Talk:List of feminist comic books

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unsourced[edit]

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 Wikipedia editor's opinion. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You might want to find out what WP:LISTN means before repeating that. Johnuniq (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are, of course, free to do so. --Nat Gertler (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sources not really saying the comic books are feminist[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Single source problem[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possible source[edit]

It would not be my first choice as a source, but considering that so many Wikipedia 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:

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

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)[reply]

'Nother source[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image[edit]

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 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Entries that have been removed[edit]

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

The Maxx sourcing and Priya's Shakti[edit]

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)[reply]

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 (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 (talk) 06:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with SlimVirgin about Priya's Shakti, and here's why: Verifiability says that any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a published source. We have published sources saying that Priya's Shakti is about "women's equality,"[1][2] and even tying it to the hashtag #EqualityIs.[3] The terms "women's equality" and "equality for women" are synonyms for feminism. Lightbreather (talk) 16:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Led by Priya, her followers, both men and women, spread the message of women’s equality across the Earth, and not to remain silent in the face of violence against women and injustice. (from the first source I gave above - the official comic-book website)
  • Devineni wants the murals to resonate with people that pass by them. "We want people to tell their friends 'I stand with Priya,' he explained, "and support women's equality and the struggles of rape survivors to seek justice." (from second source I gave above - NBC News)
--Lightbreather (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two items you're quoting shouldn't count, because even if we read them as saying "feminist", it's the publisher and creator saying them. It's promotional, not a reliable third-party source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe they pass WP:SELFSOURCE and WP:RSCONTEXT, among others. That Priya's Shakti is a feminist comic is not an exceptional claim here. Lightbreather (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So are we accepting every author's claim that their work is feminist? That would not seem wise to me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So? You are quoting them as "feminist", yet they say "women's equality". If they wanted to say they were for feminism, then they would say that. Women's equality and feminism are not the same things, because for a variety of reasons, some people do not want to be identified as "feminist" but are for women's rights (for example, this Guardian article). If you can find the author distinctly saying she is feminist, add Priya's Shakti into the article. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would have supported your contention generally. SPS claims are not worth much in the face of contrary assertion by neutral third party sources. However, in the absence of contrary assertions, and in the context of list articles where sourcing standards are comparatively quite lax, SPS assertions should be OK as long as we see no reason to doubt those claims ? I would not support inserting something if I had some reason to think it was wrong / misleading, but we seem to have no such reason so far. I have no strong opinions on this particular issue either way, just speaking generally... Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nat Gertler: Are you arguing that Priya's Shakti is obviously a feminist work, but regrettably that cannot be verified so it might not be suitable for this list? Or, are you arguing that it is not a feminist work, or perhaps that you have no idea? If it's not the first, let me reveal that "Priya's Shakti, inspired by Hindu mythological tales, tells the story of Priya, a young woman and gang-rape survivor, and Goddess Parvati as they fight against gender crimes in India." (and more at the BBC) rather gives the game away. Johnuniq (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I won't claim to have my own judgment as to whether the work is feminist, as I've not read it (have any of the editors here?). I'm arguing that "feminist" is a specific description, that it can be controversial in its application to a work, that we do not have what we would normally consider a reliable source for that descriptor. We're also working on a list without finding some reliable source for what "feminist comic book" means - is it a work intended by its creator to be feminist, or is it a book that is critically viewed to be feminist? (That difference can be stark - there are some books that have been described by their creators as feminist or at least female-empowering that are seen by others as misogynistic boobfests. And, for the flip side, I bet if you did enough searching in old reviews of Cerebus during its High Society period, you'll find at least one describing it as feminist - it was certainly noted for its strong female characters. Yet its creator would later reveal himself explicitly as being opposed to feminism.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC) Added: an to make it clear, I question the encyclopedic nature of the list as a whole. That isn't to say that list of feminist comics are a bad thing - quite the opposite. I think they would be a good thing, and better yet, lists of high-quality feminist comics would be a very good thing - but those lists would (and should) reflect their author's view of what qualifies as "feminist" when describing a comic book. Given that that can be a point of contention, I don't see anyone's POV as being definitive. