Talk:Sinfest

Sinfest Murder

Travis Ikeguchi, the suspected murderer of a GLBTQ positive businesswoman in Lake Arrowhead was a Sinfest fan: https://i.imgur.com/sEOxqNu.png https://abcnews.go.com/US/california-store-owner-shot-dead-dispute-displaying-pride/story?id=102408818 Is there any way to put this information into the article? 22:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C883:5430:31DD:509D:60CE:3D09 (talk)

I'm afraid a related tweet is not enough for us to mention it on Wikipedia, per WP:OR. If an independent source mentions it, then yes, for sure. (Also wow that strip... :( ) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:17, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the strip is awful. I'm a bit too busy to nominate it for deletion, but there seem to be some rumblings on this page which could lead to its AfD nomination. Historyday01 (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It isn't farfetched to hypothesize that transphobic media can encourage violence, though.

There are real human lives at stake, but you want to wait until there are enough victims for an independent source to finally feel like covering the story? Molotovius Arsoniuis (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

We're an encyclopedia, we don't speculate. Yes, we do need to wait for independent sources. — Czello ^(music) 20:04, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The comic for 1/28/24 is.... really bad. Like, really really anti semitic. Can we PLEASE JUST TAKE THIS FUCKING ARTICLE DOWN.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:c883:5430:5462:6a7e:ab97:fe48 (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't checked in on Sinfest in about a decade, and it's been running straight anti-semitic strips for months (as of Feb 2025). Pure jaw-dropping toxic shit. But I'd rather have that described in the article than have it deleted. (Edited to add:) aaaand I see this is discussed below. I came here wondering what the f— happened to this comic, and now I know why Wikipedia can't tell me, which is a shame. I think I understand the positions taken below, and I apologize that I have nothing further to contribute.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.210.85 (talk) 06:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Several editors have tried to find sources we can use in the WP-environment, not without some success, but not on the Jew-stuff either. I think people will keep looking, and if you find something, please come back and say so! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{rfc|pol|policy|media|rfcid=E3F50C8}}
Sinfest the comic is unambiguously anti-Semitic. This is a neutral and true fact. Sinfest the article makes no mention of this fact. There is a dearth of reliable media mentioning this fact. The article has become severely misleading as a result. How to fix? Le Blue Dude (talk) 06:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Please get some help about an WP:RFC before trying this again. You could try WP:HELPDESK for technical assistance (what wikitext is required to do x) or WP:Teahouse for general advice. A good idea would be to look at some examples, for example at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

An RFC needs to pose actual suggestions for editors to comment/vote on. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually, all that is needed is to read my comment above: "a brief and neutral statement that asks a clear question". Johnuniq (talk) 06:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This is both brief, and truly neutral. Le Blue Dude (talk) 07:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

An RfC is a question regarding article content that other editors are invited to consider. A question such "How to fix?" is far too generic. If you look at the examples I mentioned, you will find cases where specific suggestions regarding text in the article are made. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Instead of deleting things, I’d really appreciate it instead you helped make it better. Le Blue Dude (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

like, to be clear, I am attempting to call for assistance and I feel like you’re trying to keep help away. Please either help make the request better, or leave the request be. Do not silence the request. Thank you.Le Blue Dude (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

(ec) The links provided might sound like a brush-off but they should be helpful. I have only glanced at this page and the article so I only have a vague idea about what the issues are. I commented above about "WP:COATRACK". If the issue concerned the text mentioned there about the author of the comic, an RfC would be "Should [...this text...] be included in the article?", ideally with a WP:DIFF to show how the article would look if the RfC question were affirmed. If the issue concerned antisemitism, there would need to be a specific question. A simple "Should the article state the comic is antisemitic?" might be a good start. Reliable sources would be needed to assist those commenting. Johnuniq (talk) 07:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the helpful input. Le Blue Dude (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Since you want this RfC to continue, then I shall state my opinion:

Bad RfC: The formatting of the RfC does not follow the guidelines at WP:RFC. In particular, the statement is not neutral and there is no proper question being asked. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait until reliable media mentioning this fact appears is the standard approach. WP is supposed to follow WP:RS, other stuff is out of scope. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Disabled the Rfc; left id visible but bot-invisible. Mathglot (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Putting aside that malformed RFC, find high-quality sources and summarise what they say. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Listed launch date is incorrect. It is Oct. 16 1991, not year 2000

This comic started on October 16, 1991 in the Daily Bruin. I would correct this but I can't edit the page. You can confirm this fact at https://comicvine.gamespot.com/app.php/sinfest-1-volume-1/4000-163279/ which quotes from the back of a published book, " ... strips originally published in UCLA's Daily Bruin from October 16, 1991 ..." Can someone please correct this since I can't? Thank you! EdgierEdgar (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

