Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:19, 22 December 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Comics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Misplaced Pages. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Feminism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Unsourced

Currently, this appears to be a List Of Comic Books That User Lightbreather Thinks Are Feminist. If I were to go through and delete the unsourced entries on the list, there would be none left. I'm not sure who we can qualify as sufficiently subjective to declare a comic "feminist", and certainly some of the titles listed are controversial (Red Sonja, for example, has been seen by many in various incarnations as misogynistic), but clearly we should have something beyond one Misplaced Pages editor's opinion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Even if they are sourced the problem is that it is the opinion of the writer and not really a majority viewpoint. Im sorry light, but I do not see how this is going to work out unless you can change the article to comic books to something like "comic books seen as feminist" or something like that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

So are we going to go by because one writer on such and such source says its feminist then it is feminist? To compare this would be like making an article List of scary movies. If you look online you will find sources that have people's opinions that they are scary and those who believe that they aren't its the same case here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Most of the sources were in the Further reading section, but since there is concern that a WP editor just made up the list, I started adding the sources to each individual entry. I am now calling it a night, but I'll be back soon - probably this weekend, or Monday at latest. Lightbreather (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Except the sources you're using are not necessarily supporting the claims that you make for them. The article "Graphic Novels: About Women. By Women." does not describe any of them as "feminist," and it would be a mistake to assume that all comics by and about women are feminist (although many of course are). Then there are references like the one for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which appears to be saying that the TV show of that title was feminist (thus the reference to the entirety of its run, while the run of the Buffy comic has not completed.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

NatGertler I would nominate this for AfD under WP:LISTN. While the list does include reliable sources there is no way of knowing if the entries here are notable for being feminist if they are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You might want to find out what WP:LISTN means before repeating that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If a reliable book on feminism (or on relevant classiffications) explicitly designates a work as "feminist" or as advocating women's rights, that may be be sufficient to include the work, but the introductory paragraph should include an appropriate explanation of the criteria for inclusion; we shouldn't necessarily expect the title to give a very precise description of the inclusion criteria. To avoid misleading the reader, where the classification is controversial or somewhat tenuous, this should be noted in a comment. However, a work should not be listed merely because it is related to women's rights. powerful women. etc. --Boson (talk) 14:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I suspect there are sources to be found in academic literature from both ends of the questions - from women's studies and from comics/media studies. A peer-reviewed journal would provide at least some small level of not-just-one-persons-opinionaiety --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I've removed Serenity from the list, as it is not immediately obvious how it is feminist in any way. There are also no sources. I don't know about Priya's Shakti, though. Haven't seen if it is feminist or not. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I also left a comment on Lightbreather's talk page, which Lightbreather removed, stating to move the comment here. Lightbreather did not, so here is the message: "Could you explain your haphazard sourcing of the article List of feminist comic books? You included an incredibly obvious WP:Self published source, as well as citing Flashlight Worthy books, which only called one of the graphic novels feminist." Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerns about the appropriateness of the sources can be addressed by discussing the sources, or corrected by editing. It seems rather pointless to demand an explanation, which would have no impact. If you want to offer some specific helpful advice, that's one thing, but this seems more like demanding she state that she's an imperfect Misplaced Pages editor, which serves no good. I'm imperfect as well... as are you. Lightbreather seems to be working in good faith, and should be treated as such. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Chess, I planned to move your comment/question from my talk page, but you'd already started the one below, "Sources not really saying the comic books are feminist," which basically makes the same complaint, so I figured it served the same purpose.

At any rate, Slim Virgin, and I, and others made a lot of improvements today. Lightbreather (talk) 02:23, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources not really saying the comic books are feminist