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:57, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am increasingly finding it difficult to make sense of what you are saying. Maybe it is me, but I did try. You seem to be questioning the encyclopedic nature of this list, and doing the opposite too. You seem to be saying that works which have been described by theirs creators as being feminist have been seen by others as misogynistic boobfests, but yet seem to want the author's view to be reflected in deciding what is/is-not feminist. Perhaps I could understand things better if you could make arguments which pertain directly to Priya's Shakti. That something is true for some other work, or that there is some difference of opinion about some other comic does not mean the same pertains to Priya's Shakti, which is under discussion here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying that if someone wants to make a list of what they feel are feminist works, then that's a good thing, but that list would (and should) reflect the judgments of the author of the list, which makes it POV material and thus not right for an encyclopedia. As for Priya's Shakti, we seem to have a bunch of editors here who have not read the work, who are going off of descriptors that do not call the work "feminist", but they guess it is feminist. The only basis we actually have for putting it on a list of feminist comic books is that an editor convinced the author to say that it was feminist. Does authorial intent for PS to be feminist meet our standards for listing something as a feminist comic book? I can't answer that, because no one seems willing to have a discussion of what we mean by "feminist comic book". We don't have any reliably-sourced definition of "feminist comic book", nor any consensus working definition for this article. If you're asking me does PS fit the criteria for this list, my response would be that I cannot answer that as we have not established the criteria for this list. Under what would seem to me to be the reasonable minimum criteria - that it's a comic book that has been described by a significant third-party source as "feminist", so far the answer is no, we haven't found that third-party source. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are not engaging with the discussion. How about reading my comment above at 05:19, 23 December 2014. Look at the BBC link and say whether you think such a comic could reasonably be described as feminist. If you don't know, may I suggest you direct your attention to other articles. If you do know that it is feminist, and you are just making a point, again you might consider doing that elsewhere. No red herrings please—I'm not suggesting that we vote on what goes in the list, just that this is not a page for debating the finer points of policy regarding list articles, and you should be prepared to answer my question above. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to apologize for not jumping through your hoops. I have very much been involved in this discussion. I don't think it matters whether my reaction to a summary of a piece leaves me feeling that it may be feminist, because I don't think that this should be List Of Books Nat Gertler Hasn't Read But Kind of Thinks Are Likely To Be Feminist Based On A Description Somewhere. I'm not sure why you feel that question is important and the question of making clear what this is a list of is not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have created and written articles about scholars who have written numerous books, while I did not read any of their books. I did it by reading descriptions of them and their books. So, I don't see any problem with Priya's Shakti being described as feminist by reading a description in reliable sources. Anyway, besides email confirmation secured by SV, and sources provided by Johnuniq, you can see this [4] where the publisher describes their comic as "feminist". Now, if you want to dispute these, you have to find a source which says that Priya's Shakti is not feminist. You cannot expect to be taken seriously without showing sources or by expressing technical / bureaucratic / hypothetical type doubts without actually disputing.OrangesRyellow (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not need to provide a source to say that the work is not feminist because I am not making the claim that it is not feminist. I am making the claim that we do not have proper reliable sourcing to say it is feminist. You point to what the author and publisher have said, but as "feminist" is a term of promotional value, that seems to me to be self-serving to sufficient degree that WP:SELFSOURCE applies. As such, I'm asking for a reliable third-party source that describes the work as "feminist". If you are incapable of taking people's concerns about sourcing seriously, that would seem to be your own limitation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. no dear. It applies only to material which is unduly self-serving. Examples of that would be -- "Ours is the best / greatest / fastest / highest / strongest / truest / purest / popularest / ... blah blah blah" etc. A simple claim of being feminist is not unduly self-serving. I also do not agree that it is proper to demand third-party sources on list articles without showing some substantial reason to doubt first-party claims. Anyway, I think there is a third party source too [5] which is describing it as feminist while awarding a grant. I hope this could allay any remaining doubts and settle the issue. OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any subjective claim that serves to promote can be seen as undue, it need not be a superlative. But you seem to have a third-party source now, that works. I suggest that you add that to the article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chute source[edit]

