to notable storylines in Ms. Marvel's history which can receive their own articles. In a sense then, Ms. Marvel's fictional history would then become an article unto itself, or a series of such articles. Anarky currently has two sub-articles for the character's ongoing series, and trade paperback. These invariably include summaries of the storylines, and so pick up the slack in explaining the fictional character history where the main Anarky article does not. I've noticed that Ms. Marvel has a very prominent storyline regarding her impregnation (or "rape") which I would assume has warranted enough third-party commentary to deserve its own article, which would include the story summary that would explain the fictional character history. That could be a good starting off point. Researching into reviews for the character's mini-series, associated trade paperbacks, or graphic novel appearances, can reveal other notable story lines which deserve articles as well.--Cast (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand and agree. However, at the same time I guess I'm a bit confused as to the clear distinction one would make between the sections and what an FA article would benefit from. Batman, as you rightly say, has all three sections: Publication History, Character History, and Characterization and it's an FA article with sections not really mutually exclusive. Superman has a Publication section and something entitled Comic book character section, that seems to be close to characterization section and provides a link to Character History article. Anarky only has a Publication History and Characterization section. All this means to me is that all three sections should be included or at least there is a place for all three sections, with at least Publication History and Characterization sections needing to be included to get an article up to a FA quality and then perhaps a place for the Biography section (up to a certain length, of course, and then if a biography section becomes too long, it should be given it's own page). That still leaves, at least in my mind, a need to have a clear consensus as to what each section should contain with as little bleed through as possible. Publication History seems pretty clear as far as what goes there, but when you then get to the distinction between Fictional Biography and Characterization, especially after reading the Batman page, well, it's less clear as to what goes where. While I think we can agree that both the Publication History and Characterization sections ought to be included, what do we then do about the Fictional Biography section as found in Batman and Superman articles (with Superman having the link to the history section). If we are clear as to what characterization section should have and we're clear about what the publication history section should have and we both acknowledge the fact that Publication History often does absorb a poorely written blow by blow (often with no citations) biography section, then what do we make of the apparent distinction between Publication history and Biography sections that both Batman and Superman seem to make. I guess I'm asking is whether we can somehow have some clear definitions as to what the Publication History section should have, what the Biography section should have, and then what the Characterization section should have. And of course that's all given our desire to emulate FA articles of Batman and Superman, if that's something desirable or not. --RossF18 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
Where things fall down here right off the bat is that the FCB is poorly written and almost totally in-universe with large amounts of POV. This is not good, and as such it is only suitable for a fan site. As it stands, it can't be inserted. Asgardian (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that has been established since post one. Please see the date on which the discussion was started and then check the status of the article on that date. Whoever added back the FCB was not paying attention and was an unregistered poster, I think. --RossF18 (talk) 01:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it me or does the Publication history reads more and more like a Fictional Bio in disguise.--RossF18 (talk) 04:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't. See the above mentioned points. Asgardian (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Part of what happens with the rewriting is that some of the story ends up the PH, which is why the FCB becomes redundant. If it didn't you'd just end up with "and then they appeared in X, and then Y" and one and on (and there are articles like that). There is no problem with mentioning plot (although WP:PLOT means it should never be over-detailed), the problem is with it being written and presented in an in-universe manner. Reduce the plot and make it out-of-universe and it all integrates with the PH.
Also worth noting that, while a characterisation section could be of interest, there is little point in adding an empty section with a request for expansion. Either make a start on the content and then start the section or wait for someone else to do it. (Emperor (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC))
Given that I was one of the main participants in the discussion, I find it odd that you'd suggest that I "see the above mentioned points." I'll take on good faith, otherwise, it's a little condesending. I think Asgardian needs to read the above discussion more carefully. It's well acknowledged that publication section will acquire some storyline and biography aspects; as it stands however, a publication section shouldn't read like a biography section - instead it should read like a Publication Section found in FA articles. Publication Section is not a merger between Fictional Bio and new decade headings. If we were going to do just a straight merger of section, we should have just left Bio section alone. If you read the FA comic articles, you'll find that Publication Section is more about the development of the character, not the bio of the character throughout the decades. That was the main point of the discussion above - the fact that FA articles sometimes have all three sections (Pub., Bio, and Characterization) and often at least two, and having too much bio in a Publication section that is supposed to deal with development is odd, at the very least.--RossF18 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm specifically referring to the passage below that's uncited:
Carol is revealed to have returned to Earth — courtesy of Immortus' technology after Marcus continued to age and die of old age — but is attacked by the mutant Rogue, who permanently absorbs the character's abilities and memories. Carol's memories are later restored by the character Professor X, and an angry confrontation with the Avengers concerning their apathy follows.
