Talk:Portrayal of women in comics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Comics
comics
Portal
This article is in the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! Help with current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project talk page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Please explain the rating here.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
align="left" This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B This article has been rated as b-Class.
WikiProject on Sociology This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Portrayal of women in comics, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Improving article

This article desperately needs an introduction; in fact Wiki policy requires one. It appears to be on the topic of fictional women in comics, but at the end it contained a list of real-life women working in comics — a list that duplicates those found in two other articles that are already in the process of a consensus-agreed merge.

The title of the article is too vague and needs to be changed, since it's essentially indistinguishable from List of women in comics and List of female comic book writers and artists --Tenebrae 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's also an enormous amount of original research and uncited opinion. Fixing it might require an equally enormous of amount of time. If editors want to salvage this, I'd like to wait a few days before submitting it for WP:AfD --Tenebrae 01:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CC of posting at User talk:Maple Leaf

Hi. I've enjoyed your hard work on some of the various ComicsProject categories. I hope you've had a chance to read the Talk page at Women in comic books. I know you're a fairly new member of the community, and so it's important you read the policy about no original research. What we've got here is a nice essay about women in comics, but it's all your point of view and your personal take, and Wikipedia strives — in fact requires — a neutral point of view with a specific footnote or citation for anything that can be considered opinion ... which at this point most of the article is. It became even more so since I posted on the Talk page yesterday, so this really needs to be addressed. Right now it's pretty close to a candidate for "Articles for deletion" discussion. I know that if you go to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, you'll see that no one wants that, and we just need to bring this article up to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I personally think an article on "Women's portrayal in comic books" is needed, and I'm sure other editors do as well, so let's all work together on this. --Tenebrae 00:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


Just wanna say, User:Maple Leaf is starting to do some great work revamping this article. --Tenebrae 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title change

I know the title of this page has only just been changed, but might I suggest that it is moved to Portrayal of women in comics. That way it could take into account the various femme fatale characters in The Spirit.

Iron Ghost 22:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've now moved the page (after one or two hitches!).

Iron Ghost 14:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Continuing...

This is starting really be something!

I'd like to suggest that all of us work on the tone, which currently reads more like an essay -- which tries to mount an argument and convince the reader of something -- than an encyclopedia article, which isn't necessarily dry but is much more simple, basic and straightforward ... just the facts, ma'am, as they used to say on Dragnet.

Also, we have to watch out for terms like "of course," which assumed the general-audience reader has a familiarity with the subject. People in the U.S. and some other countries know about the Betty and Veronica love-triangle, but an English-speaking person in India, or the person translating this into Malaysian, for instance, might not. Simple descriptors are important for that reason. For example, we all know who Gene Colan is. But in an article on comics artist Christopher Rule, a Colan quote about his time at Marvel in the mid-1940s is set up as: "Artist and Comic Book Hall of Famer Gene Colan, a Marvel mainstay from 1946 on, said..." See what I mean?

Also, the comic-book dialog quotes aren't really necessary. Citing a particular issue (with month and year) as a source for the statements in the given paragraph is plenty. People can look up the verbatim specifics if need be.

Honestly, though, it's fun and gratifying to see a new addition to the community collaborating so wonderfully. --Tenebrae 23:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The discussion of "body type" seems to entirely overlook the fact that ALL body types --- male AND female --- are traditionally exaggerated or distorted in comics. Portrayal of women with, e.g. unrealistically large breasts, is not necessarily more absurd than the longstanding history of portraying male superheros with unrealistically large muscles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.99.1 (talk) 21:10, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women vs. Superheroes

This whole page is ridiculously biased anyway. It starts talking about superheroes, then DC, Marvel, Image... and nothing else. "Women in comics"? Where are Daisy Duck and the other potential female models? This should be called "Women in superhero and sci-fi comics", with no depiction of real women in any way. (Anonymous reader)

Although the user makes a great point that there are not enough references to non-superhero women, the vast majority of comics today is superhero based. For what its worth, there were references to Betty and Veronica, the women of Spider-Man, and women from Strangers in Paradise. Depending on the evolution of this article, there might be a need to have an article for the portrayal of super-hero women and non super-hero women. Maple Leaf 22:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah but I don't think Daisy Duck counts as a woman. She's more of, a duck. A gx7 05:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article tags

This is an important article, and with User:Maple Leaf I've done what I can since it's inception to build it. Given the sociological nature of the topic and of Wikipedia editing it was inevitable that it would tilt toward becoming a soapbox. Usually what happens afterward is that editors outside the immediate project, in this case comics, come in from sociological/historical projects and inject a neutral encyclopedic tone.