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)[reply]

I was actually just going through that book a bit for possible use in the portrayal article and the page linked to doesn't say quite what the sentence attributed to it reads. In fact Chute is attributing the "almost superhero inflected" idea to Crumb. She's not really making the statement herself. And I see no mention of WW on that page at all. I think that sentence needs to be refactored to better fit the source. Chute is a great source but it doesn't quite say what the current sentence implies. Capeo (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given that, I'm deleting the sentence for now. Misrepresenting someone's stance, particularly in a way that seems kind of ridiculous, can be considered a WP:BLP concern. This is not a rejection of the Chute source, or of the actual quoted portion... although if we reenter it, we should make sure it's clear that she's referring to feminist comics in general and not to our listed items. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Portrayal of women in comics[edit]

I saw this list come up at the GGTF and in checking it out (I'm a big comic book fan) I followed the link to the above article which, to put it mildly, is in horrendous shape. Horrible grammar. Quite a few quite old and/or just plain bad refs. It's missing some of the bigger sea-changes and controversies, especially more recent ones. I have limited time, especially around the holidays, but I'm going to see if I can find better sources and start posting them on the talk page as a starting point. I figured the same editors that might find interest in this list may also want to have a crack at improving that article. Capeo (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really worked in comic books before a few days ago, but I did observe recently that List of comic books is riddled with red links; British comics has been tagged as needing additional citations for verification since October 2010; Comics in Australia has been similarly tagged since 2008; and List of American comics has been tagged as not citing any references or sources for over a year now. My current work led me to Bad girl art and Good girl art, which are also in horrendous shape... My first observation is that the subject has lots of articles that need improvement. Lightbreather (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That it does. The scholarship is a bit sparse though there's been more in recent times. A lot of the sources I'm finding though are very bloggish and/or opinion pieces. Which is fine so long as the opinions are from sufficiently notable people I guess. But it's not as easy as I thought it would be, specifically for the portrayal of women in comics, as it's been a point of discussion within the comic world for decades now. A lot of stuff I'm seeing in comic related articles is sourced to comicvine.com, most of which is a user edited wiki that should never be used as a source. In fact the portrayal of women in comics article is a trimmed down version of comicvine's similar wiki article. The wording is so close in areas it borders on copyright violation. This is all going to be a bigger undertaking than I thought. Here's some potential books sources you might find useful:
Madrid, Mike. The Supergirls: Fashion, Feminism, Fantasy, and the History of Comic Book Heroines. Minneapolis, MN: Exterminating Angel Press, 2009. Print.
Robbins, Trina. The Great Women Superheroes. Northampton, MA: Kitchen Sink Press, 1996. Print.
Robinson, Lillian S. Wonder Women: Feminisms and Superheroes. New York: Routledge, 2004. Print.
Stuller, Jennifer K. Ink-Stained Amazons and Cinematic Warriors: Superwomen in Modern Mythology. New York: I. B. Tauris & Co Ltd, 2010. Print
This site can also point to more recent sources: http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/
Also, I'd think Birds of Prey belongs on this list as well, though the sources I'm finding that call it feminist specifically are mainly blogs. Maybe you'll have better luck. Capeo (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Capeo: Nope. If the opinions are from a reliable source, that is what matters. If notability equaled reliability, we'd trust the National Enquirer over many doctoral research papers! Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 22:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: Nope. The only time the reliability of an opinion can only be called into question if you think the source is misrepresenting said opinion. The notability of the opinion, i.e whose opinion it is, balanced against due weight is what actually matters. Hence I said I found no sources that met that criteria. Given that the writer of Birds, whose opinion would certainly be notable, is outspoken about feminism I was just suggesting a good source may be out there. Capeo (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Capeo: What you said is true. I think we agree. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 02:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Chess: Nope. Wait... Yup ;) I too think we're in agreement. And sorry for the extra "only" in that first sentence. I'm on my phone and I've had a scotch. It's fair to blame either. Capeo (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Capeo: Nope, we agreed. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Capeo: How do you feel about this http://www.english.ufl.edu/imagetext/archives/v7_4/cocca/ as a source about calling Birds of Prey feminist? It focuses on Oracle/Batgirl rather than the rest, and I can't find the sentence "Birds of Prey is feminist", but it writes a lot about Birds and about Feminism, so the meaning seems clearly there, no? --GRuban (talk) 04:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban: I'm a little torn on that source. Like you mention it's not really specifically stating Birds is feminist. The article definitely examines the comic through an academic feminist perspective but it doesn't seem to go as far as to draw that conclusion. In fact it has both praise and criticism for Birds from that perspective. I guess I could see an argument for it but I personally don't think it quite meets the criteria. Capeo (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GoGirl!, Courtney Crumrin, source for other works[edit]