And read the 2000s section. It's nothing but what happens to Denver in a very fictional bio type of language.--RossF18 (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Fictional character biography
Early years
Carol Danvers was born in Boston, Massachusetts to Joseph and Marie Danvers and has two brothers, Steven and Joseph, Jr. (Joe). Steven died in the Vietnam War. Years later, while Rogue was in possession of Danvers' memories, Danvers would visit the Vietnam Memorial, apologizing to him for not being able to visit recently.[1]
When Danvers was a young girl, she hitchhiked to Cape Canaveral to see a shuttle launch. Her father "beat the tar out of her," but she never stopped wanting to fly.[2] Since her father didn't want her to go to college, Danvers instead joined the United States Air Force to fulfill her love of flying. She was a pilot who later became an Air Force intelligence operative. She later became the NASA security chief.[3] She served alongside her mentor/lover Michael Rossi and encountered Wolverine, Nick Fury, and Ben Grimm during this time. She became a close ally and romantic interest to Captain Marvel (Mar-Vell), an alien of the Kree military who gave up his mission of conquering the Earth and instead chose to protect it.
Solo Series
[[:Image:Msmarvel1.jpg|Cover to Ms. Marvel #1. Art by John Romita.|thumb|left|200px]]
Carol Danvers becomes Ms. Marvel after she is caught in the radiation emitted by the explosion of the Kree "Psyche-Magnitron" device. Being carried in Captain Marvel's arms as he rushes her from the cave containing the Psyche-Magnitron, the radiation washes through both their bodies, somehow imbuing Carol with powers similar to Captain Marvel's.[4] The device alters her DNA to resemble that of the Kree, and in the process, she gains superhuman strength and durability, the ability to fly, the ability to instantly change to her costume and back, and a precognitive "seventh sense" that provides her with a feeling of what is immediately about to happen (for example, when a foe is about to attack her).
At first Ms. Marvel's strength and flight are enabled by circuitry built into the costume, however an overload to the circuitry during battle soon transfers the powers to Ms. Marvel permanently, and the "powers through circuitry created by radiation" explanation has never been mentioned since.
Her first costume is based directly on Mar-Vell's second costume, a red outfit with blue mask, gloves and boots, though with her legs and belly bare, and a long red scarf around her neck; this costume has appeared on numerous "Worst Of" comic book related lists as the Worst Female Superhero Costume Ever. Her later, more prominently featured costume is a blue ensemble with a stylized lightning bolt across the chest, along with a red sash around her waist.
At first not aware of being Ms. Marvel, Danvers experiences blackouts, during which she transforms into her Ms. Marvel alter-ego. Soon Danvers and Ms. Marvel learn of each other and merge into one mind. Danvers becomes editor of Woman Magazine under J. Jonah Jameson and considers dating her psychologist, Michael Burnett. She fights a number of villains as Ms. Marvel, including Deathbird, MODOK, A.I.M., and the Scorpion.
Mystique
Near the end of her original ongoing series, Ms. Marvel is targeted by a blue skinned shapeshifter named Mystique. In the final issue of the series, Ms. Marvel's therapist and would-be love interest is murdered by Mystique. In the unpublished Ms. Marvel #s 24 and 25, it is revealed that Mystique seeks Danvers' death due to the predictions of Mystique's precognitive lesbian lover Destiny that Carol will destroy Mystique's adopted daughter Rogue.
Avengers
During the Avengers' Korvac Saga, the team is kidnapped by the Collector and used as part of his personal army to defeat the cosmic powered Michael Korvac. Ms Marvel aids the Avengers during this battle, and afterwards, when the team's government handler, Henry Peter Gyrich, orders an overhaul of its roster lineup, Ms. Marvel is granted full-time membership with the Avengers.
