text:
Talk:Rashid Minhas

Untitled
I want to let it be known that I have tried to discuss both sides to this interesting tale. I hope that people on both sides can learn from it

??? bit of a cryptic message above t ali 28/01/06

Ragib Undo
Ragib, your insistence is illogical and therefore I have removed your edit. Following are the reasons. Please do not undo without logically responding to each:

1. As I had indicated earlier, it is irrelevant to mention a difference of opinion between PAF and BAF about the incident, since that's speculation from both organization. Let's stick to the facts only. 2. There was no BAF at the time of this incident, nor was BAF a party to the incident, so the mention of BAF's opinion is completely irrelevant. 3. You gave your reference of BAF, but the link is to the History of BAF, not about Rashid Minhas. Therefore, it needed to be removed. IrfanMajeed (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Irfan Majeed, August 31, 2009, 10:39AM.

Please don't waste everyone's time by insisting on "your way", without sound logic. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IrfanMajeed (talk • contribs) 14:36, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Edits
I changed "War with India" to Bangladesh Liberation War, as the war with India didn't officially start until December 3. What caused the plane to crash is not known with certainty to this day. Speculations range from a struggle between the two officers, to friendly fire by Indian forces. So, I reworded the "Minhas realized that ..." part adding the note about that. Thanks. --Ragib 06:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Reply to Ragib: How could the plane be shot down by Indian forces if it was found 40km from the Indian border? That possibility can be safely ruled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dargay (talk • contribs)
 * Comment, remember, India and Pakistan were at (unofficial) war at that time. --Ragib 01:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Ragib: The plane wreckage was 40km inside Pakistani territory, that means it was not shot down during any "unofficial" war. Among speculation the theory of struggle between the two men is more plausible.

Ragib reverted my edit (Cisguy)... "What caused the plane to crash is not known with certainty to this day." OK. that was a real cowardly act by MutiurRahman, a treator, who kidnapped a young boy of 21. You cannot justify this and it is a fact that Rashid Minhas himself crashed the plane.. His last words are recorded (You can find it on google) in which he said he is taking the plane down. :struggle between the two officers" it was not a struggle, one was chloroformed and the other was a kid. Be Real and see the fact and revert my old edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cisguy (talk • contribs)

 * Thanks for your message. Who is a traitor, and who is a hero, depends on what side you are in. There hasn't been *any* proof that Minhas crashed the plane. If you quote a Pakistani patriotic source, it is also possible to quote a Bangladeshi patriotic source that makes Minhas look like a villain. I don't say so, and both of these persons were equally patriotic, and victims of a meanlingless war of a Military junta against its own people. Both of them are heroes in their own right, and keeping things neutral is the best thing we could do for their memories. Thanks. --Ragib 03:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

 * OK. You are right. I was a bit overambitious. But I really admire your last sentence of that being a military war against its own junta. I still consider Bangalis as my brothers and always will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.159.112.63 (talk • contribs)

 * Thanks. 1971 was a tragedy, because Bengalis did opt for a unified homeland in 1947. But I guess the liberation of Bangladesh was inevitable. Anyway, I really feel sad about Minhas, considering his age, and equally sad for Matiur Rahman, a father of two young girls. Both of them are heroes. Thanks. --Ragib 03:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Ragib if you wanted to be neutral, you should not have replaced "war with India" to "Bangladesh Libertion War". A fairest label would be "Pakistani Civil War of 1971". "Bangladesh Libertion War" makes it sound like West Pakistan was an imperial occupier, while in fact it was a civil war. I request that you make that change to be fair. Thanks - Irfan Butt  4:11PM, 24 October, 2006.

 * Well, the war is more commonly, and also officially known as "Bangladesh Liberation War". Thank you. --Ragib 20:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the page slightly by removing the sentence "either rehman crasehed the plane" because no one has ever made this claim, not even the bangladesh govt.PAF's official version says that Minhas crashed the plane. Other versions either uphold this view or say that the plane crashed due to the struggle between the two pilots.--Shahin-e-Iqbal

The Plane was brought down "with a cause not known". . . are we stupid here? Why else would the damn plane come down? Mechanical failure on a serviced T-33 trainer that just took off? Friendly fire from India 40 miles INLAND from the border. The author of this is some piece of shit that can't come to grips with the fact that the pilot in a valiant act of courage took the plane down. I don't care what country you are from, being from neither, I recognize and respect valor when it is displayed. Get a grip, get the facts straight and use some common sense. The pilot, at age 21, downed the plane himself, which of course had no bearing on the eventual separation of the two nations, but still took the plane down HIMSELF! "cause not known" please lets stop the bullshit there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.133.98 (talk • contribs)

 * If you are done with your rant, then please come up with some references from neutral 3rd party reliable sources which shows conclusive evidence related to the crash. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 19:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Hey Ragib, dont bite offense, but it seems that you are a little bit biased when it comes to the 1971 war, or Pakistan. I hope you are aware of the way bias and incivility are dealt with on Wikipedia, List of policies. Shayanshaukat (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Image
The image has been re-tagged as fair use because of the non comercial nature of its display.

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --09:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a joke
The plane did not crash by itself, Minhaas turned the direction of the plane towards the ground. This is a known fact and taught in Pakistan's textbooks everywhere. If the facts are changed or portrayed in a way that doesn't correctly display the bravado of a pakistani pilot just because he is a Pakistani, wikipedia is not NEUTRAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.202.16 (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Pakistani textbooks are hardly a neutral source for info about this incident. Wikipedia is also not the place to "display the bravado" of anyone, rather the place for verifiable facts. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 06:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Its claimed by Pakistani sources that he informed the control tower that he would be crashing the plane. This the official account by PAF. The actual cause of the crash cannot be proved, therefore i've included a more neutral note which says the cause of the crash is unknown, but its claimed by Paistanis that Minhas crashed it himself. Please don't remove this note, if you do, you will not be being neutral, you will be clearly acting defiantly towards Pakistan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.202.16 (talk) 03:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * I have kept your change, but just removed the speculation part. I.e. the cause of the crash is unknown. --Ragib (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * It isn't speculation, the goal of Wikipedia is to provide COMPLETE information which often includes the story from both sides. Providing complete information while making it clear that it is the view of one side only is better than providing incomplete or inconsistent information. I'm including my last note, if you want to remove it again please involve an admin or a 3rd party to mediate this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.202.16 (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Alright, let's see a citation for "Pakistani sources claim that ....". Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a link for the official account of PAF:
 * http://www.paf.gov.pk/Airwarriors.htm

 * If the site doesn't load (gave me a refresh error a few times) try this link:
 * http://web.archive.org/web/20080116111514/http://www.paf.gov.pk/Airwarriors.htm

 * I'm not aware of the procedure of adding a citation so please do it yourself if it has to be done. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.112.236 (talk) 04:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Alright, while the original site you linked to is not working, I saw from the archive copy that the claim is present there. So, I've added that claim, and also a related reference. --Ragib (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we worked out a solution, the content we have now is truly neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.112.236 (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

 * One suggestion though, the text you have now says: "Pakistani Air Force's website claims that...". This sounds confusing because it appears to say that ONLY the PAF website makes this claim. A better choice of words may be "Sources from Pakistan claim that..". Many other links to support this statement can be found just by a google search.

 * I agree Shayanshaukat (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

 * But "Sources in Pakistan" is extremely vague. Who are these "sources"? It is much better to be as precise as we can. --Ragib (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

 * You are right, I shall get back to you in a couple of days with some reliable references. Shayanshaukat (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

While celebrated as a hero in Pakistan, Minhas is viewed negatively in Bangladesh because of
I removed this line because Minhas is unknown in BD ( not only unknown, he is completely unknown in Bangladesh ). Welcome to search this among BD friends if u have around.

Shahadat?
This should be changed as it is biased and not understandable. Further, it is mentioned that Minhas proved himself 'on and off the battlefield'. I do not see any reference for 'on battlefield'. The language of this article, again, is unfairly biased towards so called gallantry of Rashid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarChaser (talk • contribs) 12:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Did Minhas "Crash" the plane?
I am requesting references from reliable sources backing this claim. Per my request, TopGun has added the following. I claim that the following are not at all reliable sources for such an important claim:

 * http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/pakistan/kamra.htm - really?? This is just a copy paste from Pakistan Airforce's webpage . The "author" of this page is definitely NOT John Pike as TopGun claims ... either Pike plagiarized the piece or this is a user submitted content. In any case, this is not an independent reference, rather a copy of Pakistan Airforce's version of the event.

 * http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/country-by-country/pakistan.htm And the source of this page's text? None other than "Members of www.pakdef.info", a Pakistani defence related forum.

 * http://www.pakistanarmy.gov.pk/awpreview/TextContent.aspx?pId=176 ??? A Pakistani Government website cannot be expected to provide an objective history for the event

 * http://www.samaa.tv/newsdetail.aspx?ID=35569&CID=1 Another case of plagiarism, this time a Pakistani newspaper simply copypasted a "story" from Pakdef.info - a Pakistani defence forum, which itself plagiarizes the text from Pakistan Army's website mentioned above.

So, we need objective and neutral sources (and NOT Pakistan Airforce's version of the event) that supports the claim about the crash. With utmost respect to Pilot officer Minhas, I request that either neutral and WP:RS sources are provided about the event. At any rate, we need to make it NPOV by providing other theories about the cause of the crash. BTW, even none of the non RS sources support the claim about Minhas carrying "state secrets". --Ragib (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Ok, let me start by clarifying that primary sources can present information about themselves. So the link of Pak airforce website is correctly placed and is not serving the purpose alone and is a confirmation. The global security website has been used many times to site Indian claims as well. The website doesn't automatically become a non reliable source if it re-publishes content from a non reliable source. It infact gives its own reliability to it. Same goes for samaa.tv. You are assuming plagiarism on your own here while the sources have published the content. Samaa.tv for instance is a mainstream media source. You can certainly not claim it to be a non neutral source. The same way... a website publishing Pakistan Airforce's version doesn't become a primary source until it is quoting it as their version. When published by a third party, this becomes reliable. Actually that's what WP:RS says. -- lTopGunl (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I have to say your logic is convoluted here. I just showed that the globalsecurity webpage you linked to is not an independent one, rather it is a page which plagiarized content from Pakistan Army's website without any attribution. It does not matter who else cites it ... (e.g., "Indian claims"). All your sources actually boil down to Pakistan Army/Airforce's website. It is quite a stretch to say that a few websites plagiarizing content from Pakistan Army's website make it a RS! Saama TV can be a mainstream news source in Pakistan, but I just demonstrated that rather than publishing anything independently, their reporter also just copy pasted from Pakdef.info, which is deemed a non-RS source (and you know it, per your comment in your talk page, right?).