Here is a book source specifying GoGirl! as feminist and Courtney Crumrin as having a feminist message. Looks like a book that would have a lot of similar statements about other works in it. I'm not making additions myself due to a WP:COI (I publish Panel One, a book of comic book scripts that contains a GoGirl script.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that, while Courtney Crumrin would be a blue link, GoGirl! would not. We have not yet had any discussion over whether we will include items without Wikipedia pages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone got anything to say? Any opinion on whether we should limit it to "notable" comics or whether it should be all sourceable comics? Bueller? --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many feminist comic books are there? If we include non-notable works, is the list going to grow to be unmanageable? In other words, much over 100 entries? If so, we should restrict it to notable works, or it isn't going to be of much use to anyone. But as is, we have a bit of room. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we're not limiting this list by such things as language, country of origin, that we seem to be counting web comics as "comic books", and so forth, I would expect that there are hundreds of comics that could be reasonably described as feminist. There may not be that many yet which we could reasonably source as bearing that label. With the growth of visibly female involvement as creators (and that doesn't seem limited to North America) and the growth of distribution channels and the growth of comics criticism, that number (which can obviously only grow) seems likely to grow strongly. There should be at least some balance to be found, although it may be a little short of red-link/blue-link on the work. Perhaps if the work or one of the key creative team can be blue-linked? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Priya's Shakti at WP:RSN[edit]

I have started a discussion about Priya's Shakti at RSN.

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of comic books and graphic novels described as feminist by notable sources. How about modifying that sentence to include comics about "women's rights" ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 02:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked it to say "This is a list of feminist comic books and graphic novels," so that we're not forcing sources to use the word feminist, so long as it's otherwise obvious. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: Obviousness is in the eye of the beholder. If the sources describe someone as supporting women's rights, that does not mean they support feminism. I believe in equality, doesn't mean I believe in communism, which is for equality. I believe in a free market, doesn't mean I believe in anarcho-capitalism. Women's rights is a defining feature of feminism, but feminism is not what all people who support women's rights support. They are simply not the same word, and many women, for one reason or another, don't consider feminism equivalent to women's rights. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 03:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Slim Virgin. That's how it originally read, and the simplicity is better. Lightbreather (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can see SV's point. The present construction makes it obvious enough. These list articles are written pretty much in the spirit of "anything goes", and focusing too much on semantics etc. is probably a bit "too much" here :-) Things like that are probably better suited for the general article talk pages.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. SV has email confirmation from the publisher's that the comic is feminist, is very feminist, and that's enough, more than enough. Kudos.OrangesRyellow (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the original wording noted by OrangesRyellow was best honestly. We can only go by sources not our interpretation. I personally think Birds of Prey should be on the list but I can't find a source describing it as feminist. Chess is right in that a simple defintion of equal rights for women does not equal feminism. There's no shortage of -isms that call for equal rights for all peoples. For the list to be anyway meaningful it has to restrain it self to comics that have been described as feminist by notable sources. If the criteria is simply equal rights for women the list could literally include most every mainstream comic from the 60's on. At this point I think everything on the list qualifies at this point. I just caution that the more you broaden the list the less meaningful it becomes. Capeo (talk) 04:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@OrangesRyellow: Can we get an OTRS ticket to that regard? Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the aim is not to broaden the list, but only to include what already qualifies, but is facing bureaucratic hurdles.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is something only SV can say, but that she has email confirmation is more than enough for me.OrangesRyellow (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think accepting promotional statements from the publisher is a bad idea. "Feminist" is a subjective analysis; the publisher is not a reliable source for subjective analysis of the work. --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nat, can you say what you mean about "feminist" being a subjective analysis?
List_of_romance_comics is unsourced, as are List of dystopian comics, List of fantasy comics and several others. Why is there so much focus on sources for this list and not the others? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think your concern is that this would set some kind of bad precedent, which is not the case. Every case is weighed separately. Concerns about SPS are valid only if the claims seem to be overly self serving or disputed by other sources, or look false due to some other reason, which does not seem to be the case here.OrangesRyellow (talk) 06:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A primary source (or SPS) shouldn't be used if there's anything contentious about the issue, nor should sources be used that don't use the word "feminist" in cases where there's real doubt. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak to all those other lists, which is a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument anyway. We are at the start of the formulation of this list, and it would be good for us to nail down clear guidelines now. So far, we've seen things put on this list because an other-media adaptation of the work was refered to as feminist, because they were by and about a woman. I'm not saying Priya's Shakti is a particularly contentious work, and I've not read the work and have no judgment on it myself... but being clear now what makes the list can help avoid editing difficulties and meaningless entries in the future. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holding this entry because of the absence of a clear guideline for this article does not seem like a good idea. I know that is not your intention. Perhaps you did not contemplate on the impossibility of formulating a clear-cut guideline. Our site policies continue to look vague to lots of people despite thousands of users having worked on the to make them clearer and clearer. Your major concern is that unsuitable entries may not get added. This is a valid very valid concern, but this is not something we could ensure beforehand. We have to delete them after they get added. It is something we must strive for all the time. This is something inherent to an easily editable article. I too detest irrelevant content, and if you look into my article-space contributions, you may find that the majority of my article contributions consist of deleting unsourced or unsuitable content from obscure articles. So, I clearly share your concern there, and despite all my other shortcomings, I don't think adding irrelevant stuff could be one of my proclivities / shortcomings. This is even more true for the other eds on this page. That, I feel, is a stronger safety feature for ensuring the quality of this article. I hope your doubts have been allayed. Regards.OrangesRyellow (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it'sdifficult to precisely define a lot of things.
(Because of that, we tend to categorize things along lines which can be precisely defined, which is not necessarily the best way to categorize things for the reader, although it sure is easier and less contentious for us the editors... that's a different issue though).
One way to deal with this is to define the terms more and more precisely -- here, it would be not "Feminist comic books" (for starters, comic books are inanimate objects, feminism is an ideology, ideology requires thought, inanimate objects cannot think) but perhaps "Comic books and graphic novels expressing a viewpoint (on the part of the writers or illustrators, or both, of a reasonable percentage of the material, with 'reasonable percentage' being open to interpretation and argument) which may be reasonably called 'feminist', or else expressing support of equal rights (either legal or otherwise) for women, or both", I guess...
It kind of gets into a quagmire. It's the same with laws. You want to write them precisely, and they get to be scores of pages long, but even then you have to have judges to figure out what's really meant. It's not really possible to do this... as you see above, I left the definition of "reasonable percentage" up in the air, and this would have to be hammered down... but how? By page count? Why not by story count? How about panel count...? Nevermind trying to define "feminism" or "equal rights" or "support" and so on.
I would not recommend going down this road. Instead, let's let common sense be our guide here.
It is true that if you want to split hairs you can split a lot of hairs in this life and you can argue semantics a lot also. It's true that it's not impossible for someone to go out of their way to learn to write and draw and create works of art that are in favor of equality for women but aren't feminist, depending on how the semantics of the words used shake out.
But let's not overthink this. Feminism and support for equality for women are inextricably joined and joined closely, even if not precisely identical. It's perfectly legit to join them in this article. Let's not let angels-on-a-pinhead arguments obscure that. Herostratus (talk) 20:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