Marcus and rape
Her time on the team would be short-lived, as one day Ms. Marvel woke to find herself pregnant after blacking out while piloting a Quinjet. The original plan was for the pregnancy, of which Ms. Marvel soon found herself ready to give birth after only a couple of days of being pregnant, was for Ms. Marvel to have been kidnapped and used for Skrull breeding experiments, in order to create a new race of beings similar to the Supreme Intelligence. But editor-in-chief Jim Shooter vetoed the storyline, citing that a similar storyline (conceived without series writer David Michelinie's knowledge) in the pages of What If? (#20, "What if the Avengers Lost the Kree-Skrull War"?) had already done the plotline of a baby version of the Supreme Intelligence and refused to allow Michelenie to continue with the storyline.
So Avengers #200 was rewritten, to feature a new ending to the storyline and to send Ms. Marvel out of the series, since Michelinie no longer wanted to use her since his planned storyline for the character was vetoed. Danvers' baby was a healthy black haired boy, who quickly grew to adulthood as the barriers between the past and future within New York City began to collapse, bringing dinosaurs, medieval knights, and futuristic technology into the city. The child, calling himself Marcus, revealed that he was the forgotten son of Immortus, stranded in Limbo due to him being born in the alternate dimension. He had kidnapped Carol and over the course of several days and use of hypnotic suggestion based powers, romanced Carol into making love to him via a series of romantic themed scenarios based upon pre-French Revolution Paris. Carol ultimately consented and in the act of passion, Carol became pregnant with a child who was Marcus, having transferred his mind and life essence inside of Danvers' womb, then returning her home to give birth to Marcus, freeing him from Limbo.
By this point though, Marcus realized that his presence inside the timestream was the true cause of the onslaught of temporal anomalies threatening Earth. Creating a device to send himself back to Limbo, Carol shocked her teammates with her proclamation to join Marcus, having suddenly fallen madly in love with the man. Despite her teammate Hawkeye's strong objections towards this move, the Avengers stood back as Carol and Marcus left Earth.
The story itself became a lightning rod of controversy, with many fans believing that Danvers' relationship with Marcus amounted to rape. Feminist and devoted comic book historian Carol A. Strickland harshly criticized the Marcus storyline, with an essay titled "The Rape of Ms. Marvel", that appeared in comics fanzineLoC #1 (1981).[5]
Similarly, Chris Claremont, writer of the solo title, saw the relationship as rape via mind control,[6]. He felt compelled to rectify the storyline.
In Avengers Annual #10, the character's next appearance, Danvers lashed out at her teammates over their decision to take her at her word that she had fallen in love with Marcus. Danvers proclaimed that not only had Marcus used hypnotic powers to make her have sex with him, but also used said power to force her to leave Earth and spend the rest of her life with her rapist. Ironically, Carol reveals that Marcus's scheme to escape Limbo ultimately proved fatal towards him, as his new body rapidly began to age once the two returned to Limbo, killing him and reducing his remains to dust. Only when Marcus died, did Carol regain her own free will, as the realization of what Marcus did to her (forcing her to have sex with him) and how the Avengers had fallen for his lies and manipulation of her, allowing him to effectively kidnap Carol for future defilement at his hands.
Loss of powers to Rogue
In Avengers Annual #10 (1981), Ms. Marvel is found by Spider-Woman, floating in the water below the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, California. Carol is literally mindless, having had her mind wiped clean by parties unknown. It is ultimately revealed that Carol was assaulted by the mutant Rogue, who ambushed her and used her ability to absorb others super-powers via physical contact to permanently steal Danvers' powers and memories.
Spider-Woman contacts the X-Men who try to reverse the damage done to Carol by Rogue. Ironically, Rogue's attack has failed to erase Danvers' subconscious, which allows Xavier to completely restore Danvers' memories and personality, though he is unable to restore Danvers' emotional connection to most of her memories.
Along with Mystique, Rogue with her newly stolen powers attacks the Avengers as part of a complex scheme to bust their teammates in the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants out of jail. The jailbreak ultimately fails, though Rogue escapes capture in the end. When the Avengers hear that Carol has returned to Earth, they visit their friend, now staying with the X-Men, to ask why she did not contact the Avengers about returning. When Thor asks about Marcus, Carol unloads her anger at the Avengers over their doing nothing to stop her kidnapping and rape.
