This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I'm thinking that we should remove this section from the article. Three reasons: (1)Since no aspect of the superhero trope is particular to minorities, and since the depiction of minority superheroes has pretty much mirrored the depiction of minorities in other forms of fiction throughout the genre's history, having a whole section about superhero minorities gives the subject a lot of WP:WEIGHT for no apparent reason. (2)As linked in the article, Wikipedia already has an extensive number of standalone articles about minority superheroes, so having the same material extensively covered in this article just creates extra maintenance work. (3)The section is very poorly sourced. There are only a handful of references, and they're all used to source statements like "So-and-so is black" or "So-and-so is gay" (i.e. statements which are notable in the context of that particular character's article but clearly trivial within a discussion of minority superheroes as a whole). Broad and potentially controversial statements like "superheroes are predominantly depicted as Caucasian, American middle- or upper- class, athletic, tall, attractive, heterosexual, educated, young adult male" and "superhero teams became increasingly diverse in subsequent years" (subsequent to what?) are left unsourced. Thoughts?--NukeofEarl (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree the section isn't great, and is poorly sourced. However, I have the same complaint about the article as a whole; I see no reason to single this section out for deletion while keeping the others. This section, as titled, seems a fair subject for this article. The fact it's covered in more detail in other articles is all the more reason to include a short version here. However, we don't have many "minorities in such-and-such media" articles in general; having one or two just for superheroes does seem odd. Perhaps that imbalance should be addressed first. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Reason (1) is the most important. The other sections in this article have problems but would clearly belong in a finished version of the article. (The only other one I'd question is "Female superheroes", but unlike minority superheroes, the depiction of female superheroes has not totally mirrored the depiction of minorities in other forms of fiction.) Having an entire section devoted to minority superheroes, even discounting the fact that it's virtually the only section of its type in the article, suggests to the reader that the depiction of minorities is a foundational, fundamental aspect of superhero fiction, when in fact the opposite is true.
A subject having its own article is no reason for it to have an entire section in the article for its parent subject. By that logic, this article should have sections for every single article in "Category:Superhero fiction" and all of its many subcategories.
I had noticed the imbalance you mention, but proposals to delete articles like List of black superheroes and LGBT themes in comics are never going to get anywhere, and as far as the reverse approach goes, personally I have no desire to create a bunch of articles like "List of Asian-American fictional secret agents" and "List of Jews in romance novels".--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Again, I'm not a big fan of this section, but I'm not convinced it merits deletion based on the given reasons.
(1) It's OR to say that minorities in superheroes mirrored other media. Normally, I would say that the burden of proof of relevance would be on the added content, that is, we should require proof that minorities in superheroes weren't mirrored in other media. But here, with all sources poor in this and related articles throughout, the fact that there is a child article is sufficient for this environment.
This leads back to (2), which was brought up again anyway. For (2), I completely disagree; a subject having its own article is a reason to have a section in the parent article. It's not a requirement, but it is a good reason ("List" articles generally excluded).
The rest of the reasoning seems to indicate that the child articles should be deleted, but won't be, so we should at least delete this section that refers to them. That sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
I see no reason to single this section out from the others as being poor enough to simply blank. And I think we really do need articles like Minorities in media. --A D Monroe III (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
WP: OR applies only to article content, not to talk page discussion.
I had hoped you would at least take a look at "Category:Superhero fiction" before responding. Let me enlighten you: "Category:Superhero fiction" has well over 200 articles. Are you seriously arguing that this article should have over 200 subsections whose sole purpose is to summarize information which appears elsewhere on Wikipedia?
Your accusation of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is obvious baiting, since I'd already spent several paragraphs explaining to you why this section does not belong here under Wikipedia policy. Sorry to disappoint you, but I make a habit of never taking the bait.
You keep saying "single out"; is it then your opinion that we should remove all the current subsections from the article?--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I follow WP:AGF. I never attempt baiting/trolling; there's no purpose in that.
We have no source stating minorities in superheroes is mirrored other media. Thus it's OR to use that for a reason to affect the article contents by deleting a section.
I never suggested we need hundreds of subsections. I only countered the suggestion that having a sub-article is a reason to delete a section; it's usually a reason to keep.
If there was a proposal to remove all unsourced sections in this article, then yes, I would more likely to favor that over this proposal. But WP:PRESERVE would probably apply. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC).
"America's Best Comics" used in a misleading maner.
Given this Wiki's propensity for creating dead links, it seems like asking for trouble to link the caption to a magazine that went out of business in 1950 to an article about a subdivision of a corporation founded half a century later. This seems like us just begging to be misunderstood, and while there is a sentence in that article that mentions the magazine, vaguely, and the characters were revived presumably for the precise reason of giving the illusion of antiquity and continuity, we have a long standing habit of pruning such sentences, leaving only confusing and misleading links. Wikipedia doesn't exist for the purpose of aiding Alan Moore in his alteration of past events, a violation of the laws of causality that his representatives famously admitted No Contest to by settling out of Court in a suit before the State of California. While I ideologically support Moore's imposible chicanery, personaly feel it deserves aid, and might even admit is appropriate in an article so linked to super-villainy, such is not our purpose here, nor is it unbiased and appropriate behavior for Wikipedia. The image is evocative, and appropriate, any conceivable terse labeling of it, however, is problematic. "America's Best Comics" is mentioned twice in the current version of this article, both time linking to the page of the same name, in the text, it is defined as the company described in that article, as a caption it is under an image of a publication with only the most tenuous and fantastic connection to the magazine so labeled. If we are not going to provide an article about the original America's Best Comics, nor even a section about more antique entities that bore the name in our current article about a concern founded decades later, it is confusing, perhapse deliberately so, to suggest a connection and to provide a misleading and deceptively counter-informative hyper-link.184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what all this fanciful nonsense is about, but the caption beneath a Golden Age America's Best Comics links to a sentence that reads, "America's Best Comics was a prominent Better/Nedor/Standard title during the 1940s Golden Age of comic books, starring such heroes as the Black Terror and the Fighting Yank."
As for the mention of the modern-day company, it's completely contextual and appropriate in that it's in a section about the term "superhero", and the use of an alternate term in a mainstream American comic. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
While I, as an occasional, casual reader of the form can personaly attest to the general accuracy of the characterization of the iconic outfits of Peejee, Frost and Starfire, said descriptions, occurring in the Female superheroes, subsection, appear to be either unsourced personal opinion of the editor, or to be falsely attributed to the web pages that the conclusion that they are examples for cites. I was unaware that Starfire's current uniform leaves her breasts uncovered; I haven't seen this and the two authorities provided in the footnotes most immediately following this claim do not appear to mention it. Perhapse the editor did not intend to state that Starfire's outfit has been reduced solely to "thong, pelvic covering, mask, and stiletto heels," though given that the statement is provided as evidence of objectification, it certainly gives that impression. This is like claiming that a doctor who has performed surgery on a patient has only provided antibiotics when making a claim of negligence, instead of the more correct statement that they provided antibiotics as part of their treatment. It seems like a misleading statement used to support an argument that a more accurate statement would be less supported by. In any event, the editor's discription of all three notable female superheroes is a highly opinionated statement (that I, and most would agree with) that appears to be personal research. A more objective discription of the outfits in question could be argued to fall under the cases appropately supported by a primary source, but none is given, and more importantly, the use of the statement, as an interpretation of the work in question is expressly required, as per Wikipedia standards, to be supported by a credible expert in a secondary source. It is a clear violation of our policy to pass off our personal views, no matter how correct we might think them, as objective facts. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I've addressed the WP:TONE and misleading details of that mention. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)