 * Now, about the reference from Pakistan Army's website. I'm not saying that you can't use it here, but then you have to use qualifiers to show where the "crash" claims come from. Please take a look above in this talk page. The issue was raised before and other Pakistani editors have in the past added the official Pakistan Army/AF version of the event. As I stated before, you need to qualify the statement as "According to Pakistan Airforce" or according to "Pakistan Government sources". Otherwise, the information becomes a POV statement. --Ragib (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:RS says any content that is published by a third party is a reliable source. Saying that now it is plagiarism is a fallacy. Saama TV, itself being a reliable source, published the content and since I don't see it being sued I assume it has the permission of Pakistan Army/AF or Pakdef to publish it without attribution. In anycase, you can not say a reliable source is plagiarizing when it republishes content from a non-RS. The content is not being cited to Pakdef rather the reliable sources. Before we continue... do you have an opposing claim or are you just disputing the current one? -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Would you please sound logical here? Samaa TV demonstrably plagiarized content. A copy-pasting of content by another party doesn't make it a third party source. That makes it a mirror. It is not a discussion of the primary source ... rather a blatant copyvio of the primary source. Whether Pakistan Army sues SAmaa tv for plagiarizing its website is moot. But copypasting it as "news" doesn't make it a third party source either. (even if they have permission, this type of verbatim copying makes it a mirror only). Also, information sourced originally to Pakdef won't magically become reliable if they are repeated by an otherwise trustworthy source. --Ragib (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is per Published. When content is published by a third party (even in the same form) it is treated as a third party source. This might simply be similar to you first publishing a blog on your own domain and then submitting it to a main stream source which publishes it. This actually does make that work published even though we have a mirror dating prior to the third party publication. I've also added more references. -- lTopGunl (talk) 08:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Does the plagiarized content of Samaa tv meet any of the RS or TP requirements? To put this in context: (1) a POV source (Pakistan Airforce publishes some content (2) Several sources such as Globalsecurity and Samaa tv plagiarize the text and produce it verbatim sans any attribution and (3) you now claim the information is backed by "reliable third party sources" such as Samaa TV and GlobalSecurity! No part of Published covers such an outrageous claim. Also, this proves Samaa TV and Globalsecurity (at least the page on GS) can't be considered independent sources in this context, since the are merely reproducing content plagiarized from the Primary source, rather than citing it. And I have already pointed out that Pakdef.info is NOT a reliable source (as you admitted earlier), and hence other sources citing that forum can't be deemed as RS for this. --Ragib (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Publishing of content in a reliable source makes it notable and reliable regardless of it's previous position as I explained above. I'm not basing my argument on pakdef but on samaa tv and other sources which I added. -- lTopGunl (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Once again, plagiarism of a POV content shows how "Reputable" Samaa TV's website is. :) Except for the Tribune article (which I haven't checked yet), all other links you added are demonstrably non-RS or POV text plagiarized from Pakistan Airforce's website. --Ragib (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll also add further sources later.. but do not revert yet. Per WP:NEWSORG, news sources can be taken as reliable for factual statements. Just to state further, you don't even have an opposing claim here. Republishing content does not affect a site's reputability. -- lTopGunl (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * Once again, what newsorg? Do you claim that a website that plagiarizes content sans any attribution is a "reputable" one? In any case, the samaa tv site merely "republished" (i.e. plagiarized) Pakistan Airforce's webpage on this. It was NOT a report from Samaa tv, rather a report from Pak AF that is found in the linked page on Samaa Tv. Therefore, the qualifier is correct. --Ragib (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * And I don't need an opposing view to question the accuracy of a statement per WP:V. Since the there is no independent investigation of what caused the crash, how do we possibly know what or who caused the plane to crash? I'm not saying Minhas did it or did not do it, rather I'm pointing out that in the absence of an investigation of the event, the claim of Minhas' role in the crash is merely speculation. (i.e. effort by Pak AF to showcase the heroism of one of its pilots). --Ragib (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

 * PS, you might want to read WP:NEWSORG since you mention it above. "Some stories are republished or passed along by multiple news organizations. This is especially true for wire services such as the AP. Each single story must only count as being one source." Even if you sugarcoat the plagiarism as "republishing", that is a single source (PAkAF/Army) rather than multiple sources. --Ragib (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well your terming the republishing as plagiarizing is incorrect. You may not term a publication in a main stream media source as plagiarism on your own which amounts to WP:OR. About your quotation from WP:NEWSORG, I've read that and that applies to publications in multiple news sources. And even if we taken them to be a single source... here we count the third party source which is publishing the content as fact. I don't agree with your view of absence of an investigation. As such PAF was the only authority that could investigate the event. In all cases the authority that investigates an event is the one having jurisdiction over it. This was duely done and this has been published by third parties. That makes it reliable. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That is exactly my point ... the information originates from PAF, and hence there is no problem using the qualifier as such. Stating that as fact is incorrect since PAF has a vested interest in glorifying Minhas' role in the incident. --Ragib (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Since we do not have disputing claims, this is a non contentious matter and does not need such. Also, we have reliable sources confirming these claims not by quoting PAF but by publishing such on their own accord. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The globalsecurity website lends its own authority to information that it republishes from other sources. However, the claim that Minhas deliberately crashed his jet is very thinly supported. The story is too easily seen as nationalistic and hopeful rather than neutral and accurate. Minhas could very well have crashed by accident; no proof of his intention is described in the reports. He did not radio to his base to say something like "I will now die for my country and take the traitor with me!" He could have been continuing the struggle to regain control at the moment of the crash. Binksternet (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You have a point that those details are not known or mentioned in the reports, but then again.. we are not debating on those details but just on whether he crashed it or not. The sources says he did and the content is referenced. I think this needs to be left on the reader to decide whether he believes. I've been explaining the same to Ragib that when republished content is not in quoted form.. the publisher lends its own authority to it. -- lTopGunl (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't we follow WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and say that Pakistan has always put forward one version of the story, which is that Minhas crashed on purpose?
 * Why does the article have nothing about the immediate investigation of the crash site by Wing Commander Cecil Chaudhry? Chaudhry determined that the canopy had come off prior to crashing, that Rahman had been blown out of the jet before it crashed, and that Minhas died at the controls while he was strapped into his seat, with the jet hitting the ground nose first. Chaudry's investigation was unable to determine which man jettisoned the canopy as both seats had controls to do this. Chaudry says that Rahman was probably not strapped in, and that he was sucked out of the cockpit, or he fell out, when the canopy was jettisoned. At that point, if Minhas had been able to regain control he could have lived. It is likely that the jet was too far out of control by that time, too close to the ground. Chaudry guessed that Minhas jettisoned the canopy, not Rahman. Chaudry guessed that Minhas crashed after the canopy was gone because of the low altitude and perhaps because he strongly countered a final control movement from Rahman, but with Rahman gone the counter force was also gone. Binksternet (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * About the attribution of POV, as you told Ragib that this is further published by third party sources. This can be stated as a fact per WP:NEWSORG. I appreciate you pulling out the intermediate investigation which seems pretty much notable. I think there's a simple solution to this. The investigation by Cecil gets to have its own section and there all the investigation related details can be mentioned along with the fact that it is not the version put forward officially by PAF and other sources. Do you have any sources for the investigation you provided? -- lTopGunl (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * My reading of NEWSORG does not lead me to believe that the various fairly weak sources give the Minhas crash story an absolute foundation of truth, only that they tell a national and politically motivated story of heroism. We should first present the externally provable facts, then allow the heroism story to be presented as the official Pakistan story, with attribution. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we have the samaa tv and the global security to give the external/third party proof and I don't think the sources are weak. Also, if you have a source for Cecil's investigation it would be reasonable to create a section for that investigation. -- lTopGunl (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You know, NEWSORG works against the multiple references saying the same thing. I went through the article and removed the repeated cites along with the dead and non-working ones. I removed the youtube video because it is a docudrama, not an accurate report. I added the Yawar A. Mazhar version of what Cecil Chaudhry said to him. I removed a bunch of fluff that was fact challenged and not cited. Binksternet (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The youtube video was ridiculous! It said that Rahman hit Minhas with a wrench or spanner in the head to knock him unconscious, and that he chloroformed him. No other source says this kind of stuff. It appears to be somebody's idea of extra tension or plot device. Two thumbs down. Binksternet (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I like the current version by Binksternet ... this clearly provides the facts without nationalistic fluff and PAF propaganda. And I'm all for including Cecil Chaudhury's investigation report. The youtube drama can't be used as a reference as it is completely non-RS (anyone can make up a muffled audio and upload to Youtube. The authenticity of the audio cannot be ascertained). --Ragib (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