info on 3 feminist Japanese women artists[edit]

I saw mention of this topic at the Wikiproject on addressing gender issues, and at a bookstore today I thought to ask about feminist comics or graphic novels. I was eventually given a comics history book, and I found and copied down some info to share here, all from one impressive-to-me source. The info is about 3 women artists identified as feminist. I see two of them are listed already in List of female comics creators and have wikipedia biographies. The info I came across could help with those articles perhaps and perhaps in finding their specific manga titles to add to this list of feminist comic books. The source is Comics: Global History, 1968 to the Present, by Dan Mazur and Alexander Danner, 2014, Thomas & Hudson, Ltd., London. Within Chapter 13: The Growth of Realism in Manga, there is section titled "Alternative Manga: Garo 1978-1990, and within that section on pages 210-211, appears:

  • "Women mangaka also began to appear with some frequency in Garo, often focusing on feminist themes. ... A feminist poes and essayist, [artist Murasaki] Yamada had little interest in the idealistic romance of most girl's [sic] and women's manga, focusing more often on the ends of relationships than their beginnings. She explored such themes as how women suffer in unhappy marriages, as well as challenges faced by women trying to rebuild their life after a divorce." (p.210)
  • [Artist] "Michiyo Matsumoto became a regular contributor to Garo in the eighties. Her Preconceptions, published in issue #242 in 1984, was an early example of the josei "essay" story. She addresses the reader directly through first person narration on a feminist topic: societal pressures on a woman's body image, using symbolism and abstraction as graphic devices." (p.210-211)
  • Artist Hinako Sugiura's "stories were beautifully crafted reflections of the circumscribed, melancholy lives of the women of the era." (p. 211)