If Comic Vine or Gamespot isn't an acceptable source, here is one from a university library https://comics.lib.msu.edu/rri/log/1005log.htm saying again "originally published in UCLA's Daily Bruin from October 16, 1991." EdgierEdgar (talk) 21:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe the reason it says 2000 is that was the year it was first published to the web as a webcomic. Le Blue Dude (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the article to include this fact but didn't update the infobox. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I think it should be in the infobox as well, but getting it into the article itself is a huge improvement towards making this article factually accurate. Thanks again! EdgierEdgar (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The infobox is factually incorrect and has the launch date wrong by almost a decade, saying "launch date January 17, 2000." The text of the article currently correctly describes the launch date of this comic as "16 October 1991." I have already provided multiple sources that give the correct launch date as "16 October 1991." One source I gave which another editor put in the article is https://comics.lib.msu.edu/rri/log/1005log.htm Other articles such as Girl Genius list both a print launch date and web publication launch date in the "launch date" in the infobox. So, since I am still blocked from editing this article, can someone please correct the infobox to say "Launch date October 16, 1991 (Daily Bruin newspaper) January 17, 2000 (web publication) EdgierEdgar (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Done Given that this is done on at least one similar page, this seemed reasonable. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 22:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you! I appreciate it! EdgierEdgar (talk) 00:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Please remove incorrect and unsourced "Black Comedy" description

The second sentence describes this comic strip as a "Black Comedy." 1) This is incorrect, as this comic is not primarily "black comedy," as in "gallows humor" or "morbid humor." 2) This is also completely unsourced as far as I can tell, so at best that is one of your own descriptions of what you think this comic is? I would remove this but I can't. So, could one of you remove this unsourced, incorrect, problematic description? The only way I can imagine this could be called a "Black Comedy" is someone's idea of a joke about how this comic uses racist stereotypes of Black people. EdgierEdgar (talk) 22:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Black comedy is supported by the refsLe Blue Dude (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Which refs? EdgierEdgar (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I've been unable to work out which reference supports the claim that the comic started as a black comedy. The closest I can find is the Rosberg article, which says that it was originally a four-panel comedy strip with a dark, biting sense of humor aimed at pop culture, but I am not convinced that "a dark sense of humour" and "a black comedy" are the same thing. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't use that "Rosberg article" as a reliable source for anything. That is just a click-bait, top 40 list of comics designed to make us click through a slideshow of 40 comics in order to generate 40 pages worth of ad impressions. This is not a reliable source for anything, let alone an accurate summary of a comic strip that at that point in 2016 had a 25 year history. This is not serious scholarship, this is not serious journalism, this is just literally someone cranking out a single paragraph about 40 different comics and making us click through them to try to generate maximum ad revenue. So, it is a terrible source, and it doesn't even say "black comedy." I agree, "dark sense of humour" and "black comedy" are not the same thing. EdgierEdgar (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Checking in here again. I still can't edit the article. Has anyone been able to find those supposed references calling this a "black comedy," or is that supposed to be some kind of way to say the comic uses racist stereotypes of black people? EdgierEdgar (talk) 03:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@EdgierEdgar You might already know this, but you're still not WP:AUTOCONFIRMED. You've made the edits, but you haven't done the time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@EdgierEdgar (+ Le Blue Dude) I have added a CN tag to the sentence due to this discussion. I did not remove the claim yet as a quick Google Search does appear that it is described as a Black/Dark Comedy. (As in, "a style of comedy that makes light of subject matter that is generally considered taboo, particularly subjects that are normally considered serious or painful to discuss.") However, I don't see which reference in that section covers it and didn't immediately see a reliable source that covers the claim. So I am giving some time to see if anyone can find a reference to cover it. (Hence my ping to Le Blue Dude since it was suggested by them that there is one available somewhere in the article.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a section titled "overview" that starts "Sinfest originated as a four-panel comedy strip relying on dark humor[citation needed] with frequent pop culture references." None of this is correct and none of this is cited. We have what another editor has described as a reliable source http://www.kleefeldoncomics.com/2013/04/growth-as-artist.html (see discussion below) that describes this comic as "Racially insensitive," "racial stereotypes," "insulting and degrading" and "essentially blackface" within the first week of its website. Trying to describe anti-Black racist comics as "black comedy" or "dark humor" is incorrect, not supported by sources, and wildly inaccurate. At the very least, lets stop describing "Racially insensitive ... insulting and degrading" comics as "dark humor" or "black comedy" or any other potentially racist euphemism and just change this to "Sinfest originated as a four-panel comic strip." Please. Thank you. EdgierEdgar (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I see the section. I added the CN tag. Currently I am trying to give time to see if Le Blue Dude responds with a link to the citation. I did do a search and found examples where it is called either a Black Comedy or a Dark Comedy. We cannot use those examples, but since they exist I only added the CN tag. Please give this a bit more time to see if anything develops. If nothing does, that part will be removed. (Examples: The Beat, Big Cartoon Wiki, Tv Tropes)

Additionally, are you asking me to look into the pop culture references part as well? Your suggestion to me lacks that part of the sentence. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:41, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The source is Paste Magazine. Exact quote: "Originally a four-panel comedy strip with a dark, biting sense of humor aimed at pop culture, Sinfest has recently become a more specific and pointed criticism of the most toxic parts of American exceptionalism". (Getting to the Sinfest entry is a pain - if anyone knows a nice way of directly accessing it, could the ref's archive-url please be updated?). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps [1] will aid someone. If you click to the left, it's not that bad. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Do we think this click-bait, single paragraph in a top 40 slide show is a reliable source? And do we think that this sentence in the article is correct or makes any sense? "Originally used dark humor ("comedy ... about subjects that are normally considered serious ... provoking discomfort, serious thought") but then it evolved into a more serious work"? What does that even say? "The comic strip was originally about serious subjects that provoked serious thought, but later it evolved to also be about serious subjects?" This is meaningless, self-contradictory, factually incorrect, sourced to clickbait, and adds nothing to the article. And it is in the lead paragraph! EdgierEdgar (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Per Paste (magazine), it seems comparatively fine for this article, considering topic and all the blogs. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