We do, however, need a RS ref for the crash investigation by Cecil Chaudhury. Right now, the reference provided is from Pakdef, and it has been deemed a non-RS source by consensus. --Ragib (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, the Pakdef version is being given kind of priority over the official version here. Also the only sourced story of his death is about him forcing the plane to crash which should be stated as a fact. -- lTopGunl (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 * The "unreliable" !votes at the RSN threads were about the website being self-published and too promotional of Pakistani views. The author I used, Yawar A. Mazhar is one that has had his articles published by other journals such Fliegerrevue Extra in Germany, in this case an article about "F-104 Starfighter im Kampfeinsatz bei der pakistanischen Luftwaffe" ("F-104 Starfighter in combat at the Pakistan Air Force"). This gives his work added credibility. Mazhar's article is not at all promotional of Pakistan; it is instead a self-examination. Also, the commentary from Mazhar is not so extraordinary that it requires extraordinary sourcing. He does not, for instance, say that Minhas survived and became a secret spy for Pakistan! He just gives extra details about the well-known crash, ones that are not in the obviously celebratory and vague award citation. I don't see the Mazhar material being presented in my version as anything but a minor viewpoint augmenting the major viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 13:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The point I'm making here is, the majority (and official/investigated) POV that the plane was 'crashed by Minhas should be stated along with the description of the incident instead of the end and as a fact (even if attributed). -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The official citation is already quoted, that Minhas crashed the jet on purpose. We all can see that the official citation pretends to be omniscient in that it assumes that it is possible to know whether Minhas crashed on purpose or not. Of course, it is not possible to know this, unless you could tap the last few thoughts of Minhas, which is impossible. So the official story is clearly conjecture, not fact. Why emphasize it? Ah, to promote Pakistan. We don't have to do that here. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That is the majority view... That is why it is needed to be stated as fact... along with any other possibilities which should be put in appropriate weight. I don't think stating majority view as a fact is promotion. I'm not here to promote anything... this is what the sources say. Just to point out there are many incidents where much of the information is kept classified. I don't see a source saying that full recording of RT was released by PAF... however the investigation concludes as such, which is the undisputed version I'll say other than another intermediate investigation which is added right after it. -- lTopGunl (talk) 14:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fact? No, national myth. There is no information about the aircraft's navigation or signals that lend any kind of credence to the notion that Minhas "without hesitation ...tried to regain control of his aircraft... [then] forced the aircraft to crash". First, the citation describes the men struggling for control. This is confirmed in Chaudhry's account as told to Mazhar: villagers in the flight path witnessed the aircraft flying erratically at a low altitude, leading to the conclusion that the men were fighting over the controls. But after that there is nothing else of a concrete nature that can lead anyone to know whether the aircraft crashed during the struggle for control or after a particular moment when Minhas decided to force the crash. There would be no difference between these two scenarios in terms of navigation data or signals. Even with today's more sophisticated methods it would be extremely difficult to determine, maybe impossible, but in 1971 it was absolutely impossible. The official award citation was written to have a positive propaganda effect on the living, not as a factual account for technical persons. It stands as the official myth or legend, not the official accident report. Unfortunately, the accident report is not publicly available. So, the majority view cannot be stated as fact, because it claims to know the impossible. The award citation serves as its own worst enemy by making shit up; what it should have said was that Minhas tried to wrest control from Rahman in "the highest traditions of the Pakistan Air Force" to prevent him from taking jet, then aircraft crashed, killing them both. That is all that is known as fact. It could even say that Minhas jettisoned the canopy to try and stop Rahman, but that the loss of the canopy either wounded Minhas, damaged the vertical rudder of the jet, or caused some sort of aerodynamic instability leading to a crash. There is no doubt that Minhas worked very hard to prevent Rahman from taking the jet! The citation could focus solely on that fact, but it does not. Instead, it takes us on the impossible journey into Minhas's brain where we are witness to a decision to crash on purpose. No, no. The award citation is not a reliable source for the technical aspects of the crash. Binksternet (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It is possible for PAF to have a complete (classified) RT record, which makes clear the intentions, to base the report on (which is a possibility like the ones you were stating). But wait... I'm not arguing the real world facts such as this here that you explain. This does not necessarily have to be added as a simple fact... rather attributed to PAF. Other incident articles are doing it this way.. stating the majority view (attributed) and then other sources' views. Here we're simply adding the description of the incident in an unrelated form and then later adding citations. Actually the current version shows no views of how the crash happened until after it is fully described. My argument is on the sources. Yes, you say that the report does not have technical details... but then again, I don't think that is followed in any other news reports. Also, I've not stated that the wording used here should be promotional. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to know Minhas's intentions. Classified or public, no report can tell us this. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If you did not get the abbreviation RT, it was referring to radio transmissions which can have such information... but that was not the point... the point is the article currently implies there are no majority views on how the plane crashed and later reads a citation from PAF and an investigation. Since this is going no where.. I'll come up with a suggested rephrase here and see if you agree. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is widely reported that Minhas's last known words to the outside world were to the control tower to say that he was being hijacked, a signal which he repeated. That's it. We cannot base our interpretation on supposed subsequent radio transmissions that nobody knows about. Don't you think that if Minhas radioed that he was going to kill himself and Rahman that this specific transmission would be reproduced for the public with great fanfare, to help build the legend? Of course it would. Common sense tells us that there is no secret transmission indicating Minhas's decision to crash instead of save the aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Taking me wrong again.. I'm not even debating on that possibility... it was an example (correct or not) of real world facts like ones you were stating because we cant know any of them. Ok, I'll kill this debate and add a rephrase here in time. Let's see if you understand my point then. -- lTopGunl (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you imply that you now agree to the "According to PAF" attribution I had originally asked for? As Binksternet mentions, the PAF version is full of nationalistic propaganda and hero-worship that is almost impossible. So, even though it is a majority (in Pakistan) view propagated by PAF (and blindly repeated by textbooks and Pakistani news media), it is in essence an impossibility when looked at objectively. --Ragib (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Section break
Here's what I mean:
 * "Minhas struggled physically to wrest control from Rahman; each man tried to overpower the other through the mechanically linked flight controls. Per Minhas's Pakistan military citation for the Nishan-E-Haider, without hesitation, he forced the aircraft to crash in order to prevent Rahman from taking the jet to India. Some 32 miles (51 km) from the Indian border, the jet crashed near Thatta. Both men were killed."

This is more in order than the current version. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How do we know all these? The only source is the NeH citation, which is more likely written as propaganda. Also, you should put the claim stated in the NeH citation in quotes ... that is not fact, rather a claim. So, you need to write "Minhas' Pakistan military citation for Nishan-E-Haider claims that Minhas crashed the plane ....". As Binkster states above, there is no way PAF can come to that conclusion since there is no physical evidence for any part of that sentence. (how on earth, for example, do we know Minhas didn't hesitate? That type of propaganda language belongs to PAF citations, and to mention it in Wikipedia, you need qualifiers and quotations to properly attribute this). --Ragib (talk) 08:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Without hesitation
I'm sorry that my recent edit to the article mistakenly connected the phrase "without hesitation" to the act of crashing the plane on purpose. The official NeH citation says that Minhas "without hesitation" fought to take control from Rahman. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rashid Minhas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120611011403/http://www.samaa.tv/newsdetail.aspx?ID=35569&CID=1 to http://www.samaa.tv/newsdetail.aspx?ID=35569&CID=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rashid Minhas


text:
Talk:Matiur Rahman

I want to let it be known that I have tried to discuss both sides to this interesting tale. I hope that people on both sides can learn from it.

More About Birsrestha Matiur Rahman can be found at:

http://www.bangladesh-association.com/Matiur/

http://www.bangladesh-association.com/Matiur/BirSresthaMatiurRahman.jpg

http://www.pakdef.info/forum/showthread.php?t=5946

I do not consider Mati -ur rehman to be a Hero.Hero's do not Hijack the planes !What do you call another guy hijacking BAF plane to India in future ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohail2506 (talk • contribs)

 * Well, that's your POV. In 1971, in the eye of Pakistan Army, the Mukti Bahini and other forces fighting for the independence of Bangladesh were just insurgents, separatists etc. Similarly, to the eye of the British, George Washington was a rebel leader. But to the Bangladeshis, Matiur is a hero, and similarly to the Americans, George Washington is one of the founding fathers of the nation. Try to look into the issue with colorblind eyes. Thanks. --Ragib 17:00, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That is same at one nation's Terrorist is another nation's Freedom fighter !But greater recognition only those get who have consensus from all nations.Mati-ur Rehman could have fled on feet or otherwise,hijacking a plane met his fate,as it was a criminal offense,and could have been tried under Court Martial.Even now a court martial in absentia be tried and punished after 35 years stripping him of his rank and service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sohail2506 (talk • contribs) --Ragib 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * As I said, that is your POV. Matiur Rahman wanted freedom for his own nation. By the way, the plane Rahman hijacked was as much East Pakistan's as was West's, and most likely it was bought with the large revenue earned from East Pakistan, since EP earned the majority of export earnings anyway. --Ragib 19:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Matiur Rahman


text:
Madelyne Pryor

Madelyne Jennifer "Maddie" Pryor is a character in American comic books published by Marvel Comics. Created by writer Chris Claremont and artist Paul Smith, the character first appeared in Uncanny X-Men #168 (April 1983). Primarily featured off-and-on as an antagonist of the X-Men, Madelyne Pryor is the ex-love-interest and first wife of Cyclops, a clone of Jean Grey, and the mother of Cable. She was a long-standing member of the X-Men supporting cast until a series of traumas eventually led to her being manipulated into being a supervillain known as the Goblin Queen.

Madelyne was voiced by Jennifer Hale in X-Men '97, a sequel series to X-Men: The Animated Series.

Publication history
Madelyne Pryor was introduced during the acclaimed 1983 Uncanny X-Men run that saw long-time writer Chris Claremont pair with artist Paul Smith for a series of issues that would see the look-alike of Jean Grey marry the retired X-Men leader Cyclops (Scott Summers). She first appeared in Uncanny X-Men #168 (April 1983). Multiple retcons in her publication history and that of Jean have particularly complicated her biography.

Madelyne's hairstyle design was modeled on that of Louise Simonson, the book's editor (at the time) then known as Louise Jones —a design retained on the character until 1988. Claremont named the character after Steeleye Span singer Maddy Prior. Claremont had already created a character named "Maddy Pryor", a little girl that appeared very briefly in Avengers Annual #10 (1981), and has no in-story connections to the X-Men character. Claremont, nonetheless, years later took an opportunity to indulge in an in-joke: in Uncanny X-Men #238 (1988), a similar child would appear as Madelyne's mental image of herself, wearing the same clothes as the little girl from The Avengers Annual #10, repeating the girl's same line of dialogue, but also singing "Gone to America", one of Steeleye Span's biggest hits.