There's a bit more about each of those besides these quotes that I copied down. Is this specific enough about Preconceptions for that to be added to this comic book list? The book seems like a great source anyhow, and it may well cover feminist comics in other countries and eras, though the index doesn't lead one to such coverage easily. I found the above passages by browsing, and did not browse the entire book at all. I hope this helps a bit. Cheers, --doncram 21:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked a little more into Yamada and it appears the book Dreamland Japan: Writings on Modern Manga By Frederik L. Schodt p. 157 makes a case for her works Blue Sky and Shin Kalali both being feminist. The page can be found on google books.Capeo (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Drew[edit]

The reference for Tamara Drew being feminist seems weak. http://www.publishersweekly.com/978-0-547-15412-1 merely says "But the view on how feminism has failed in moneyed Britain is priceless." I don't think that's a claim that the comic itself is feminist - if saying "feminism has failed" made a work feminist, then that would so qualify The Collected Works of Phyllis Schlafly. If we can't find a better reference, we should remove Tamara Drew. --GRuban (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I'm finding call it post-feminist, calling the movie adaptaion vaguely feminist, oh, okay, I find some sources calling the movie feminist (and anti-feminist), but that doesn't count. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gemma Bovery[edit]

Same here - I don't see this source http://www.jstor.org/stable/3190136 saying that Gemma Bovery is a feminist work. (It does call the author feminist, but that's not the same thing.) In fact, from our article on the work, the main character is the opposite of being a feminist woman in control of her own life, she is mostly in the control of men: from being dragged to a life that she doesn't like by one, to being in apparently uncontrollable affairs with them, to ultimately dying due to having one man stop another man from performing the Heimlich maneuver on her. I think this needs to go. --GRuban (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A feminist book doesn't require a feminist protagonist. Some of the most politically effective works of literature have shown the protagonist's life as controlled by others - One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, for example. Conversely, having a feminist character in the cast doesn't make a book - or play, or film - feminist, even if that character's depicted positively; it might just make the book more engaging, well-rounded and realistic. Why is "Astro City character Winged Victory" in this list? NebY (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All that is correct in general, but not conclusive to the specific issue of whether Gemma Bovery is a feminist comic book. (I agree about Winged Victory, BTW, this is a list of feminist comic books, not comic books that happen to have feminist characters in them; if it was the latter, then almost every modern comic book over a certain number of issues has had at least one feminist minor or supporting character. But again, irrelevant to Gemma Bovery.) --GRuban (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I was just taking issue with your apparent argument that it's not a feminist work and must go because "the main character is the opposite of being a feminist woman". I'll remove the Astro City entry. On the same principle, how about Ms Marvel - a book that was about as feminist as Supergirl and for which our only reference here is a promotional piece from the publisher? NebY (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the longer run, we'll see Astro City included on the list. Even the source that was being used for Winged Victory was talking about the storyline dealing with feminism in superhero comics, and not merely the character being feminist. And if you head over to FeministComics.com you can find whoever is writing there talking about AC being one of the best books on the market, although they don't explicitly call it feminist. I won't be adding it to the list myself due to a WP:COI regarding Astro City (the same book that I have with a GoGirl script in it also has an Astro City script in it, and I publish other work by Astro City writer Kurt Busiek.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nat. Astro City will definitely appear on this list properly. And, in my opinion, it is one of the best books out there right now. But there's no good RS out there that examines it, or claims it, as feminist. So it I would think it doesn't belong there yet. There's no rush. Capeo (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slim found sources that call Gemma Bovery and Tamara Drew feminist - sort of. I won't press the point, however. --GRuban (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second Gemma Bovery source is explicit about it; the Tamara Drewe source less so, but it's still seems pretty clear. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're both more than adequate. Good find, Slim. Capeo (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Capeo. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yamada[edit]

I'd say based on this: http://books.google.com/books?id=Loug6sbKTvEC&q=Feminist+#v=snippet&q=Feminist&f=false we can easily add her Blue Sky, Shin Kalali and Otogizoshi to the list. Pages 155-158. I'd do it myself but I rarely do more than minor copy editing and never touch refs. I'd screw it up. Capeo (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, did Blue Sky myself. Think I reffed it correctly just by fumbling through it though I wonder if that's the best way to deal with a book when the cite covers multiple pages. If anyone would care to look at it and let me know if it's satisfactory I'll make a go at adding Yamada's other two mangas that I believe are covered by the ref. ThanksCapeo (talk) 03:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of feminist comic books. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of feminist comic books. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_feminist_comic_books&oldid=1207203974"