In the first source, I used CTRL-F and not a single use of the word "feminist" was recorded, although I quote the first source (Best Graphic Novels about Women) saying about Castle Waiting that it is "a mash-up of fairy tale and feminism". Also, there is the fact that the first source (by Flashlight Worthy Books) is incredibly unreliable, due to the fact anyone can submit things. I highly doubt that there is a significant quantity of editorial oversight of submissions, considering the lack of a byline on the article. They also label themselves with the words "bloggers". Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to WP:BEBOLD and remove the content that only cites Flashlight Worthy Books and is not explicitly mentioned as feminist by the source in question. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The source "Kick-Ass Female Ensembles in Graphic Novels" does not even begin to mention the word "feminist" or "feminism". I am removing it, as saying a group of women are "kick ass" does not mean the source is saying "feminism". Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, the source, "READING LIST: A FIELD GUIDE TO FIFTEEN FEMINIST COMICS", is used to support 19 different graphic novels. I was unsure how that was possible, considering that if the article covers 15 different comic books, and the Misplaced Pages page uses that source to say 19 comic books are feminist, it is mathematically impossible for 15 to equal 19. Of course, after reading the very bottom of the article, there are 4 honorable mentions (all in a single sentence), adding up to 19 different comic books. Is that enough coverage? I don't know, because there's no inclusion criteria. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

The source you are referring to - Gilley, Casey (June 2, 2014). "Reading List: A Field Guide to Fifteen Feminist Comics". comicbookresources.com. Comic Book Resources. - lists 15 comics, and at the end has an "Other notable titles" paragraph," (which actually names five titles, not four; I negelcted to add Lazarus to the list.) Lightbreather (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd avoid judging to much about a source on the basis that "anyone can submit things". That is true of a large portion of what we consider to be "reliable sources", particularly mainstream magazines, I suspect. That's quite different from accepting everything. I'm not saying that Flashlight is a good source, but that's an artificial bar to put on it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Single source problem

Most of the article relies on a single source, "Reading List: A Field Guide to Fifteen Feminist Comics". There are a few other ones, but the majority of the list items are not corroborated by a second source. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:30, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wrapped Up in Books source is inherently unreliable, due to being a blog, with no editorial oversight.

The source from "Wrapped Up In Books" is incredibly unreliable, not even a trace of editorial oversight, and the coverage in the blog post itself is abysmal. It quite literally does not call out the books by name, only putting the covers. This source is indisputably unreliable. This clearly and obviously falls under WP:SPS. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Many comics list have old tags - why the speed-o-light focus on this one?

I created this list after starting a stub for Priya's Shakti. A little more than two hours after this list was created, it was proposed for deletion. No discussion. No nothing. PROD says, PROD must only be used if no opposition is to be expected. PROD is a shortcut for WP:AFD, which says you should consider alternatives to deleting an article before considering deletion.

Consider the status of List of comic books, riddled with red links. Or British comics, which has been tagged as needing additional citations for verification since October 2010. Or Comics in Australia, tagged since 2008. Or List of American comics, tagged as not citing any references or sources for over a year now. Numerous comics list are tagged for various problems.

With so much work to be done on these other articles/lists, why is so much focus and why are so many tags being put on this one, which was only just started yesterday? Lightbreather (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed it as I do many other new articles, as part of my frequent examination of new pages. It wasn't a comparison to other comic book list articles, it was judging it on its own. I saw it as inherently problematic, and thought that objection might be accepted once explained; obviously, it was not. (If an article is going to be deleted, it is better that it is done earlier in its existence, before too much effort is placed into it.)

Tags should be placed on page as soon as the problem is seen, to encourage them being addressed. I cannot comment on the other editors' motivations for involvement. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Possible source

It would not be my first choice as a source, but considering that so many Misplaced Pages comic book lists aren't sourced at all, and considering that some subjects seem to be held to a lower standard when it comes to sourcing (porn articles jump to mind), I offer this as a source/reference/further reading link for the article:

• "Feminist super-heroes, villains, and other characters". ComicBookReligion.com. 2014. Retrieved December 20, 2014.