The same article you want to use as a reference is quite positive of Sinfest and makes note that the comic (as of 2013) no longer (and for quite a while too) has these sorts of strips. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't even know what this response means. You agree with the suggestion? Disagree? Yeah, I read the article and it makes a whole bunch of excuses for racist comics. Are you suggesting we also quote those excuses? What? EdgierEdgar (talk) 20:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm saying if this phrase is added it'd need to be in the context it was originally had, which is that Ishida has given more consideration to ethics and that he realises his early jokes (from over 25 years ago at this point and 13 years ago at that point) were offensive. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

What "if this phrase is added" are you even talking about? My suggestion above is to change the sentence "Sinfest originated as a four-panel comedy strip relying on dark humor[citation needed] with frequent pop culture references" and just change this to "Sinfest originated as a four-panel comic strip." Please. Thank you. That's it. No phrases added. Zero. None. This suggestions involves removing phrases, not adding phrases. Is that clear enough? EdgierEdgar (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I already changed it to just say comedy instead of black comedy. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Am I being trolled here? Your responses about "phrases added" and "black comedy" are making no sense. My suggestion above is to change the CURRENT sentence IN THE ARTICLE RIGHT NOW "Sinfest originated as a four-panel comedy strip relying on dark humor[citation needed] with frequent pop culture references" and just change this to "Sinfest originated as a four-panel comic strip." Please. Thank you. The words "black comedy" are nowhere in this suggestion. There is no "phrase added." EdgierEdgar (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Misleading, contradicted by sources description of "more political themes" in 2008

There is a sentence that says "During the 2008 United States presidential election, Sinfest incorporated more political themes." This makes it sound like the comic was apolitical prior to 2008, which is untrue, and contradicted by this source and others. This is attributed to a single source from 2009, which I don't think we can expect is necessarily accurately describing the entire history of the comic at that point. However, the first sentence of this source describes its recurring themes as "about angels, devils, sex and politics." That source also says "the strip took a much more political turn during the 2008 presidential election." That is, the comic has always been political, it just (according to this single source) simply focused more on politics during a then recent election year. This misleading description that the comic seemingly suddenly incorporated political themes in 2008 is also contradicted by the next source in the same paragraph https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/45885-tatsuya-ishida-speaks-on-sinfest-jesus-and-fans.html which describes comics from "2003-2004" that include comics where "The characters ponder politics" and one of the characters "runs for President," and quotes the comics creator as saying they had "gotten an earful over the political content" from these 2003-2004 comics. I still can't edit this article! So, can someone else fix this? It currently reads like this comic went until 2008 before it became about politics, but TWO SOURCES ALREADY WITHIN THE ARTICLE describe the comic as being "about politics," "pondering politics" and having "political content" well before 2008. Can somebody fix this? What I would probably do is clearly state, attributed to these two sources, that this comic has always been political from the start. Thank you! EdgierEdgar (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

There is a sentence that says "During the 2008 United States presidential election, Sinfest incorporated more political themes." This makes it sound like the comic was apolitical prior to 2008. Saying that the themes became more political does not make it sound as though the comic was apolitical before that point; indeed it implies that the comic was already political (otherwise we would write something like "Sinfest began to incorporate political themes"). The source says the strip took a more political turn in 2008: are you really arguing that our current text ("more political") is contradicted by the cited source's text ("more political")? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the current article as written in its entirety incorrectly describes this as a comic that "originated as a four-panel comedy strip relying on dark humor with frequent pop culture references. ... During the 2008 United States presidential election, Sinfest incorporated more political themes." This gives the incorrect impression of a comic that was apolitical from 1991-2008. Sources currently cited in the article describe this as a comic that has always been political, but the writing of the article makes it sound like this comic suddenly became political in 2008. EdgierEdgar (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Caeciliusinhorto-public believes the article "implies that the comic was already political." I believe this encyclopedia article should just state this clearly, as the referenced sources do, rather than trying to rely on using implication of all things to try to convey facts to readers of an encyclopedia article. I would fix this myself, but I cant edit the article. EdgierEdgar (talk) 15:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Currently the article says "originated as a four-panel comedy strip ... During the 2008 United States presidential election, Sinfest incorporated more political themes," making it sound like this comic was not political until 2008. Sources I gave above, which are already used in the article, make clear that this comic strip was very political from the start, and, according to the source, got "much more political" in 2008. So, my suggestion is: In the "Overview" section, immediately after the sentence beginning "Sinfest originated as a four-panel ..." let's add a sentence saying "Since its early comics, Sinfest has included political views that have led to reader complaints." That can be sourced to https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/45885-tatsuya-ishida-speaks-on-sinfest-jesus-and-fans.html which says "characters ponder politics" and quotes the creator as saying they had "gotten an earful over the political content" from 2003-2004 comics. Thank you. EdgierEdgar (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 21:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I have added this. Thanks again! EdgierEdgar (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