Binary and the X-Men
[[:Image:Uncanny164.jpg|150px|thumb|left|Cover to Uncanny X-Men #164, Danvers' first appearance as Binary. Art by Dave Cockrum.]]
Danvers stays away from the Avengers for quite some time and engages in a series of adventures with the X-Men.
Her adventures with the X-Men culminate in the entire team’s forced transportation to outer space by the alien race known as the Brood. The Brood perform painful medical experiments on Danvers which cause her to gain tremendous superpowers, including superhuman strength and the abilities to survive in space and manipulate cosmic energy. The source of these powers is attributed to a "white hole" — a limitless source of cosmic power.
Danvers is known as Binary. In her cosmic energy form, her hair becomes a corona of flame and she dons a red-and-white costume with a stylized black starburst on the breast.
The "second Ms. Marvel"
[[:Image:RogueVs Warbird.jpg|225px|thumb|Rogue vs. the Ms. Marvel Entity. Cover to Uncanny X-Men #269. Art by Jim Lee.]]
As for Rogue, at first she unashamedly indulged in the use of her stolen powers, showing zero remorse for what she had done to Ms. Marvel. However, as weeks passed, the stolen memories of Carol Danvers began to manifest themselves, ultimately taking the form of a new personality that usurped Rogue's body from the young mutant for its own use. This caused Rogue to have a nervous breakdown, ultimately driving her to the X-Men for help with her growing insanity. Professor Xavier agreed to take Rogue in, much to the horror of Carol, who responded by beating Rogue up and leaving Earth to join the Starjammers.
This alternate personality version of Ms Marvel made her first appearance in Uncanny X-Men #182, when it took over Rogue's body and saved Ms. Marvel's former boyfriend Mike Rossi from Hellfire Club agents that Rossi had discovered infiltrating SHIELD. She took Rossi to the Danvers family beach house to recover, and experienced memories of her childhood with her brothers. When Rossi woke up, he saw Rogue, with Carol's voice and mannerisms. He denounced Rogue, who fled the house in shame. After another appearance in Uncanny X-Men #203, the personality was given the spotlight in Uncanny X-Men #235-238, when the Ms Marvel persona took over Rogue's body again when a powerless Rogue was molested by Genosha Magistrates. Teaming up with Wolverine, it was revealed that this "phantom" Carol had all of the real Danvers' memories, including memories of past adventures with Wolverine, citing a caper where Wolverine broke ranks with his government handlers to rescue Carol from KGB operatives in Berlin. In Uncanny X-Men #239, it was shown that "Phantom" Carol could completely control Rogue's power (a feat Rogue is still incapable of achieving); it was also established that, having fully emerged within Rogue's mind, Carol was not to be easily dismissed, and was capable of asserting control over Rogue's body without her consent.
In Uncanny X-Men #246-247, "Phantom" Carol obtained a copy of her old costume which she intended to force Rogue to wear during a visit to New York City, to visit the Vietnam Memorial which had her brother's name inscribed onto it. The visit was cut short when the villainous Sentinel Master Mold returned and began wreaking havoc in the city. Phantom Carol attacked Master Mold but was quickly knocked unconscious after several blows from the giant robot, allowing Rogue to regain control over her body. As the X-Men arrived to help stop the robot, Rogue ultimately sacrificed herself to banish the robot through the mystical gateway known as the Siege Perilous.
Rogue's travels through the Siege Perilous would differ from most: she would not exit the realm of the Siege Perilous until Uncanny X-Men #269, with both her and "Phantom" Carol having their memories intact; more significantly, the two were now separate physical beings. "Phantom" Carol retained her Ms. Marvel powers while Rogue lacked both Carol's and her own powers; Carol also harbored her desire to finally gain revenge against Rogue by killing her. When Rogue fled to the mutant teleporter Gateway, he sent the two women to opposite corners of the Earth, Rogue to the Savage Land and "Phantom" Carol to Muir Island, where the Shadow King took control over her mind and sent her to kill Rogue. At this point, "Phantom" Carol was now a decaying zombie type figure, as it was revealed that both women were sharing the same life force, which could only sustain one of them. Shadow King had weakened Carol, causing the life force (and powers) to go to Rogue. Rogue would have died if not for the intervention of Magneto. Through unknown means, Magneto killed "Phantom" Carol, ensuring that Rogue would receive her life force and powers, securing her survival.