According to Claremont, the original link between Madelyne and Jean was entirely the product of Mastermind. Seeking revenge against the X-Men after Mastermind was driven insane, Mastermind's powers of illusion to convince the X-Men that Madelyne is the Phoenix—a cosmic threat—in an attempt to have the team kill her. Mastermind's plan fails, and Madelyne and Cyclops are married shortly after. Claremont had conceived Madelyne as a device to write Cyclops out of the X-Men and have retire "happily ever after" with Madelyne and their child.

The story became more complicated in 1986 when moves by the editors and other writers to reunite the original X-Men, for the new title X-Factor, resulted in Jean's resurrection and Scott leaving his wife and son. This deeply compromised Cyclops's character and left little room for Madelyne, and Cyclops's actions then—and towards even Jean much later—have been controversial ever since. Marvel avoided addressing these problems, instead resorting to a deus ex machina, in the 1989 Inferno crossover (co-scripted by Simonson with Claremont), in which Madelyne is retconned to be a clone of Jean created by Mister Sinister to produce a child with Cyclops, and corrupted by her anger and demonic influence as the Goblin Queen, leading to her elimination and into an object of damnatio memoriae (and "nonperson" status) for several years.

Asked about his intended plans for Madelyne's character, Claremont said: "The original Madelyne storyline was that, at its simplest level, she was that one in a million shot that just happened to look like Jean Grey [a.k.a. the first Phoenix]! And the relationship was summed up by the moment when Scott says: 'Are you Jean?' And she punches him! That was in Uncanny X-Men #174. Because her whole desire was to be deeply loved for herself not to be loved as the evocation of her boyfriend's dead romantic lover and sweetheart.

I mean, it's a classical theme. You can go back to a whole host of 1930s films, 1940s, Hitchcock films—but it all got invalidated by the resurrection of Jean Grey in X-Factor #1. The original plotline was that Scott marries Madelyne, they have their child, they go off to Alaska, he goes to work for his grandparents, he retires from the X-Men. He's a reserve member. He's available for emergencies. He comes back on special occasions, for special fights, but he has a life. He has grown up. He has grown out of the monastery; he is in the real world now. He has a child. He has maybe more than one child. It's a metaphor for us all. We all grow up. We all move on.

Scott was going to move on. Jean was dead get on with your life. And it was close to a happy ending. They lived happily ever after, and it was to create the impression that maybe if you came back in ten years, other X-Men would have grown up and out, too. Would Kitty stay with the team forever? Would Nightcrawler? Would any of them? Because that way we could evolve them into new directions, we could bring in new characters. There would be an ongoing sense of renewal, and growth and change in a positive sense.

Then, unfortunately, Jean was resurrected, Scott dumps his wife and kid and goes back to the old girlfriend. So it not only destroys Scott's character as a hero and as a decent human being it creates an untenable structural situation: what do we do with Madelyne and the kid? ... So ultimately the resolution was: turn her into the Goblin Queen and kill her off."

The character was brought back in 1995 as a supporting character in X-Man, a marginal X-Men related title. Though by 2001 and along with the cancellation of the X-Man title, this became a false start at reviving the character, as Pryor would again cease being featured in any Marvel titles, except when Chris Claremont included the character in his non-canon limited-series, X-Men: The End (2004-2006).

In 2008, the 25th anniversary of the character's debut in Uncanny X-Men, the character was brought back in the flagship X-Men title for the first time since the 1989 Inferno storyline. But the following year and the 20th anniversary since Inferno, she was removed completely again, and would not be featured in another story until 2014–25 years since Inferno—in a single issue of the secondary title, X-Men (vol. 4), and was also included in a flashback story by Claremont included in a 2014 X-Men 50th-anniversary one-shot titled X-Men: Gold (unrelated to a 2017 monthly also titled X-Men Gold).

Pryor was again absent for an extended time until featured in another flashback story also by Claremont, included in the one-shot X-Men: The Exterminated in 2018–35 years since her debut. She was subsequently brought back as a recurring character, first in Hellions from 2020 to 2022, and then New Mutants in 2022. Immediately following this, Pryor was featured as a main character in the crossover storyline Dark Web, a combined sequel to both Inferno and a recent Spider-Man storyline, Beyond. Released from 2022 to the following year, its 2023 conclusion—the 40th anniversary of the debut of Madelyne Pryor—featured the character granted the most significant change and elevation to her status quo by Marvel since 1989.

Whirlwind romance
Madelyne Pryor was a cargo pilot in Anchorage, Alaska working for Scott Summers's grandparents when she and Scott meet during a Summers family reunion. A romantic relationship quickly begins between them, however, Scott is disturbed at her striking resemblance to Jean Grey. Also, she was the sole survivor of an airplane crash that occurred the same day Jean died on the moon. In addition, Professor X is unable to telepathically scan her mind, noting it's a rare immunity that does exist even in normal human brains. Scott, still recovering from Jean's death, becomes obsessed with the idea that Madelyne is Jean's reincarnation, eventually confronting her with these suspicions. Madelyne, furious and hurt, punches Scott and runs from the latter. As soon as she is alone, she's abducted by Mastermind who had been manipulating the X-Men for months as revenge by having Madelyne appear as the Phoenix. Storm summons a violent storm which defeats Mastermind and nearly kills Madelyne, but Scott resuscitates her. After the conflict, Scott comes to terms with the fact that Jean is dead and that Madelyne is someone else, and that Scott loves her all the same. The two are married, and Scott retires from active duty with the X-Men.

Anodyne
Scott giving up the life of an adventurer for Madelyne proves harder than imagined. Early in Madelyne and Scott's marriage, they (along with Alpha Flight and the rest of the X-Men) are taken to an abandoned city by the Asgardian trickster-god Loki. Entirely for his own purposes, Loki bestows mystical powers on a small group of non-powered humans, including Madelyne, transforming her into a healer of virtually any injury, illness, psychological issue, or physical defect. She adopts the name Anodyne and cures Scott's childhood head injury, enabling Scott to control the optic blasts without the use of ruby-quartz lenses. She also removes Aurora's DID and Wolverine's berserker rage. When it is discovered that Loki's gifts are extremely flawed and fatal to some, everyone assembled reject the gift. Madelyne and the other beneficiaries are reverted to the original states, as are all those who had been healed by Madelyne. During this adventure, Madelyne reveals that she is pregnant.

Abandonment
Going into premature labor, Madelyne gives birth to Nathan Summers alone in the X-Mansion. Sensing a reluctance on Scott's part to retire to family life, the powerless Storm challenges Scott to a duel for leadership of the team, which Storm wins. This in effect forces Scott to accept the role as a husband and father.

Although Scott tries to live a normal family life in Alaska, he often thinks of Jean and of life with the X-Men. Maddie tries her best to make Scott happy, but her efforts seem wasted. Finally Scott receives a call from former teammate Angel that Jean has been found alive. Without explanation, Scott abandons Madelyne and Nathan to reunite with Jean, and forms X-Factor with old friends from the original X-Men. Madelyne and Nathan are then attacked by the Marauders; Nathan is kidnapped and Madelyne left for dead, but survives and is hospitalized as a "Jane Doe". The guilt-wracked and increasingly unstable Scott returned home to find the house empty, and all records of Madelyne's and Nathan's existence erased.

Alone and threatened, Madelyne calls the X-Men for help and fight off another attack by the Marauders. Despairing from Scott's absence and of Nathan's fate, she contemplates suicide. Havok (Alex Summers) talks her out of it, and the two of them grow closer. With the Marauders still after her, she stays with the X-Men, and the group sacrifice their lives to stop the Adversary from remaking the world in Fall of the Mutants. A reporter video-interviews them before their death, and Maddie uses this to deliver a message to Scott, pleading that Scott find their child. With the world thinking the X-Men dead, Madelyne and the X-Men are resurrected by the Omniversal Guardian Roma and begin working secretly out of the Reavers' abandoned base in Australia. Madelyne serves as the team's technical support.

Demonic corruption and origins revealed
Monitoring news transmissions, Madelyne learns that Jean is alive and with Scott. She punches the computer monitor's screen, breaking it and causing electrical feedback that renders her unconscious. The Limbo demon S'ym invades Madelyne's mind during her unconscious state, and puts her in a Nightmare Sequence wherein her husband shows up and tells Madelyne of not loving her anymore, takes Nathan away from her, and then systematically takes away all her physical features — clothes, hair, mouth, nose and eyes — and puts them on a featureless mannequin revealed to be Jean. When it's done, Jean is real again and Madelyne is the featureless mannequin, unable to even scream. They walk away happily with the baby, leaving the naked and faceless Maddie to struggle alone through a blistering wasteland, burning her away until she runs into S'ym offering her a deal to become more than she had been and shows her images of a girl, a pilot, a woman, and a demon, which reflects what she was, is, and what she dreams to become. Thinking this all is just a dream, Madelyne chooses the demon, whereupon S'ym stabs her with a finger. She falls unconscious, dressed in a cropped black leather shirt, leather loincloth, and thigh-high Combat Stiletto boots, thus reflecting her eventual change into the Goblin Queen.

Afterwards, she keeps the existence of the original X-Men as X-Factor secret from the others, filtering only information and news showing X-Factor as an anti-mutant group. Later abducted by the Genoshans and taken to the island-nation, Madelyne is subjected to psychic torture intended to transform her into a docile slave of the state. Madelyne instinctively lashes out with her developing abilities, and thus causes the deaths of her torturers. In the recorded images of the psychic probe performed on Madelyne, a connection is made to the Phoenix Force, and her attire reflects again her eventual change into the Goblin Queen. Shortly after being rescued by the X-Men, Madelyne strikes a bargain with N'astirh to find the Marauders and return Nathan to her. During this time, she and Alex become lovers.