RFC for adjusting the about section to take advantage of a quote

this article contains the following quote “ Over the years that followed he added COVID conspiracies, MAGA support, open discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, lizard and paedophile conspiracies, alt-right propaganda, getting in bed with white supremacists and who knows what else by the time you read this introduction.” I believe that this is good enough to include in the overview section about what sinfest is about. We’ve been having a great deal of difficulty sourcing actual quotes about what it’s about, so this was hard to get. Another user believes since it’s a quote from a quote of an unreliable source, that it’s unusable, but I believe that since a reliable source quoted the unreliable source as fully accurate and true, at least in this case, it’s a good quote. Is the quote usable? Le Blue Dude (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hi Le Blue Dude. Yes, there's clear antisemitism to a reader, and while you want to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and are frustrated with en-wiki's processes, I can see you risking a topic ban for disruption in the approaching future if you continue as you have been going. I'll also point out the Streisand effect (I'm betting that the strip has had a bunch of eyeballs it wouldn't have had its change in direction not been so publicised). Anyway.... you were provided good advice above that you should workshop the formulation of an RFC question in accordance with the guidance at WP:RFC BEFORE launching it but haven't followed it so this RFC is likely to either be closed or have its template removed. Anyway... Material in that quote is not usable in WP:WIKIVOICE. Kleefeld quotes the moderator but does not explicitly endorse/confirm that content. Reddit mods are not usable as SPS experts (noting that not all reddit mods are in any way expert on the forums they moderate) but even if we were to stretch things with IAR, I think it'd have to be done along the lines of According to Kleefield, a moderator of r/sinfest noted the addition of "COVID conspiracies, MAGA support, open discrimination against LGBTQ+ people, lizard and paedophile conspiracies, alt-right propaganda, [and] getting in bed with white supremacists", which I don't love.
  Here's the thing: In the context of the decline of Sinfest, I don't think it's that important that we big red flashing light "This Webcomic is now antisemitic", and categories are interesting for some Wikipedia editors, but they're not nearly as useful for readers. I think we can get to a sufficient place using Broderick (SPS but expert) as attributed critical review of the work along the lines of In 2022, Ryan Broderick noted the introduction of "long-running internet conspiracies, like the Illuminati and the Bilderberg group" (by the early-2010s), the MAGA movement (2016+), anti-trans storylines (2019+), and QAnon (2021+), and "as of now, the comic is a Christian fascist slurry of random internet nonsense.". But DO NOT GO AHEAD AND JUST ADD ANYTHING IN - discussion / consensus is required since you know that inclusion of Broderick is at least controversial (I don't love his plagiarism, but the issue appears to be limited/scattered non-attribution rather than wholesale theft). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with Hydronium~Hydroxide that this is not appropriate. A self-published blog post that quotes Reddit is not a reliable source that should be used anywhere in any article, let alone to make these sorts of statements about a living person. I feel like this concept has been explained multiple times. EdgierEdgar (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• No(Summoned by bot) Short answer, the quote is valueless. I echo other comments by Hydronium Hydroxide and EdgierEdgar. Pincrete (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
• I don't really think that the current RFC is really... actionable in any way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  It does struggle on actionability, but I feel like it kinda works as an RfC with the question being "Is the quote usable?" There is enough detail that a majority saying yes would mean that there is support for adding a partial or full quote to the Overview section of the article with the website being a reference. There is some vagueness as to where in that section and there is no exact wording to use, but my reading would be that it would have to be at the end of that section and that it would need to have some sort of unmentioned setup, such as 'Sinfest was claimed to have changed over the years. (Quote here.)' So there would need to be some post-RfC work if this were somehow agreed to, but support for it would just mean some workshopping how it would appear in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Another RfC? Really? That makes three on this page in less than three days, and the first two were both shut down pretty quickly. I think that somebody is being far too hasty in reaching for the {{rfc}} tag, without having a proper discussion first, as required by WP:RFCBEFORE. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  So far as I see, Le Blue Dude has only attempted the second RfC as the first was made by someone else. (Though, Le Blue Dude did attempt to get get ArbCom involved before that...) In any case, the Reddit stuff does have multiple mentions on the talk page, with one discussion mentioning it archived. The most recent discussion was limited and was started by someone else months prior regarding a different topic, but there was some discussion on the subject on Tuesday. So they seem to have attempted to cover RFCBEFORE, but should have waited longer. Granted, they are a somewhat new-ish user. (Yes, they registered in 2005, but they haven't hit 300 edits yet so they are likely only now learning more about our policies and procedures.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• No: Do want to give credit right off the bat for this being more in line with what an RfC is. I likely am going to touch on the same things as Hydronium Hydroxide, but the problem is that the referenced quote is from a moderator of a Reddit sub-channel. (AKA a sub-Reddit.) Under our Verifiability policy, we have a section that WP:REDDIT links to called "Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves" which discusses when you can use material on social media website like Reddit. Two of the criteria I want to focus on are the second and third criteria: 2. It does not involve claims about third parties and 3. It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source. The Reddit moderator who has no direct ties to Ishida is making multiple claims about Ishida and his work. So this fails our Verifiability policy in that regard.
  Now, you did ask if it was okay to use a different source that contains a quote of that text. The problem I am going to focus on with doing that is the author, Sean Kleefeld. As you can see by the currently red text, we don't currently have an article for Kleefeld, so we don't currently consider him notable enough to have his own article. Granted, we can use sources from writers who are not notable, we just need to see if the publication (Kleefeld on Comics) is notable and go from there. But that is not notable either. In fact, we only use Kleefeld twelve times as a source on other articles based on searches for his name, his website, and the name of the website. Taking a look at the website shows that it is a blog with himself as the only writer. That makes it a Self-published source, which the Verifiability policy discusses here. To quote from that section: "Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert. That is why self-published material such as ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." (There is a footnote here that says: "Note that any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources.") "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources. Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." (Italics are my words; Emphasis in bold and links are retained as written.) So we have a self-published blog by a potential self-published expert that has a quote that would likely be judged to be an exceptional claim along the lines of an accusation about a living party and their work. I don't see how it could work without going afoul of the Verifiability policy.
  And that ignores the fact that Kleefeld never says much about Sinfest or Ishida himself. If you go back to the blog, you will see that right after the quote, he mentions that the sources from the sub-Reddit increasingly become guesswork. Kleefeld goes into finances after that with the most about Ishida being his overall attitude and demeanor online suggest he'd run into massive conflicts with most office managers, then going into his thoughts and saying This isn't the first time we've seen a comic creator slide into a headspace that seems at odds with reality. That is as little as Kleefeld says on Ishida. He never even outright says what Sinfest's modern writing is about other than his confusion on it near the top of the article. But I'm several months into it now, and I was continuing to stay baffled. Like, I could kind of tell he was making some kind of commentary on Israel's genocide of Palestinians, but I couldn't parse what his message actually was. The main parts of the article are quotes from the sub-Reddit moderator, the Twitter thread by Bitter Karella that wasn't fully intact, and the quote of Ryan Broderick.
  So. Short answer. No because the quote is from social media. No because the website is a self-published blog. No because we are not sure if the writer of the blog is an expert. No because (at best) the blog's article is mainly quotes that make claims about a living person. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  An expert for the purposes SPS does not need to have an enwiki article, and nor do they need to qualify for one. That said, Kleefeld could [2][3][4][5][6] (note also [7][8]) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  True. The reason I went down that path is because a notable person with a blog can easily be citable, such as with Nate Silver and his Silver Bulletin in election articles. I did do some Google searching and did see some stuff mentioning him being an author and something about being a researcher, but I didn't see enough immediately and a fresh glance at a Google search in the News tab generally just gives links to Kleefeld on Comics, with one link to Target (somehow...) and one link to The Daily Cartoonist. Guess I should have dug some more.