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to delve deeper, you may want to read the books of Trina Robbins, who (in addition being a feminist creating comics herself) writes histories of female involvement in the comics field. That is not, as I've noted, a one-to-one correspondence to "feminist" either in creator or content, but there should be some good items there. (It's been a long time since I've looked at the books, so I'll say that with a hedge on my certainty.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

'Nother source

According to The Beat, Laura Sneddon is a comics journalist and academic, writing for the mainstream UK press with a particular focus on women and feminism in comics - and currently working on a PhD. Her writings are indexed at comicbookgrrrl.com - where she says she has a Masters in Comics Studies. So anything by Laura Sneddon I think would be an RS. Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, comicbookgrrrl.com would be a self-published source, so we don't accord it the same level of RS as we would if (the talented) Ms. Sneddon were to publish similar material through a peer-reviewed journal. But we still need a clearer explanation of what this list is and what qualifies - is Lara Sneddon herself "notable" as the current descriptor calls for? And currently, we have the definition of "feminist" being a person, so it's not clear how that applies to a comic book. Is the character a feminist? Is the writer? It's possible to have a work that carries a feminist message even if neither the creator nor the character is feminist. (I think we would be much more solid with an article on Comic books and feminism, as we could cover it as a series of viewpoints rather than the fuzzy definition of an example list. But that would be a lot more work.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Image

Lightbreather, thanks for starting this list. I've added an image of Alison Bechdel just to spruce the page up a bit, but if you prefer to remove or replace it, please do. Ditto with any refs that I add, particularly if you want to change the format. I think I've mostly copied the format you began using (last name, first name, date in brackets), but feel free to change it. SlimVirgin 23:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! for your help. I have never had much interest in comic books or graphic novels beyond flipping through what my kids were reading. It was kismet (as in chance - I see there are comic book characters by that name!) that brought me here, and it's been fun digging around and finding sources. BTW, ygm. Lightbreather (talk) 23:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Entries that have been removed

Please add removed entries here, so that others can look for sources. SlimVirgin 00:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Priya's Shakti
• The Ballad of Halo Jones
• All My Darling Daughters
• La Perdida
• Nana
• Ōoku
• Serenity
• Tamara Drew
• Town of Evening Calm, Country of Cherry Blossoms

The Maxx sourcing

There were two sources on The Maxx. I deleted the first one because it was talking not about the comic book, but about a TV adaptation of that series, which is different. Now I'm looking at the second one, and I don't see it saying that The Maxx is feminist either; it talks about another series, My Inner Bimbo, as being part of the Trout-o-Verse series which "explores feminism", but according to our article Sam Kieth, the first in that series wasn't The Maxx, it was Ojo. So do we actually have any source saying that The Maxx is a feminist work? --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've added one; please take a look and see whether it's sufficient. I would also like to restore Priya's Shakti. I can't find a source calling it "feminist," but sources discuss its intended opposition to patriarchy and misogyny, which I think is enough. SlimVirgin 05:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

My apologies; due to formatting, I had missed that The Maxx had had -three- refs, not two, and the third was within-whatever-rough-definition we are currently working with here. The new one was unneeded, but fine. But the lack of a clearer working definition makes me less certain about Priya's - is a feminist work one that is intended to be feminist, or one that is viewed by third parties as feminist? --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:04, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing The Maxx sourcing.

Authorial intention matters less than the views of secondary sources (and perhaps not at all; see "The Death of the Author"), but in the case of Priya's Shakti all the sources I've looked at agree (with each other and with the authors). SlimVirgin 06:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Please show your sources. Priya's Shakti you might say is opposed "to patriarchy and misogyny", but I don't see any sources calling it feminist. It's an WP:Original research violation if you include it on this list without a source stating it is feminist. Specifically, you're drawing conclusions not found in the sources. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm agreeing with Chess here. Our definition is fuzzy enough, and surely something can be both anti-misogynist and non-feminist ("we must not harm or belittle women, but show them the respect for their powerful positions as mothers and wives" sort of thing.) I'm not saying that this applies to Priya's Shakti, a work that I've not read, but a work can reflect aspects of feminism without being on the whole feminist. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Chute source

Can someone with access to the Chute source used for the quote in the intro please double-check it and make sure that it is being properly applied? I'm a little dubious that she's calling Wonder Woman "almost superhero-inflected"; Wonder Woman would seem to me to be definitively superhero inflected. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• List-Class Comics articles
• Low-importance Comics articles
• List-Class Comics articles of Low-importance
• WikiProject Comics articles
• List-Class Feminism articles
• Low-importance Feminism articles
• WikiProject Feminism articles