To keep the end of their bargain, N'astirh takes Madelyne to the orphanage in Nebraska where Scott had grown up, actually a front for Mister Sinister's genetic laboratory. Mister Sinister appears and tells Madelyne about her origins. When Mister Sinister learned about Jean, the former planned to take the girl to the orphanage but Charles Xavier had already approached and started to work with the young girl. Mister Sinister only managed to acquire a blood and tissue sample from which a clone was created. However, the clone had no life and failed to develop any mutant powers, so Mister Sinister left the clone in her incubation tube as a failed experiment. However, a part of the Phoenix Force entered and awakened the clone, giving her sentience. This renewed Mister Sinister's interest in her, named her as a pun on her prior existence, created a false background, implanted memories, a personality designed to attract Scott, and conceived a plan to use the clone to facilitate selective breeding between her and Scott. He then planted her with Scott's grandparents' company, thus ensuring the two would eventually meet. Jean's return threatened to cause the truth about Madelyne to be uncovered if the two were to meet, so Mister Sinister tasked the Marauders with killing Madelyne and bringing Nathan, the fruit of Mister Sinister's scheme.

Broken in spirit and reduced to insanity by these revelations, when N'astirh gives Nathan back to her, Madelyne willingly decides to aid the demon in the "Inferno" invasion of Earth. Returning to New York City during the invasion, she confronts X-Factor. When the X-Men arrive, Madelyne manipulates the teams against each other at first, and convinces Alex to join her. X-Factor and the other X-Men work together to defeat N'astirh. Madelyne refuses to stop, forcing the heroes to overwhelm her. Cyclops is unable to act because most of her accusations are true. Cyclops rescues Nathan, but Madelyne commits suicide in an attempt to telepathically take Jean with her. The Phoenix Force appears to Jean and offers to save the latter, but in order to survive Jean has to integrate the essence of both the Phoenix and Madelyne, gaining their memories and personalities. Mister Sinister attempts to entrap all of the X-Men and X-Factor in Madelyne's dying mind, but forced to choose between having revenge either on the X-Men or Mister Sinister, Madelyne ejects Mister Sinister from her mind. With her personality influencing Jean's, she then prompts the X-Men and X-Factor to attempt lethal retribution against Mister Sinister.

Jean, having inherited Madelyne's maternal feelings for Nathan, becomes a proxy mother until Apocalypse infected Nathan with a techno-organic virus, resulting in the child taken 2,000 years into the future by Askani to be saved.

Reappearance
Madelyne mysteriously reappears years later as an amnesiac to Nate Grey (X-Man), the "genetic offspring" of Cyclops and Jean from the alternate reality known as the Age of Apocalypse and arrives into Earth-616. Under the tutelage of Selene, Madelyne eventually becomes the Black Rook of the Hellfire Club as well as Sebastian Shaw's mistress, has her memories of her previous life restored by Tessa, and meets Cable in an uneasy truce.

While searching for Nate, she encounters Threnody who reveals to her that even though she is walking around and breathing, she is actually still dead. Angered, she murders Threnody. She then finds Nate with Jean and a fight ensues. Nate chooses to side with Jean over her. Then it is revealed that Madelyne is actually a "psionic construct" inadvertently resurrected by a combination of Nate's psionic powers and desperate need for a mother figure upon arriving on Earth-616.

Antagonistic for a time after this revelation, Madelyne walks away from the Hellfire Club, turning her back on a carefully built alliance/partnership with Shaw, and goes looking for Nate. Later they are attacked by the Strikesquad: Gauntlet, a group of operatives wearing psi-shielded armor. Madelyne is buried alive by one of them but she manages to escape by teleporting. As the battle has weakened X-Man, she looks drained and withered. In no shape to continue, whatever the plans she'd had with Nate, she leaves.

Red Queen
Soon after, Nate is accompanied again by Madelyne alive and well. She ends up revealing herself as the Red Queen, a version of Jean Grey from Earth-9575, an alternate reality where she becomes a creature of violence and unquenchable desire. She seems to have taken advantage of Madelyne's fragile state and replaced her in order to worm her way into Nate's head. She also claims to be the one who had influenced Nate into latching into Madelyne's psychic energy remnants and give it form, but she is eventually killed when Nate creates a sun around her that burns her to death. The exact details of how she had replaced Madelyne are left unrevealed, but since it is shown that the Red Queen could absorb the life forces of others to enhance her own power, she may have easily absorbed Madelyne's psionic body, or at least severed her consciousness’ connection to it. Cyclops and Cable would eventually encounter Madelyne within the telepathic astral plane, where she describes herself as now only a "ghost" and unable to return to the physical world.

Some years later, the X-Men investigate an anti-mutant group called the "Hellfire Cult", being led by Empath. Empath is secretly being controlled and taking orders from a mysterious woman also calling herself the Red Queen who is particularly interested in learning about Emma Frost. The X-Men take down the Cult and capture Empath, but the Red Queen slips away unseen. She then psionically impersonates Frost and has virtual sex with Scott, without him realizing the deception. Afterward, the Red Queen travels to Madripoor where she recruits Chimera into a new group called the "Sisterhood of Mutants" and reveals herself to be Madelyne returned to the living somehow. Later during a concert of Dazzler's, Scott is surprised at the sight of Madelyne observing the former from a distance before losing her amongst the crowd.

With Martinique Jason (recruited before the Cult's exposure) and Chimera accompanying her, Madelyne recruits Spiral and Lady Deathstrike into the Sisterhood as well. Madelyne then recruits Martinique's half-sister, Lady Mastermind, who accepts membership upon Madelyne's peculiar (and ironic) promise to bring back the half-sisters' late father, the original Mastermind. Carrying out Madelyne's orders, the Sisterhood retrieves the corpse of Revanche and performs an elaborate set of procedures on Revanche and the captured Psylocke, fully restoring the body and transferring Psylocke's mind into it. Madelyne's true priority was to restore herself back into flesh and blood. In the time since the encounter in the astral plane, Pryor had eventually managed to manifest back in the physical world as an intangible entity of psionic energy, and needed to find a body to inhabit that could contain her disembodied form and psionic powers. The experiment on Psylocke served as a test run for Pryor.

The Sisterhood commences a surprise raid on the X-Men's base, quickly neutralizing several of the main X-members. Recovering from the initial attacks, the X-Men force the Sisterhood (now including the brainwashed Psylocke) to retreat. But the battle was only a distraction, as the real purpose was for Madelyne to locate Jean's gravesite. Madelyne's own body had been cremated after her suicide, so Jean's seemed the only option available to her. At Jean's grave, Madelyne attempts to repeat the ritual with her corpse. However, Cyclops had correctly guessed Madelyne's goal and had arranged for Jean's body to be replaced with another, which Madelyne only learned after it is too late. The second she binds herself to the corpse, she discorporates, as the decayed body cannot contain her vast psionic energies.

Avengers Vs. X-Men
During the 2012 Avengers vs. X-Men storyline, Mister Sinister creates a group of six clones of Madelyne Pryor in order to take the Phoenix Force energies from the Phoenix Five (consisting of the Phoenix Force-empowered Cyclops, Colossus, Frost, Magik, and Namor). Unlike the original Madelyne, none of the six clones show indications of having individual personalities or free will, but instead appear to follow Mister Sinister completely. The clones join Mister Sinister's other clone creations in fighting the Phoenix Five, and manage to defeat each one. They are also able to siphon some of the energy from the Phoenix Force, but are all immediately killed by the entity itself.

Lady Deathstrike's Sisterhood
Lady Deathstrike, whose consciousness had taken possession of Colombian girl Ana Cortes, formed an all-new Sisterhood initially comprising the latter, the mutant Typhoid Mary, and the exiled Asgardian Amora (the Enchantress). The sentient bacteria Arkea possesses Lady Deathstrike's assistant Reiko and joins. As Arkea fears being opposed by the X-Men, she wants powerhouses with the Sisterhood, so she has Enchantress use her magicks to restore Selene and makes plans to resurrect Madelyne. Cortes manages to turn against Deathstrike, contact the X-Men and alert the group of the Sisterhood's location, and then commit suicide in an attempt to foil Arkea's plans. Arkea is able to place Deathstrike's consciousness into Reiko, and seeing an opportunity, splices Jean's DNA to Ana's body, making it a fully compatible host for Madelyne. The Enchantress then uses her magicks to retrieve Madelyne's consciousness and place it into the body, reviving Madelyne (and seemingly reshaping Cortes's physical appearance into Madelyne's), and making her flesh-and-blood again for the first time since her own suicide. When the X-Men arrive and attack, Madelyne fights and telepathically defeats the more experienced telepath Rachel Grey. Storm offers Madelyne and Selene a deal, essentially letting them go free, as the X-Men are only after Arkea at the moment. As Madelyne and the other members of the Sisterhood don't particularly care for Arkea, they desert her, allowing all of the Arkea bacteria to be destroyed. Accompanied by Selene, Madelyne declares that she would create an all new Sisterhood.

Krakoa
Madelyne is not seen in "the first wave" of mutant villains who accept Xavier's invitation to join on Krakoa. However, she is referenced in Mister Sinister's Red Diamond, a gossip sheet that cryptically lists Mister Sinister's secrets, indicating that her legacy as the Goblin Queen is far from complete.