  In any case, considering Kleefeld as a self-published expert would just invalidate the first part of my second paragraph, but leave the last two-thirds of it untouched outside of me striking potential in the last sentence. Along with leaving my third paragraph untouched. Since the first part of the second paragraph was build-up to WP:SPS, I don't believe that the point I made there is invalidated. (Can't use the article for claims about Ishida, hard to use for claims about Sinfest.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Super Goku V, on "we are not sure if the writer of the blog is an expert", what about [9][10]? I think he's a reasonable source for comments on the comic per WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  I feel like I am going to regret my framing and not digging enough. I can concede that he is likely an expert in the comics industry and likely can be proven quite easily to be one.

  Basically, my whole second paragraph is about that we can't use the article for claims about Ishida. The third paragraph covers the claims on the comic. Barely any of it is in his words. Kleefeld quotes the moderator, references Karella's tweets, and quotes Broderick. But he barely puts his thought on the comic in his own words. It would not work for what the proposer wants. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Year 2000 comic: "Racially insensitive," "racial stereotypes," " insulting and degrading," etc.

I see that the blog "Kleefeld on Comics" is already used as a source in this article. There is a post on that blog at http://www.kleefeldoncomics.com/2013/04/growth-as-artist.html that describes a comic from 2000, "less than a week" after the web site was created that they describe as "racially insensitive," uses "racial stereotypes," and is "insulting and degrading." I am not generally in favor of publishing criticism found on a self-published blog, but since this blog is already being used as a source, I am going to suggest this as a possible source for including some commentary on the long-running "racially insensitive ... insulting and degrading" etc. content of this comic strip. Let me know if anyone else has thoughts on that. Thanks. EdgierEdgar (talk) 04:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@EdgierEdgar Apparently Kleefeld is a published author on the subject of comics [11][12], so his blog-comments on a webcomic can be seen as a reasonable source per WP:SPS. The comic, not the person. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Based on that, this sounds like a usable source for this. The article currently has a sentence that says, "In 2000, Ishida taught himself HTML, put together a Geocities web page, and started uploading Sinfest strips seven days per week." Based on the above source I would add something aftyer that like, "In less than a week, Ishida was posting comics that were described by "Kleefeld on Comics" as using "racial stereotypes" that are "racially insensitive" and "insulting and degrading." That is entirely from this source, who is already used elsewhere in the article, and is entirely about the content of the comic, not the person who made the comic. Does that sound good? I am still blocked from editing the article, so someone else would have to make this change. Thank you. EdgierEdgar (talk) 12:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I struggle to add refs, and people tend to pointlessly revert my edits, or else I would have helped with this one Le Blue Dude (talk) 23:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I’ve added your edit. Le Blue Dude (talk) 03:04, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I think I managed to add it and the reference. Thank you for your help! EdgierEdgar (talk) 01:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

"canceled due to poor sales performance"

A source already used in the article https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/45885-tatsuya-ishida-speaks-on-sinfest-jesus-and-fans.html explains the fact that the book publishing plan for this comic strip was "canceled due to poor sales performance." Could someone add this fact to the article? I would do it myself, but I am still not able to edit this article. Thank you. EdgierEdgar (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