Warbird
Eventually, Danvers' Binary powers were exhausted when she used them to cleanse the sun of sunspots that threatened to destroy the solar system during Operation Galactic Storm. As such, she loses her cosmic-level powers as Binary. She retains a level of superhuman strength, flight, resistance to injury, and enhanced senses comparable to those she once possessed before her battle with Rogue, as well as the power to manipulate and absorb energy. Though initially staying in retirement on Earth, Carol rejoins the Avengers following the events of Avengers V3 #1-4 and changes her code name to Warbird, while donning her second Ms. Marvel costume. She does not use the codename Ms. Marvel because, during her absence from Earth superhero work, Sharon Ventura, a member of the Fantastic Four, has assumed the name.
Insecurity about her powers no longer being what they once were, combined with a brief restoration of the emotional ties that Rogue had drained, cause Carol to become an alcoholic. When she is unable to function in a coherent capacity, a humiliated Danvers quits the Avengers rather than be expelled. With the help of fellow alcoholic Tony Stark, Danvers curbs her drinking and stabilizes her powers. She rejoins the Avengers for a few missions but leaves again in 2003 to work for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
When Quicksilver convinces his sister Scarlet Witch to create a new world where mutants are the dominant species on Earth, most normal humans are viewed as second-class citizens with some exceptions. Danvers is one of these but still becomes the "greatest hero" on this Earth, going by the name "Captain Marvel" which is given to her by Magneto after she helps him defeat the Sentinels over Manhattan. She even has her own archnemesis, Sir Warren Traveler and is an ex-member of S.H.I.E.L.D.[7]
When the world reverts, Danvers retains her memories and is motivated by the realization of her potential, and she concentrates on reinvigorating her career. Danvers retakes the name Ms. Marvel and strikes out on her own, turning down an offer to join the reformed Avengers and leaving her Homeland Security job. Danvers hires a public relations firm. She has a rematch with the Brood and meets a mysterious alien hunter named Cru.[8]
Ms. Marvel joins forces with the New Avengers during the New Avengers/Transformers crossover. Because of her Kree nature, her anger is amplified as a result of the aggression machine that Megatron stole.
Ms. Marvel joins the faction of superheroes aligned with Iron Man in enforcing the Superhuman Registration Act.[9] She battles fellow Avenger Silverclaw.[10] Danvers then works with Wonder Man and Arachne (Julia Carpenter, formerly Spider-Woman II) to train novice superheroes and hunt down anti-Registration heroes. Her first recruit is Araña.
Arachne is revealed to be acting against the Superhuman Registration Act, which results in Carol arresting her. Carol believes she has done the right thing but is upset by the trauma the incident causes Arachne's daughter.[11] Araña is later critically injured while attempting to help Carol against Doomsday Man, as he rips off the carapace which becomes part of her body when she is in battle.[12] Araña recovers, but her father takes out a restraining order against Carol.
Later, Arachne escapes and confronts Carol about the whereabouts of her daughter. Carol tells Julia her daughter was left at the Carpenter family home with her parents. When Julia tells her the house is empty, Carol reluctantly uses her government connections to help Julia track down her daughter. Determined to make things right, she helps Julia visit and ultimately reclaim her daughter from Julia's parents, who have legal custody of the child and, in the aftermath of Julia's property-damaging arrest, regard Julia as a dangerous criminal who is unfit to be a mother. Carol and Tony Stark work out an agreement in which Julia will serve her time in government service by joining the Canadian superhero team Omega Flight. Julia agrees, although she says she can neither forget nor forgive what Carol did to her and her daughter.
Shortly following the arrest of Julia Carpenter, Carol returns home to find Rogue in her apartment. Rogue informs Carol there's a problem between them, and that they're going to solve it.
The problem is the discovery of another woman in Danvers' apartment, whom Beast deduces to be an alternate-Earth Carol Danvers. The alternate Carol, named Warbird, earlier attacked Rogue.[13]
Warbird, who has never fully recovered from her battle with her Earth's Rogue, is an embittered alcoholic. When the Avengers send out a call for assistance during the Brood's assault, she ignores it and, consequently, her Earth is destroyed. A combination of the shockwave released by the planet's destruction and her own energy absorption powers tosses Warbird across several universes before bringing her to the "real" Earth.