That hasn't happened so far in the latter sections tagged as POV and original-research essay writing. Phrases like "Another recent source of outrage" do not belong in an encyclopedia.

I believe this article has enough material and examples for the moment — it's a long article and in fact could be shorter and more streamlined. We need to work now on neutral language and an encyclopedic tone.

I've left a call for editors at the WikiProject Sociology talk page. Together we can make this a top-notch academic article — the material is here; now we just have to squeeze the "outrage" out of it. --Tenebrae 17:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Sociologist's View

I saw Tenebrae's call for sociological input.

Well I am a sociologist, albeit a male person, an as I am in my 60s, I am mostly familiar with Gold and Silver age comics.

My own POV is that this is a fine article. (I didn't find "outrage", btw). Very well written and with more documentation than many. I thought the analyses to be smart and cogent, and they do a good job of linking changes in comic books to US male-female and family relationships.

One omission: did I miss the women-only community of Wonder Women's Amazon-dwelling family and friends? Even at the age of 10 in the innocent 1950s, it made me think about anti-male sexism, altho I was too innocent to know about lesbianism.

Good luck. But my own feeling is that you are worrying too much. Bellagio99 17:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

PS: I've also read at one of Tenebrae's deletes: the recent one about Misty Knight. Putting on my professional editor's cap, I half agree with her. The "outrage" language doesn't belong, but the rise (?) of sadism and bondage could well be mentioned. Basically, it wouldn't take much editing to de-outrage (some folks don't find S&M, B&D outrageous, alas), but keep in the contact of the now-possible portrayal of that stuff in the comic books.

I also suggest that you edit from a non in-group POV. For example, I never heard of any of the current hot writers/editors. So I suggest you explain more.

But, YMMV.

I won't stay with this debate, important and fascinating as it is. (I learned lots from the article, as a current non-aficionado.) I have stuff of my own to do, but I will keep it on my watch list for a day or so, in case anyone wants to chat. And you can always find me on my Talk page. Cheers, Bellagio99 18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a he, so I'm glad I'm a progressive enough male to be welcomed otherwise. And it's wonderful to hear your positive comments. The first large part of the article seems indeed very solid to me.
I had removed the "outrage" line by the time you'd joined us. Let's hope we can keep building on this in a less "outraged" way.  :-)   --Tenebrae 18:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tenebrae, thanks for the thanks. I don't want to be Wikipossessive about my comments, but I see all of the Misty Knight discussion is gone, not just the "outrage" but the NPOV. Methinks, the article would be more complete if an edited version of this -- and similar stuff -- were put back in. Bellagio99 19:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B&D and All That

Hiya. The Misty Knight material that was cut opened with:

"Another recent source of outrage was the cover to Heroes for Hire #13. The cover featured Black Cat, Misty Knight and Colleen Wing bound by the wrists, showing prominent cleavage, and with malacious tentacles dripping what appears to be semen on them."

Aside from the opening phrase, which was over-the-top language and a WP:DATED vio, the phrase about "malacious [sic] tentacles dripping what appears to be semen" is a highly POV interpretation unmitigated by the "appears to be" weasel phrase. It's original-research speculation.
I think we need instead, perhaps, to have a self-contained section on bondage imagery, which goes back to the Golden Age. I'd suggest an opening short paragraph saying it exists in comics, with an authoritative cite (very easy to find); a second graf giving a couple of examples per era (Golden, Silver, etc., which I would key to decades rather than "Golden", "Silver", etc., for the sake of the general-interest reader); and a final graf of maybe two or three non-judgmental, authoritative quotes to put the issue in a) historical, and b) societal context.
I've leave the content to more astute Wikipedians than I; as an editor, though, this is a way to structure such a section. It's not the only way, but it's a solid and workable way. --Tenebrae 23:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. But please don't leave it only as generalities, even if you dip into WP:NOR a bit. Speaking as a professional editor, you want some concrete examples (of which there are others in the MK writing now), to exemplify what you are saying. IMHO. Bellagio99 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- specific examples ("a second graf giving a couple of examples per era") are the most precise and concrete way to go. I'm not sure what "dip[ping] into WP:NOR a bit" exactly entails, but as a professional journalist and editor myself, I would leave that to the "News Analysis" column, and stick to the 5Ws and H. Other, learned forums can take the facts we present and interpret them as they will. Our volunteer job is just to give the encyclopedic facts. --Tenebrae 01:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] women in manga

ought to be a mention of that, since it's also seen as being more appealing to girls in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.210.134 (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:SueFF27.jpg

Image:SueFF27.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)