As I said above, a source already in the article https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/comics/article/45885-tatsuya-ishida-speaks-on-sinfest-jesus-and-fans.html says a planned book was "canceled due to poor sales performance." So, where the article currently says "The first of these was released in mid-2009 and reprints the entire first year of the webcomic," let's add a sentence that says "Dark Horse planned another book release in late 2009, but that book was cancelled due to the poor sales of the first book." Thank you. EdgierEdgar (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not good at adding references while editing on mobile, or I’d try. Le Blue Dude (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ⟲ Three Sixty! (talk, edits) 21:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you again. I have added this. EdgierEdgar (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove "extra fun and engaging"

There is a sentence that says "In 2011, Ishida started to produce weekly colored strips, giving readers "something extra fun and engaging" on Sundays." The "extra fun and engaging" description is taken from the comic strip's creator. We have sources like http://www.kleefeldoncomics.com/2013/04/growth-as-artist.html that describe this comic as "racially insensitive" and " insulting and degrading." I am going to propose that it is unnecessary for us to choose to quote the creator of a "racially insensitive ... insulting and degrading" comic strip where they instead describe their work as "extra fun." This is quoting self-promotion, this is not accurate, and this is not neutral. Let's just make that sentence say "In 2011, Ishida started to produce weekly colored strips on Sundays." Please? Thank you. EdgierEdgar (talk) 20:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

On second thought, "In 2011, Ishida started to publish weekly strips in color on Sundays" is a better phrasing of this. EdgierEdgar (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

 Partly done: I added attribution for the direct quote, but I disagree that including it is promotional or non-neutral. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 22:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for doing part of this! Can you also change "colored strips" to "strips in color"? Since a reliable source has described the comic strip as "racially insensitive" and " insulting and degrading" towards Black people, I think we should avoid references to "colored strips" with "black comedy" etc. since that seems like more in line with the type of things the comics say rather than what an encyclopedia should say. EdgierEdgar (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I've changed "colored strips" to "strips in color" EdgierEdgar (talk) 01:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Remove self-described "more warmth, more tenderness"

There is currently a sentence that reads "In 2009, Ishida stated that his strip was "still pretty wild, but there's also more warmth, more tenderness", citing 2005 as a turning point towards more sentimental, character-driven storylines." There is no reason for us to ever publish promotional, positive reviews from a content creator talking about their own content, we should be relying on reliable independent analysis, but repeating positive self-promotion like this is particularly problematic when we have sources like http://www.kleefeldoncomics.com/2013/04/growth-as-artist.html that describe this comic strip as "racially insensitive" and "insulting and degrading." This entire sentence adds nothing to the article other than say that the creator of this comic strip likes their own comic strip. Please remove the sentence "In 2009, Ishida stated that his strip was "still pretty wild, but there's also more warmth, more tenderness", citing 2005 as a turning point towards more sentimental, character-driven storylines." Thank you. EdgierEdgar (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The statement is attributed and from an independent RS. We're not going to remove these statements, in fact the sentence is supported by the Kleefeld post you've sent as it is mentioning that Sinfest did have a sort of sentimental/emotional growth. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

No, see WP:WIKIVOICE. It is inappropriate to be stating opinions as facts, and we also should not be stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Maybe we could rewrite it to say something like, "In his opinion, Ishida believes hs comics provide warmth and tenderness," but saying he "stated" it as if he is some sort of neutral observer of their own comic is not neutral. That these comics are full of "warmth" and "tenderness" is contested by sources which describe this comic strip as "racially insensitive" and "insulting and degrading." This, and much of the rest of the article, is not written from a neutral point of view. EdgierEdgar (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

But it isn't stated in Wikivoice, it is clearly attributed to Ishida. The source you're using is very clear the 'racially insensitive' strips only apply to the first couple of strips. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Current version of the article prominently features the creator of the comic giving positive reviews of their own comic. It eliminates sources that seriously contest the creator of the comic giving their own comic these positive reviews. This might be something you would write on your fan site or in a press release, but this is not neutral and not appropriate for a Wikipedia article. I just realized you are the same person struggling to figure out something about "black comedy" and "phrase added" above. Are you still struggling with that as well? EdgierEdgar (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

No one is obliged to carry out your edits and if you insult people you will find very few people interested in helping you. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I have been trying to edit this article for days with the simplest of changes supported by reliable sources and have literally found absolutely zero help so far, so yeah please save me your lecture about people interested in helping me. Like literally I am hand holding you and you people can't even get the most basic facts like the launch date in the infobox right. EdgierEdgar (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Please see the policy on personal attacks. I can clearly see you two are discussing content, but please keep that as your focus rather than insulting other contributors. jellyfish ✉ 21:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Pardon me, but the WP:Onus for disputed content is not on the remover, according to u/traumnovelle Le Blue Dude (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I have made your requested edit. Le Blue Dude (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate it! EdgierEdgar (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Use of Ryan Broderick as limited SPS for this article

Traumnovelle, Broderick was a long-time reporter for Buzzfeed on web culture[13], which included included coverage of comics/cartoons[14] and radicalisation[15][16][17][18][19]. He's an expert for the purposes of that text. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Hydronium Hydroxide about this subject, thus providing additional proof of consensus. Le Blue Dude (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