Upon learning of Warbird's behavior, Carol does not hide her rage and disgust, and a fight between the two ensues. During the course of the battle, Rogue intervenes; in a fit of anger Carol attacks her and breaks her ribs. Warbird tells Carol that since her world was destroyed, she has been to dozens of alternate Earths, and not only did she kill every version of Rogue she has found, she has murdered every version of Carol Danvers as well (each Carol would intervene on Rogue's behalf). Infuriated, Carol defeats Warbird, who is taken into custody.
Carol later returns to the Xavier Institute to check on Rogue, and questions whether she has truly forgiven her. After the ordeal, Carol flies into space where she can unleash her rage in a place that "nobody can hear her scream."
Mighty Avengers
Carol accompanies Tony Stark as he investigates an A.I.M. terrorist attack in Indianapolis that killed ninety-six people, and the two argue over the Civil War. Carol punches Tony, knowing his armor will protect him. She is surprised when he later offers her leadership of the Mighty Avengers. Danvers' publicist, who had suggested the new team name to Tony in the first place, encourages her to accept the job. Carol is tempted by the chance of leading such a prominent team, but is disturbed by the number of smaller attacks that go unanswered due to bureaucratic red tape. Tony agrees to allow her access to S.H.I.E.L.D. files and personnel (Agents Locke, Baines, and Sum) in order to take out developing threats. Carol announces the Initiative (Operation: Lightning Storm) at a press conference, announcing that in their first mission, they took down the A.I.M. cell responsible for the Indianapolis attack.[14]
Carol assumes leadership of the Mighty Avengers, despite her reluctance to work against some of her old comrades who are members of the New Avengers. Carol was forced to take the lead very quickly due to the Ultron crisis, which her team came through successfully.[15][16]
Carol and Wonder Man have begun a romantic relationship. He has warned her, however, not to use her position as leader of the Avengers to keep him out of potentially dangerous situations just because of their relationship.[16] Although she remains on the side of registration, Carol is more prepared to 'look the other way' when dealing with non-registered heroes than some of her fellows; after Doctor Strange's Sanctum Sanctorum was attacked by The Hood and his crime syndicate, seeking revenge on the New Avengers for their recent defeat, Carol and her Operation: Lightning Storm team were sent to collect the criminals that Strange had immobilized, but she allowed the New Avengers to depart.[17] She also becomes a mentor towards Initiative recruit Ultra Girl, even giving Ultra Girl a new costume similar to her original one.[volume & issue needed]
When the Puppet Master kidnaps Araña and some other female heroes, Carol's rage is pushed to the limit. Araña tries to warn the members of Lightning Storm that this is the angriest she has ever seen Carol and is worried about what she's going to do. Carol doesn't kill the Puppet Master herself, but she lets him die. This act causes her to feel guilty for some time and question just how heroic she really is.[18]
Carol temporarily shared her body, unknowingly, with the Brood hunter Cru. Cru's influence over her body caused injuries to heal more rapidly than they should. Carol discovered Cru's presence after being taken to Monster Island. Cru deactivated her powers so he could talk to Carol Danvers rather than Ms. Marvel. This backfired when they were forced to fight the Brood Queen, who was thought to have been killed in the destruction of Broodworld, but was revealed to be both alive and transformed into living crystal. The Queen easily defeated and apparently killed the powerless Carol. However, she was quickly resurrected, with full access to her cosmic level powers. This was only temporary, but she still managed to defeat the Queen.[19]
In the time before the events of Secret Invasion, but after the events of One More Day, an angry Carol attempts to arrest Spider-Man for his refusal to register, however they team up to save New York. Spider-Man leaves Carol a message, telling her that while he sees her point, the dangers that registering will bring to his loved ones prevent him from ever doing so. She calms down until the message reveals that Spider-Man plans to boast that he scored with her, making Carol furious all over again and attempt to track him down once more. An amused Peter Parker looks up at the sky, seeing an enraged Carol flying around screaming for him.[20]
Secret Invasion
Ms. Marvel enters Secret Invasion with the Mighty Avengers, after a Skrull Tansport crashes in the Savage Land. She attempts to persuade Luke Cage to allow her team to deal with the situation when Iron Man's armor becomes infected with a Skrull virus. She tries to get his armor off, when an army of 1970's heroes emerge from the Skrull ship, containing the Phoenix, Iron Man, Captain America, and a version of herself, when she first took up the Ms. Marvel title. She flies Iron Man to the Mutate Citedel when a battle erupts from the heroes on the transport, and both avengers teams. Tony tells her to go to New York and take care of the situation there, while he rebuilds his armor. When she arrives, she battles Skrulls along with Colonel Nick Fury and his Secret Warriors. After she battles with the newly formed team, Fury shoots her, and she lands in the middle of a battalion of Skrulls. She fights of the Skrulls, and saves as many civilians as she can. Once she kills of another battalion of Skrulls that shape-shifted into humans, she takes out a Giant-Skrull that earlier took out Cassie Lang. She heads over to The Raft, where she suspects Skrulls to be attacking guards, and a S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent tells her that all the Skrulls ran away from an even more terryfing Super-Skrull. She beats the Skrull to deathwhere she noticed a tatoo that says "HYDRA PRIME 001". She later goes into Central Park when she witnesses Janet van Dyne's death. She takes off to the sky with Iron Man, Thor, and Noh Varr to take out Skrull transports. When Iron Man releases the replaced heroes on a Skrull ship, Jessica Drew asks her what she did wrong (without knowing that she was the face of the Invasion), to which Carol replies "No one knows what to think...". Carol flies Luke Cage to Avengers Tower, to follow Jessica Jones, where it was revealed that the Jarvis that was there took the Cage's daughter.