Hellions
When Mister Sinister sent the second Hellions team of mutants to destroy the abandoned cloning farm hidden under the old Nebraska orphanage, they are surprised to find Madelyne there. In her Goblin Queen attire, Madelyne had captured and tortured Mister Sinister's former team of killers, the Marauders, and turned them into zombie-like creatures. Madelyne commands the zombified Marauders to attack the Hellions, but captures and takes Havok prisoner, deciding to reunite with her former lover, and silences him by removing his mouth. She reveals her anger that no one cared about her return and then her seeming exclusion from Krakoa, and so plans to unleash an army of cloned Marauder zombies to attack the mutant island just to be noticed and prove her existence. Havok cuts open his mouth to speak, and impresses her by admitting that he had genuine feelings for Madelyne all along back when she and Scott were together. The Hellions thwart her plans by killing all the zombies, and Madelyne is fatally shot by John Greycrow as well. As she dies, Madelyne heals Alex's injured face and tells him that she only wanted to be acknowledged and remembered. When the team returns to Krakoa, Cyclops himself tells Havok that while the Quiet Council has decided to approve resurrection for the original Marauders, they decided not to resurrect Madelyne on the grounds that she was a clone. The decision infuriates and devastates Havok, who screams at his brother that she was a real person who did in fact exist. What Havok doesn't known is that the Council had not been able to decide whether Madelyne was a clone or her own person, so her resurrection remains undecided.

Madelyne's fate still weighs heavily on Havok's mind, as seen during the first Annual Hellfire Gala, when he tries to speak with Xavier and Magneto about the decision. Madelyne is eventually resurrected and reunited with Havok. She is seen wearing a version of the flight suit that she had originally worn with the X-Men, positioning her as “good Madelyne” again; but when she sees herself in a mirror, it reflects her Goblin Queen persona. On top of that is the suggestion that she hadn’t wanted to be resurrected at all, recognising that she’s being cast as the prize in somebody else’s story, and understandably resentful of it.

The Labors of Magik
Immediately afterwards, Madelyne—back in her Goblin Queen attire—is approached by Illyana Rasputin with a proposal. Wanting to transcend her traumatic past by distancing herself from Limbo, but needing to find a new ruler for the demonic dimension, Magik—over the objections of her fellow New Mutants—offers handing over rulership of the realm to Pryor. Illyana regards Madelyne as suitable to take over due to Pryor's past connection to Limbo and because, like Magik, she too has survived painfully traumatic experiences and is still a damaged soul, as Illyana declares anyone normal and "untouched by darkness" to be ill-suited to rule Limbo. Seeing Limbo as a second chance for herself and the means to cut any ties with Krakoa and all the people (i.e. Mister Sinister, Cyclops, Jean, even Havok) who she resents for always defining her entire existence, Madelyne accepts Illyana's offer. Though only after the pair and their group found themselves forced to journey and fight together against foes trying to destroy Magik and seize her power, does the handover happen. With Rasputin's rulership of Limbo relinquished, Madelyne—attired in a new outfit—is now its Queen.

Dark Web
Some time after, Ben Reilly, the wayward and now-vengeful clone of Peter Parker and using the alias "Chasm", feels himself being drawn to and enters Limbo and encounters Madelyne. Feeling they have much in common as victimized and outcast clones who both believed their mutual progenitors had destroyed their lives, Madelyne and Ben form an alliance and plan to strike back. As a demonstration of their teamwork, Madelyne has a demon possess a mailbox and attack Spider-Man while she and Ben watch from afar. Madelyne later finds Eddie Brock (Venom) wandering in Limbo as he seeks a way back to Earth and convinces him that participating with her and Chasm will be mutually beneficial. Reilly's girlfriend Janine Godbe requests that she be provided the means to participate alongside Ben. As Janine has also been a mistreated and victimized woman for most of her life, Madelyne sympathizes with Janine and so transforms her into a new supervillain called "Hallows' Eve".

Brock grows impatient and uncooperative with Pryor and Chasm, leading to them regressing Brock's mind back into the primitive and savage Venom of the past. Madelyne unleashes her demons into Manhattan, which Spider-Man and the X-Men battle against, while Chasm begins striking at some of Peter's friends. Though the rampaging demons are just a distraction to scatter and occupy the X-Men away from their Manhattan base, at which Venom is sent to attack as an added decoy to enable Hallows' Eve to raid the base and steal a device for Madelyne. When Magik, Jean, Havok, and Cyclops enter Limbo to confront Madelyne, they're taken prisoner. Jean eventually breaks free and battles Madelyne, until Jean discovers that Maddie's plotting was all just to possess Jean's memories and experiences from the very brief time she was proxy mother to Nathan, the son that Maddie lost to Jean. Jean voluntarily shares all the memories with Madelyne, also revealing that she had advocated from the start that Maddie be granted a Krakoan resurrection, finally seeming to mend her last unhealed emotional wounds and making peace between them.

Madelyne tries to end what she started and approaches Chasm and Hallows' Eve with this. Having not succeeded in gaining what he wanted from his vendetta on Parker, both Chasm and Eve take Maddie's abandoning of their plotting as a betrayal and usurp Madelyne's power as ruler of Limbo. Chasm teleports a massive tower into Manhattan and launches a massive demonic invasion. Madelyne then joins with the heroes to stop him.

During the climactic battle, Madelyne reasserts her rulership over the demons as the Goblin Queen of Limbo and Chasm is defeated, though Hallows' Eve escapes. In the aftermath, Madelyne takes custody of Reilly as her prisoner, the Limbo tower remains in place in New York as an "Embassy of Limbo", and Madelyne seems to continue to be an ally of the X-Men and Spider-Man. She and Alex also rekindle their romantic relationship.

Leading the Dark X-Men
During the "Fall of X" event, the Hellfire Gala was attacked by Orchis. In retaliation, Madelyne establishes her version of the Dark X-Men with Havok, Carmen Cruz, Gambit, Maggott, Azazel, Emplate, and Zero (who is possessing Albert).

Powers and abilities
As a clone of Jean Grey, Madelyne Pryor possesses mutant abilities of telepathy and telekinesis. These powers were completely dormant while she was believed to be a baseline human, but later manifested in ways that Jean's abilities never had.

During her brief time as Anodyne when she was still believed to be a human, Madelyne was endowed with Asgardian magic that manifested as eldritch flames which granted her the power to heal and cure. Among her beneficial actions were fixing the childhood brain injury that prevented proper control behind Cyclops's optic blasts, curing Puck's mystically induced dwarfism, unifying Aurora's multiple personalities, and giving the ability of control for Rogue's mutant power. Madelyne also seemed to gain the physical stature of an Asgardian.

As the Goblin Queen, Madelyne's long-dormant mutant powers were activated with demonic eldritch magic and exponentially enhanced to the point where she could warp reality, equivalent to Proteus's abilities, within a localized area, possibly over an entire city as demonstrated during Inferno.

After her apparent resurrection as a non-physical entity of psionic energy (similar to the Shadow King) by Nate Grey, Madelyne regained her natural mutant abilities albeit without the demonic enhancements, though her powers are still considerable. Her telepathy enables her to read minds, broadcast her thoughts, create illusions, change or erase memories, and defend herself against other telepaths. With her telekinesis, Madelyne can lift and manipulate large objects, levitate, fire powerful mental force-blasts, form protective shields, and rearrange small objects on a molecular level. Madelyne also utilizes her powers to augment her physical strength and agility, making her formidable in hand-to-hand combat. Madelyne also learned how to use her powers to teleport over long distances by psychokinetically shifting in and out of the astral plane, and was shown to be able to carry along at least one other person with her when teleporting, and was also able to channel psionic energies from other psionic-powered mutants to boost her own abilities or those of another (usually Nate and Cable). It's speculated that Selene's tutelage made these added abilities possible. Since being restored back into a flesh-and-blood physical human-being, Madelyne seems not to have the teleporting and psionic-energy channeling abilities anymore, and so then uses Limbo's magic to teleport.

As the Red Queen, Madelyne additionally demonstrated other abilities of a mysterious nature which she referred to as "magic", which were probably related to the eldritch magics she had previously wielded. She was shown to heal wounds, locate spirits interdimensionally, and work in conjunction with science to restore life to the dead.

To prepare Madelyne to rule Limbo as its next queen Illyana Rasputin had been teaching her other magics. The first example shown is how to channel emotions to create certain types of weapons similar to the Soulsword and the Souldagger. By channeling her emotional pain and regret, Madelyne created a mystical scythe weapon called both the "Scythe of Sorrows" and the "Soul-Scythe", and uses it as a symbol to command Limbo’s demons and as a medium to focus Limbo's magic. Illyana also handed Limbo's huge library of eldritch texts over to Pryor, which she consults as needed.

Critical reception
David Harth of CBR.com called Madelyne Pryor one of Marvel's "coolest X-Men villains", writing, "Pryor can't catch a break, which is part of what makes her interesting. She's easy to empathize with for readers, as she is definitely a character readers can feel sorry for and even root for to an extent. Her motivations make her a believable villain, and as a clone of Jean Grey, she wields a jaw-dropping amount of power."

Accolades

 * In 2014, Entertainment Weekly ranked Madelyne Pryor 30th in their "Let's rank every X-Man ever" list.
 * In 2020, CBR.com ranked Madelyne Pryor 1st in their "X-Men: 10 Most Powerful Members of the Sisterhood of Mutants" list.
 * In 2022, Digital Trends ranked Madelyne Pryor 6th in their "10 most powerful X-Men villains" list.
 * In 2022, Screen Rant included Madelyne Pryor in their "10 Best X-Men Characters Created By Chris Claremont" list and "10 New Characters We Can Hope To See In X-Men ’97" list.
 * In 2022, CBR.com ranked Madelyne Pryor 9th in their "10 Coolest X-Men Villains" list.

What If...?
In one alternate reality (Earth-89112), Madelyne Pryor and S'ym were successful in opening a portal between Limbo and Earth (having killed baby Nathan Christopher) and demons overran the planet. The X-Men and X-Factor were dead (with the exception of a possessed Wolverine), and the only resistance left was led by Doctor Strange, who attempted to summon the Phoenix Force through Rachel Summers, the reality-hopping daughter of Scott Summers and Jean Grey. Madelyne however was successful in quelling the resistance and wresting control of the Phoenix Force from Rachel, but was ultimately betrayed and killed by S'ym, using Wolverine's reanimated adamantium skeleton. Rachel, reassuming the mantle of the Phoenix, used the Force to cleanse the planet of the demon plague.

