User talk:JAHollander

Rogue

How do you propose to state, accurately, what is show in the Sentry one-shot, without a long exposition of unnecessary text to follow it? 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I could argue that if not explaining, it presents a misleading/incorrect image, then the exposition is not unnecessary. But, as I state on your talk page to Cameron Scott (Not you?): Several points:

1- This part of the article shows Rogue's chronological 616 history. The fact that this scene does not fit 616 canon makes it debatable whether this should even be here.

2- To state that this issue says Rogue and Sentry had a 'relationship' is pure speculation in and off itself. No one in the issue says they had a relationship. All Rogue says is that she hugged him, then we see Cyclops say some half-finished insinuating remarks about an off-panel conversation. Rogue is the only one that knows what happened and so we can only go by her dialogue, so the only thing that is 100% certain and correct is that it was revealed she hugged him at least once. 'Relationship' is just speculative. More happened? Maybe it was a one-night stand? Maybe they just made out? Maybe Sentry got a drunken BJ? No 'relationship' but it would all fit the scene. So this current phrasing is conjecture.

3- If this is to be included, then dozens of other scenes that are not included now (some of which contradict each other) should be added as well. There are dozens, if not hundreds of moments of Rogue's life that are omitted in this article. (Which you clearly have no issue with) Rogue had a flirtation with Longshot once. That's not here. She made out with Colossus once. That's not here. She dated a robot made by Mystique once. That's not here. I could go on and on. If we are to be consistent, all of those things should be added, which I'm sure you'll agree is not a good idea. These articles are not supposed to be a transcription of the characters' every single appearance/mention ever.

Especially in light of the last point, let me suggest we remove the whole 'Post Siege' paragraph then. There is nothing lost by that. Neither the X-Men nor Rogue played any part in the event as it is and it's 616 status is highly dubious. There is no reason to include this. 'For completion's sake' is obviously not an argument. If all those other things can be left out, there is no reason this has to be included.

ADDED NOTE: Half of the 'Publication history' section at the top of this page consists of pointing out inconsistencies between issues that describe her past. That is exactly what I did in this paragraph. Why is it not an issue there then? It has no more or less place there. And isn't this page supposed to be informative about the character's history? Pointing out inconsistencies simply by mentioning content of issues and where they clash, is not 'original research', it is simply what this page is supposed to do: be correct and informative, and mention the sources. -JAHollander (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)