Dark Reign
Carol joins the New Avengers, after she refuesed to join Norman Osborn's Dark Avengers, and helps locate Danielle Cage. When Luke recovers her daughter, he beats up Bullseye and Venom with Wrecker's crowbar, and Carol takes Jessica and her daughter to Bucky's house.
Incorrect statements in place of alleged speculation is equally wrong. Danvers didn't "reappear" in Avengers title so much as she never left. She apparently died in Ms.Marvel but other writers didn't want to follow suit, apparently. This fact, that the other writers didn't want to follow her death in Ms. Marvel, should be noted in the Publication History style, not a Biography style. By saying that Denvers reappeared or something similar, that's very "Biographical" in nature as opposed to saying that the writers choose for keep her alive in other books. --RossF18 (talk) 11:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, we don't know that the writers chose to keep her alive, or if the stories take place in a time where she has yet to die, or if she was supposedly dead but in hiding, or what. 67.175.176.178 (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Due to the realities of publishing, comics don't appear on the stands in chronological order. The order is something that we realise after the fact. If Carol (please stop referring to the character as the grammatically incorrect "Danvers") continues to appear in New Avengers in six months' time without having been revived in her own title, then maybe that would be significant. But as it stands, one does not yet contradict the other. (Likewise Spider-Man continued to wear his black suit in New Avengers for a while after he switched back to the traditional colours in Amazing Spider-Man. Wasn't 'in defiance' of ASM, they were just published 'out of order'.) MultipleTom (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Her last name is Danvers - what's ungrammatical about refering to a character by the last name as opposed to the first name? And don't argue that she's a fictional character so we should use her first name. There is no such rule as far as I'm aware, and if you have a citation, please refer to it - learn something new if you have a source. My point, however, is that we don't refer to Sherlock Holmes as Sherlcock or any other character that is known by both the first and last name. At the very least, there is no reason to get offended or frustrated to the extent that you seem to be getting. After all, you haven't cited anything. And as far as Spider-Man's suit, I don't remember what issue, but that issue was specifically mentioned by the editor in of the other editions - namely that the storyline is taking place before the Brand New Day. Besides, with Spider-Man it was easier to determine given that color changes and the fact that in one story, no-one remembered who he was and in the other, everyone still did. With Danvers, she just died, and kept appearing as if nothing happened - so, while I don't dispute your point, I just don't think the 2 situations are analogous. Regardless, the point is moot given Ms. Marvel's recent re-appearance in Ms.Marvel - but another point is brought up regarding did those stories in Avengers take place after she came back from death, or before. --RossF18 (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Any English teacher will tell you that in writing biographical information, real people should be referred to by their last name while fictional people should be referred to by their given name (which, in every comic featuring this character I've ever read, was either Carol or Ms Marvel). MultipleTom (talk) 15:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Sadly, I don't really have an English teacher handy like you do and Danvers is an army officer and was a part of SHIELD so she would in fact have been referred to as Danvers many times as US military doesn't refer to their soldiers by first name basis and even if Ms. Marvel is fictional, the comic books featuring her would approximate what she would be called in real life, namely Danvers. The fact that her friends call her Carol doesn't matter and neither does the fact that every comic book you read, she's referred to Carol or Ms. Marvel - which in itself is impossible since we wouldn't even know her last name otherwise. I'm more than willing to be educated on the proper use of fictional character names, but you have done nothing to prove to me that you're correct besides repeating that you are correct and telling me to find some random English teacher (sorry I don't have one in my closet) and a google search proved fruitless.--RossF18 (talk) 17:36, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Murder by Magneto and Undescribed Resurrection
A clarification is needed. At the end of the 1980s subsection of the Publication history, it says:
However as the two battled, they each discovered there was not enough lifeforce between them to allow them both to exist. Just as the Ms. Marvel persona was on the verge of killing Rogue, Magneto intervened and destroyed her, saving Rogue's life.