On Earth-9250, most mutants in the city of Manhattan are vampires ruled by Wolverine. Madelyne was not infected, but became the Goblyn Queen and planned on releasing a demon army to wipe out the vampire mutants and dominate the world. Madelyne made contact with the lord of the Dark Dimension, Dormammu, who became her ally. However, the vampiric Marvel Girl (Jean Grey) bonded with the Phoenix Force, became Dark Phoenix, and killed Madelyne and Dormammu.

Another reality saw Madelyne Pryor as a member of an "X-Men" team formed by Mr. Sinister alongside Cyclops (Scott Summers), Havok (Alex Summers), and Sabretooth. However this version of Madelyne had never been awakened by the Phoenix Force, so she was simply a mindless shell inhabited by the psychic entity Malice. Scott noticed his physical attraction to Madelyne, but could not respond to her advances; when he encountered Professor Xavier's X-Men and their leader Jean Grey, however, much deeper emotions were stirred. Sinister called for their deaths, and under his orders Cyclops and Havok infiltrated Xavier's X-Men as double agents.

Mutant X
In the alternate reality known as the Mutant X universe, young Scott Summers was abducted into space along with his father Christopher and mother Kate, leaving his brother Alex to become one of the founders of the X-Men as Havok. This reality's Madelyne Pryor marries Alex and has a son, named Scotty, with him. Just like in Earth-616, Madelyne also makes a deal with Limbo's demons, unlocking her latent psionic abilities, and initiates the "Inferno Crisis". In this instance however, Madelyne survives the crisis; and, using the alias "Marvel Woman", leaves the X-Men team with her husband when he forms the splinter group called "The Six". Her evil side resurfaces a number of times, first as the "Goblyn Queen" and later as the "Goblyn Force". When it returns a second time, it merges with the Beyonder to form a nigh-omnipotent being. Havok supposedly saves Madelyne by placing the "Nexus of Realities" in her body, purging her of the malevolent Goblyn Force and reuniting her with her son Scotty, before Havok returns once more to the void.

Codename: X-Men
A team of mutants forced against their will to serve in the government's Weapon-X program to hunt and neutralize all other mutants, this group includes a female telepath codenamed "Goblin Queen". Although she appears that she could be either Madelyne Pryor or Jean Grey, her real name is not revealed anywhere in the story, and no discernible reason is given for her codename.

Marvel Mangaverse
In the Marvel Mangaverse title Legacy of Fire, Madelyne Pryor was reinvented as Madelyne Pyre, a powerful sorceress and possessor of the Phoenix Sword, who was training her sister Jena to be her successor.

X-Men: The End
Madelyne Pryor plays an important role in X-Men: The End, Chris Claremont's limited series about an alternate future. In the story, Madelyne — through circumstances left unexplained — makes a surprise return. Mysteriously joined with the X-Men's alien enemies (the Skrulls and the Shi'ar), Madelyne affected a disguise to infiltrate the X-Men, planting herself near Cyclops for the rest of the series. Still seeking revenge against her former husband, Madelyne wavered however and protected him instead, after eavesdropping on Scott expressing remorse for everything that happened to her, and even implied that he genuinely loved her after all. Cyclops later admitted to having recognized her at some point, and an understanding and peace was finally reached between them, for the sake of aiding their son Cable in battle. When Cable's effort leaves him dying, a grief-stricken Madelyne is accepted back with the X-Men again. After Cyclops and Jean Grey are also killed, Madelyne cryptically reveals that, since the very beginning, she was always both Madelyne Pryor and a crucial portion of Jean Grey herself (and even hinted to being the Dark Phoenix), explaining that she was the part of Jean that truly and completely loved Scott, and that was why Jean and Scott's marriage failed. Madelyne then sacrifices herself by turning into energy and fusing with Jean Grey, who is once again resurrected. Jean is able to use her power to its fullest again, which allows her and all the dead X-Men to merge with the Phoenix and transcend to a new level of existence. In the story's final panel, Madelyne's image is present next to Cyclops' among the X-Men who died heroically.

X-Men Forever
In Claremont's series set in an alternate universe from canon, X-Men Forever, Pryor does not appear though is mentioned a number of times, as the setting is some years after her death. While nearly every significant X-Men storyline and event from the comics before 1991 is referenced during the series, no mentions are made about Inferno or the Goblin Queen, implying that these did not happen here. And while Sinister and his clonings are present, there is also no mention of Madelyne ever being a clone of Jean Grey, implying that this was also not the case here. Except for it happening after her son was born, exactly when and how Pryor died went unrevealed in the series.

Warzones: Inferno
When Doctor Doom became the God-Emperor Doom and saved remnants of the destroyed Multiverse to form Battleworld, among the salvaged worlds was a reality where the X-Men failed to stop the Inferno event instigated by the Darkchilde and the Goblin Queen. Contrary to all assumptions, Madelyne Pryor never committed the sacrificial prolicide of her baby son, and had been raising Nathan in the years since.

Doom had made Pryor the ruling Baroness of the Domain of Limbo at first, until the X-Men entrapped the demonic invasion within Manhattan and war broke out between Madelyne and Illyana, leading to Cyclops being appointed Limbo's Baron. Colossus would be forced into an alliance with Madelyne to deal with Illyana, only for Darkchilde to breach the containment and unleash Inferno on the rest of the domain. When Sinister emerged to coerce the defeated X-Men to ally with him against Darkchilde, Madelyne killed Sinister in overdue revenge. Colossus then had to kill Illyana after she massacred all the last remaining X-Men. In the aftermath, Pryor took possession of Darkchilde's demonic magic, making Madelyne the next demonic sorceress and ruler of Limbo domain, with Nathan alongside her.

Epilogue
Doom himself acknowledged Pryor's re-ascendance to Baroness. Pryor then became one of four Barons (among the others, an alternate version of Sinister) Doom chose as his "Generals" and ordered to field their armies to crush an uprising against the God Emperor. The Goblin Queen followed Doom's wishes, until betrayed and then beaten-down by Sinister and Captain Marvel.

All-New, All-Different Marvel
Following the events of the Secret Wars and the restoration of Earth-616, this version of Madelyne Pryor was able to survive the destruction of Battleworld along with her pet dragon Bamfy and a horde of goblins. They opened a portal to a storage facility in Florida, from which they planned to invade Prime Earth, however, their mustering was interrupted by Wolverine and Angel, forcing the horde to withdraw. She later opened another portal to gain access to Earth in Miami and her hordes of demons descended to wreak chaos all over the place. She also revealed that when Battleworld began collapsing, twelve hell gates inexplicably opened near the area she was and she along with Bamfy entered one that took them to Limbo where they remained in the shadows. Now once again on Earth she had her horde of demons capture the small team of X-Men that were taking a break there and was on the verge of using them for her final sacrifice until her plans were interrupted by the arrival of the mystically infused time-displaced Hank McCoy which forced her to withdraw by using Bamfy to teleport her to some unknown place.

Madelyne has since been training the time-displaced Hank on how to hone his mystical capabilities. While training him, she travels across the multiverse collecting supernatural X-Men from alternate realities and promised to give them what they wanted if they help her. Madelyne then has Hank cast a ritual that summons her and her new team of supernatural X-Men, calling them her "Hex Men", and ambushes Magneto's team of X-Men in Madripoor. Her goal is to use the ritual that Beast started to summon alternate versions of herself trapped in the underworld and bring them to the surface to help her gain power. Bloodstorm sees how Madelyne has used them as a means to her own goal and knows that she will throw the Hex Men to the wolves when her main goal is accomplished. Bloodstorm convinces Beast to betray Madelyne and in doing so interrupts the ritual. Because of the interruption, the alternate versions of Madelyne drag her and all of the Hex Men to the underworld with them except for Bloodstorm and Beast.

Fall of X: Dark X-Men
While trapped in the depths of Limbo, the Goblin Queen lost all human aspects and became completely demonic. The anti-mutant organization Orchis later found her in a forgotten corner of that realm and held her captive alongside her Bamf Dragon. While first used as one of Orchis' test subjects on an experimental method of deactivating the mutant X-gene, she nevertheless began working for Orchis, using her knowledge of dark arts to corrupt Archangel. She then assisted Orchis' invasion into 616-Madelyne Pryor's Limbo Embassy. While Pryor's Dark X-Men eliminated the Orchis invaders, the demonic Goblin Queen worked to tempt 616-Madelyne to join alongside her in destroying the world due to their similar histories of betrayals and suffering. 616-Pryor refused and killed her demonic counterpart (and afterward also made the Bamf Dragon her pet).

X-Men: The Exterminated
A story by Claremont again, included as an addition with the main story in The Exterminated one-shot, appears as if to be a flashback from just after Cyclops and Storm's leadership duel and his moving back to Alaska with Pryor. Circumstances shown here lead to Scott and Madelyne happily reconciling (before the discovery and return of Jean Grey). This and other differences from canon seem to place this story in the setting of Claremont's X-Men Forever universe.

X-Men: Grand Design
In X-Men: Grand Design, a limited series by Ed Piskor that does an abridged and condensed retelling of four decades of X-Men-related canon from the 1960s debut onward, Madelyne's introduction and early storylines are included but substantially rewritten in the second half of the title's "Second Genesis" chapter. Madelyne debuts and participates in stories that originally featured Lee Forrester, who is entirely excluded in this retelling (but is name-dropped later in the series' final panel). When Madelyne and Scott Summers meet and begin their relationship, she is not a pilot in Alaska but is still described as surviving a plane crash in the past, and Mastermind's actions on Madelyne never happen at all in this telling before she and Scott marry.

Madelyne's history continues in the first half of the "X-Tinction" chapter that follows, starting with the birth of Nathan/Cable and the marriage's disintegration, to concluding at her death during Inferno. While the encounter with Loki with her moment as Anodyne and her later abduction by Genosha are excluded, all the rest of her story with the X-Men is here. Madelyne is emphasized as the victim in everything, not culpable for Inferno nor intending to harm her son. And her death is presented as more accidental instead of suicide.