He was also fired from his job for plagiarism. He doesn't come close to meeting the definition of subject-matter expert. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I don’t see how that impinges on his standing as a subject matter expert. Le Blue Dude (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It impinges on his reliability, and he was never a subject-matter expert to begin with. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Plagerisim is a sign of laziness, not lack of knowledge. Le Blue Dude (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it is a sign of a lot more. Plagiarism has led to certain sites being considered unreliable in the past, it'd equally apply to an SPS. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

There were a total of 14 instances of non-attribution identified from an eight-year stint.[20] The editors notes for these are below:

• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in Type Investigations, HuffPost, Pacific Standard, and BuzzFeed News.[21]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute promotional phrasing from Simon & Schuster[22]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in The Guardian.[23]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in CNBC and Vice.[24]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in the Washington Post[25]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in CBC.[26]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in the Associated Press and OneZero.[27]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in the Associated Press. [28]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in the New York Times.[29]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in the Los Angeles Times.[30]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in the Associated Press.[31]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in Nepali Times.[32]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in U.S. News & World Report.[33]
• This story has been updated to more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in The Guardian.[34]

From a review of these, the level of misattribution is clear - he's not plagiarised wholesale, nor is there evidence that his views are not his own, nor that he's made up "facts". Ideally we'd have a better source to fill in the gaps in the article (I'd be ok with a {{bettersource}} tag), but in the absence of this he's useable for a minor statement of events, and an opinion on the work -- though we may well have to agree to disagree on this, and open this up for wider input. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

These aren't minor events and he's not a subject-matter expert. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

There's a major difference between "a minor statement of events" and "a statement of minor events". ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The content is not minor, having a column (that he got fired from) does not make one an expert. Kleefeld in comparison has a review in a journal, and a published book on top of his column Traumnovelle (talk) 04:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

When there's thousands of issues over more than a decade, the level of detail in the addition of "long-running internet conspiracies, like the Illuminati and the Bilderberg group" (by the early-2010s), the MAGA movement (2016+), anti-trans storylines (2019+), and QAnon (2021+) is a minor statement of events. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I see five statements here: 1) Illuminati, 2) Bilderberg group, 3) MAGA, 4) anti-trans, and 5) QAnon. Which of these is being disputed? EdgierEdgar (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I see a consensus, and it’s against the view you’re currently championing. Please drop the stick. Le Blue Dude (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted. Determination of solid lasting consensus needs more time for input from other editors. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 05:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Sorry about that. My sense of time is completely fucked three past few days for some reason Le Blue Dude (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Give it more than 3h. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Ryan Broderick was a senior tech news journalist for almost a decade. That makes them a far more accomplished journalist and more of a subject matter expert than most and maybe all of the sources used in this article. I see that the Garbage Day newsletter is used as a source in the articles for Skibidi Toilet and Scripto Enterprises, so it looks like there is not only strong consensus to use this newsletter as a source in this Sinfest article, but also consensus across other articles as well. EdgierEdgar (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I've started an RSN thread on this because. If Broderick can be considered an expert then I don't know who can't be considered one. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Generally speaking we have a consensus, but if you’re opening a RSN thread, I’d appreciate a link. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

If you can find RSN then surely you can find Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ryan_Broderick_as_a_self-published_expert? 100.36.106.199 (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if we're talking about this [35] addition/removal specifically, but IMO it's ok-ish in context. It's a WP:BLOG, but the guy is a journalist, though a somewhat discredited one. Per [36], CT:s seems to have been something of his area. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes that one (I'll link it in my initiating comment). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Off-topic for this discussion, but I think yesterday's strip is a Star Wars reference. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

There’s an attack in, I want to say either suikoden or final fantasy, called ‘unlimited money works’ in which the character throws money at the enemy.

I think that’s what it’s a reference to, which kinda pisses me off because that was my childhood Le Blue Dude (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Alalch E. would you be interested in weighing in? ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Leaning okay-ish like Gråbergs Gråa Sång. —Alalch E. 10:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

This brings up a good point - is there consensus whether plagiarism automatically makes someone not an expert? I'm not talking about (just) this case, but if someone was an expert in a field but they're discovered to have committed some plagiarism in their work at some point... I would think they're still an expert on the topic at hand. Even if we can't link to (or cite) plagiarized work.

I have not seen any consensus that plagiarism means someone isn't an expert. First of all, in this case, as evidenced above, the plagiarized content wasn't even severe enough for the editors to take the articles down. If he had plagiarized entire articles... well sure, maybe that would become an issue. But in this case, if the only reason people are arguing they aren't an expert is "they closely paraphrased/didn't fully attribute some things".. that doesn't make them not an expert. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 00:38, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that the plagiarism solely discounts him from being an expert: I believe he never met the definition to begin with and him being fired from his job just reduces the credibility of him as an expert.