Then, the 1990s subsection opens with this:
The character continued to make sporadic appearances....
Someone needs to provide the explanation for how she either didn't die, or returned from the dead. Nightscream (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
When did this occur?
I believe that the explosion of the Kree device that melded Mar-vell's genes with Carol's occurred during the Silver Age run of Captain Marvel, and have altered the 1960's subsection to reflect that. However, I haven't yet found in my run of CMs where this occurred, so I'm backing out the changes until I can cite the issue.
Anyone know in what book it occurred? TIA Dmforcier (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, I see someone beat me to reverting it - as redundant. If as I believe the event occurred in the Silver Age, my edit is NOT redundant - it just isn't complete, as a ref and a change to the following subsection are also required. Dmforcier (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Forgive my hasty edit as that information was already listed under 1970s. To answer your question the explosion that caused Danvers transformation occurred in Captain Marvel vol. 1, #18 (November 1969) however it seems that she does not appear with superpowers until Ms. Marvel vol. 1, #1 (January 1977) and she herself is not made aware that she is Ms. Marvel until Ms. Marvel vol. 1, #2 (February 1977).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the citation. I hadn't gotten to #18 yet (nor to Ms. Marvel #1). You are correct - she wasn't aware of it. (Makes you wonder if it was originally plotted.)
In the edit I was also going for the fact that Carol was more significant in the Silver Age universe than this time-line leads one to believe - appearing in nearly every CM book. Thus becoming Ms. Marvel makes a lot more sense. When I resubmit the edit I'll address your concerns. Dmforcier (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Ms. Marvel → Carol Danvers – I realize this move has been discussed (and denied) before, but new changes that start today affect this decision. She is now going by Captain Marvel, so that will be added to the list of multiple codenames (Ms. Marvel, Binary, and Warbird) she has gone under. New readers who start reading her new comic will want to look her up, so it would make more sense to call the article "Carol Danvers" instead of "Ms. Marvel" to avoid confusing them. Also, this move would make the article's name very similar to other articles about characters with multiple codenames: Eddie Brock, Mac Gargan, Anya Corazon, etc. Spidey104 14:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. Ms. Marvel is the character's most recognizable name. She has yet to assume the Captain Marvel identity and Binary and Warbird were short lived aliases.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. The link to her from the Captain Marval DAB page is enough for now, I think. Anyone searching for Carol Danvers will still find exactly what he or she wants. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - It's always dicey to use an essay to trump policy. WP:TITLE is policy, and yes WikiProject Comics has a guideline (WP:NCC), but that is to fine tune the policy. And reading through WP:RF, it does not advocate weighting articles to the "current" or to a small target audience. It's a reminder that this encyclopedia is aimed at a wide, general audience. The article should be written to avoid jargon or confusing grammar so that the widest possible part of that audience can understand it. As far as this article goes, Ms. Marvel fits the "common name" for the topic. And as for NCC, we may need to revisit that since we do have articles that fall into 3 categories - characters with multiple costumed identities, but only one that predominantly used (this character or DC's Captain Marvel); characters with multiple costumed identities where the "prominant" one is contentious (Dick Grayson or Wally West); and bloddy messes (Eddie Brock). - J Greb (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