Jean Grey (2023)
As Jean Grey drifts between life and death after her assassination during Orchis' attack on the Hellfire Gala, she ponders what if she had made different decisions at critical chapters in her history -- including Inferno and towards Madelyne Pryor. The Phoenix Force shows Grey one alternate history in which if Grey took different actions during Inferno, Pryor's rage and hatred would only have increased, leading her to gaining exponentially greater powers and then destroying the world. After rejecting this and other alternate scenarios shown to her, Jean accepts all her actions and history as it was -- and also now fully accepting Madelyne's creation and existence as blessings instead of a curse, and that Maddie was legitimately Scott's wife and Nathan Christopher's biological mother.

Weapon X-Men
An alternate universe labeled Earth-80777 is almost three decades in the future and where Jean Grey has continued to be the cosmic-powered Phoenix and the X-Men disbanded. Scott Summers also married Madelyne Pryor here, but they are shown to have remained happily together and their son Nathaniel (instead of Nathan) was not infected or sent to the future and is in his twenties. It's mentioned that Madelyne's origins were similar to 616 universe, but Phoenix completely eliminated Mister Sinister here and Maddie seems not to have any powers at all.

Television

 * The character has a non-voiced cameo appearance in the X-Men: The Animated Series episode "Time Fugitives".
 * Madelyne Pryor / Goblin Queen appears in X-Men '97, voiced by Jennifer Hale.

Video games

 * Madelyne Pryor / Goblin Queen appears as an alternate costume for Jean Grey in the PC version of Marvel: Ultimate Alliance via a mod.
 * Madelyne Pryor / Black Rook appears in X-Men: Battle of the Atom.
 * Madelyne Pryor / Goblin Queen appears as a playable character in Marvel: Future Fight.
 * Madelyne Pryor / Goblin Queen appears as a playable character in Marvel Strike Force. This version is a member of the Marauders.

title: Madelyne Pryor


text:
User:ThaGrind

Back on the Grind.

title: User:ThaGrind


text:
Talk:Homo economicus

Rattus economicus
The concept of 'Homo Economicus' includes just those feelings that are common to people and to rats, along with other mammals and birds. So it should be Rattus economicus, a rat-race that is typically won by rats. What's lacking from the model is sympathy, the vital human quality that allows people to work as a group even when any one of them could do better by cheating on the others. This is explicable by natural selection, in as much as groups of hominids who sympathised would do better together than hominids who cheated each other. This would also require a strong reaction to cheats, but that too is very human. --GwydionM 13:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Sympathy isn't lacking from the model -- your understanding of the model's entirety is what's lacking. The principle of reciprocation involves the exercise of rationality and if it doesn't, then it's simply not rational. Cheating may be a result of evil or ignorance and if it's the former, it's not rational, it's simply deliberated, but the deliberation intentionally robs the intended subject of their rationalism, which is irrational, and thus the initiation of violence, cheating, etc., is an irrational act from a rational process through irrational principles. It's not 'Homo economicus', it's thinking with your feelings or the immediate rewards without properly deliberating the consequences; an inability to take premises, with the variables in mind, and then reasoning to their consequences. The principle of reciprocation is the method for Homo economicus, while the negation of the principle of reciprocation is not. So, what you mean by 'sympathy' is deliberation, a rational process, with irrational principles, that concludes with an irrational consequence, cheating. Of course a group of people who work together would do better, because reciprocation is being utilized for equal benefit to those involved, and if it doesn't, it usually results in someone being cheated. Actually, one could say that your presented definitions/argument is a result of 'cheating on the others' through an incomplete grasping of the philosophy involved to simply alleviate an emotional itch, which is a contradiction to your original assertion. TheObservee (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Preach it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.50.129 (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, what do you got against rats? Booger-mike (talk) 20:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

TheObservee Exactly! Well said. Good response. 9 years late I know. Himo Karim (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Presentation issues
By now, WP contains an impressive wealth of information on the controversy surrounding the model. I am afraid the criticisms and responses sections are somewhat confusing, though -- quite a few paragraphs may belong to the other section, or to both. I am wondering if, instead of splitting criticisms/responses, we could split by issue (e.g. empirical studies / sociology / intrinsic motivation / self-fulfilling prophecy / ...) and discuss the pros and cons per issue. Comments? Rl 14:27, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Homo oeconomicus
Why has an article dedicated to a rich history of academic criticism of the homo-economicus model been destroyed then redirected here? Is it truly necessary to ruin wikipedia with endless mergers and deletions of important and trivial (relativism) topics?

The quotation from Aristotle misrepresents Aristotle's conceptions of human nature and private property.
The quotation seems to imply Aristotle would support the definition of Man as a "rational, self-interested, labor-averse individual" or at the very least agree with the self-interest of economic man.

While man may clearly have a level of self interest, for Aristotle man is fundamentally a Political Animal. Thus he considers our main drive is that of forming a community with virtuous laws and justice. He also denies that humans can be self sufficient from the wider community.

The quote also makes it seem Aristotle supports private property as it is commonly conceived. The section directly before the quote however says

"And yet by reason of goodness, and in respect of use, 'Friends,' as the proverb says, 'will have all things common.'" And

"It is clearly better that property should be private, but the use of it common; and the special business of the legislator is to create in men this benevolent disposition.".

Thus his conception of private property is that which is privately maintained but available for use by the community at large.

Oemurray (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Distinction
I imagine if this were a real species, it'd be identified by green skin, and gold dollar sign pupils. Booger-mike (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

title: Talk:Homo economicus


text:
In the Beginning

In the Beginning may refer to:

Biblical phrase

 * "In the beginning" (phrase), a phrase in the Bible verses of Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1

Books

 * In the Beginning (novel), a novel by Chaim Potok
 * In the Beginning (Peter Gossage book)
 * In the Beginning, a 2004 story arc and collected edition in The Punisher comics
 * In the Beginning... Was the Command Line, a 1999 long essay by Neal Stephenson
 * In the Beginning: B.C. 4004 (In the Garden of Eden), the first play in George Bernard Shaw's Back to Methuselah series

Film, radio and television

 * In the Beginning: The Bible Stories, a 1997 anime series created by Osamu Tezuka
 * Babylon 5: In the Beginning, a 1998 Babylon 5 TV movie
 * The Bible: In the Beginning..., a 1966 epic film recounting the first 22 chapters of the Book of Genesis
 * In the Beginning (miniseries), a 2000 TV film starring Martin Landau
 * In the Beginning (2009 film), a French drama
 * In the Beginning (TV series), a 1978 American sitcom starring McLean Stevenson
 * In the Beginning, a New York radio program produced by Larry Josephson

Television episodes

 * "In the Beginning" (All in Good Faith)
 * "In the Beginning" (The Brittas Empire)
 * "In the Beginning" (Dante's Cove)
 * "In the Beginning" (Dexter)
 * "In the Beginning" (God, the Devil and Bob)
 * "In the Beginning" (The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency)
 * "In the Beginning" (Lavender Castle)
 * "In the Beginning" (Legion of Super Heroes)
 * "In the Beginning" (Oh, Brother!)
 * "In the Beginning" (The Secret Adventures of Jules Verne)
 * "In the Beginning" (Superbook)
 * "In the Beginning" (Supernatural)
 * "In the Beginning" (Swamp Thing)
 * "In the Beginning" (Tattooed Teenage Alien Fighters from Beverly Hills)
 * "In the Beginning" (True Blood)

Classical

 * In the Beginning (Copland), a 1947 choral work by Aaron Copland
 * In the Beginning, Priscilla McLean (born 1942)
 * In the Beginning, Robert Saxton (born 1953)
 * In the Beginning, David Rosenboom (born 1947)
 * In the Beginning, God, jazz composition by Duke Ellington from Duke Ellington's Sacred Concerts

Albums

 * In the Beginning (Circa 1960), a 1970 album by The Beatles and the Beat Brothers with Tony Sheridan
 * In the Beginning (Blazin' Squad album), 2002
 * In the Beginning (The Byrds album), 1988
 * In the Beginning (Cro-Mags album), 2020
 * In the Beginning (Genesis album), 1974 reissue title of the 1969 album From Genesis to Revelation
 * In the Beginning (Isaac Hayes album), 1972 reissue title of the 1968 album Presenting Isaac Hayes
 * In the Beginning (Journey album), 1979
 * In the Beginning (Hubert Laws album), 1974
 * In the Beginning (Madonna album) or Pre-Madonna, a 1997 unauthorized album
 * In the Beginning (Nile album), 2000
 * In the Beginning 1963–1964, a 2012 album by Pharoah Sanders
 * In the Beginning – The 1981 Singles, a 1986 EP by Play Dead
 * In the Beginning (Stevie Ray Vaughan album), 1992
 * In the Beginning (Triumph album), 1995 reissue title of the 1976 album Triumph
 * In the Beginning (Woody Shaw album), 1983
 * In the Beginning: The World of Aretha Franklin 1960–1967, an album by Aretha Franklin
 * In the Beginning... (album), a 1985 album by Malice
 * In the Beginning by Roy Buchanan, 1974
 * In the Beginning, a compilation of recordings by Hawkwind also released on The Text of Festival, 1985
 * In the Beginning, by Lonnie Smith, 2013
 * In the Beginning..., by British rock band Salem, 2010
 * In the Beginning, an EP by Kate Stewart, 2018
 * In the Beginning, by The Slits

Songs

 * "In the Beginning" (1954 song), by Frankie Laine
 * "In the Beginning" (The Moody Blues song), 1969
 * "In the Beginning", by Amorphis from Tales from the Thousand Lakes
 * "In the Beginning", by E.Y.C.
 * "In the Beginning", by Genesis from From Genesis to Revelation
 * "In the Beginning", by K'Naan from The Dusty Foot Philosopher
 * "In the Beginning", by Mötley Crüe from Shout at the Devil
 * "In the Beginning", by Stephen Schwartz from the musical Children of Eden
 * "In the Beginning", by The Stills from Without Feathers
 * "In the Beginning", a 2019 song by Australian drill rap group Onefour

title: In the Beginning