WP:SPS states 'whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications', note the plural used here. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Ryan Broderick's writing about internet conspiracy theories has been published by GQ at https://www.gq.com/story/trump-conspiracy-theories, is quoted in Yale Law Journal https://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/real-talk-about-fake-news , is quoted in The Detroit News https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/world/2024/03/27/british-royal-family-information-vacuum/73118570007/ , as well as in The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/12/internet-information-trends-virality-tracking/676888/ and France's Le Monde https://www.lemonde.fr/en/pixels/article/2024/10/13/has-the-reign-of-social-media-ended_6729286_13.html So, I think there is pretty good consensus from reliable sources around the world that this journalist is sufficiently enough of an expert to tell whether a comic strip is obviously blatantly about QAnon or whatever. EdgierEdgar (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

You’re engaging in Mott and Bailey tactics here: Whenever someone points out that plagiarism doesn’t automatically remove someone’s expert credentials you claim you don’t think his credentials are good enough, and when people point out that his credentials are actually pretty good, you complain about the plagiarism. Over on space battles and sufficient velocity forums this behavior is considered bad faith debating and would draw an infraction. Le Blue Dude (talk) 21:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Someone being fired for plagiarism does not reduce their credibility as an expert any more than them being fired for violating office parking policies would. If they were fired for fabricating information or a similar credibility related reason, then it would potentially impact their ability to be considered an expert. Plagiarism, while against the editorial policies of an employer, is not in itself a sign of non-credibility. If his employer/the places he wrote content for considered him to not be credible, they would've retracted or corrected the articles entirely. As noted above, however, in this case all they did was correct the attribution of the affected parts, meaning even the sources didn't think that the plagiarism impacted the credibility of the author. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 21:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion about this underlying question but these arguments in favor of using him are honestly so bad they make me want to argue against it. "Do not plagiarize" is an incredibly basic professional/ethical norm; obeying it is a basic issue of honesty, integrity, and professional responsibility. Obviously if a person has a record of violating professional/ethical norms, it calls into question whether they should be treated as if they are comparably credible to people who operate within the professional/ethical framework. This obvious fact is not necessarily determinative in this instance, but pretending that Broderick having a definite track-record of dishonesty and violation of professional/ethical norms doesn't matter to whether he's trustworthy, reliable, or similarly situated to people who operate in an editorial environment that enforces ethical norms is indefensible. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

That a journalist previously failed to "more clearly attribute phrasing from work previously published in the New York Times" etc. does not call into question their ability to determine the obvious subject matter of comic strips. If anyone is worried the newsletter we are talking about might be plagiarized, I suppose if anything that might oddly make them even more reliable for this, since there may be a chance their description of comic strip subject matter may have previously been published by The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, etc. EdgierEdgar (talk) 00:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

No it calls into question their basic honesty! And your last argument is completely bizarre (if you don't know the origin of something that inevitably makes it less reliable, not more). Like I said, I don't think this issue is determinative in this instance, but pretending not to understand what the issue is is very weird, and people should not make bad arguments for good causes. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

"it calls into question their basic honesty"? We are not having a basic conversation here; we are talking about a very specific source (a single newsletter post) being used for a very specific sentence in this very specific encyclopedia article. I see that sentence makes five statements, that this comic strip is sometimes about : 1) the Illuminati, 2) Bilderberg group, 3) MAGA, 4) anti-trans, and 5) QAnon. Which of these are you questioning the basic honesty of? EdgierEdgar (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a difference between incomplete attribution of close paraphrasing/copied text and outright fabricating/lying about information. One is not indicative of the other. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 03:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

An argument of the form, “the particular kind of plagiarism the Broderick engaged in is not suggestive of the problems that would impugn his credibility” (with evidence and context) I would not have objected to; it is a very different argument from a broad dismissal of plagiarism as a problematic activity from the point of view of reliability, which is what I responded to. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

It would be nice if we were overwhelmed with recent sigcov, but unfortunately there isn't currently a substitute for Broderick -- unblemished or not -- who can approach a summation of Ishida's content in the previous decade or so (other than radfem, and those refs don't capture his shift to Gender-critical feminism). Broderick himself only obliquely refers to possible antisemitic themes -- Bilderberg and the Illuminati, "Christian fascist" -- and the latter is also likely a little stale given what could be a shift towards Hellenism in the "Mount Olympus" storyline... see 1980s Golden Dawn(?). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 12:27, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Experts plagiarize all the time. Tom Lehrer even wrote a song about it.

There’s even a famous quote that’s been stolen by so many people that I don’t know the original source “Good writers borrow ideas. Great ones steal them”

Arguably, plagiarisms if done ‘correctly’ are a sign that the plagiarist knows their shit: They must have read and understood the things they’ve plagiarized from in order to plagiarize in a way that’s effective and drawing.Le Blue Dude (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

WP:LEAD, again

"with a large cast of regular characters commenting on such themes as organized religion, American exceptionalism, and economic insecurity. It abruptly shifted focus to radical feminism in 2011, tackling issues such as slut-shaming, misogyny, and street harassment."

Apart from radical feminism, nothing of this is expanded on or even mentioned in the body of the article. This is not good WP-writing. Body first, then maybe summary of that in the WP:LEAD.

Also, if we can add something on the main characters (when there were such creatures), that might be a good thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the lead is terrible as written. Many of the corrections I have suggested, such as having basic facts like the launch date wrong, have been in the lead section. That is where I started reading and I could not believe how demonstrably wrong it is. There are many other problems in the lead and throughout the article. Thank you to people who have helped correct this article so far. This process where it takes days to correct even the simplest of basic facts that I provide sources for is incredibly frustrating. This article reads like its written as a fan blog post or a press release rather than an encyclopedia article, and the correction process is so slow that I could probably get a print encyclopedia fixed faster. So, yes, the lead has multiple problems. It is not even a summary of the article, and even if it were it would repeat problems that are in the body of the article. Good luck to everyone trying to fix this. EdgierEdgar (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I am going to start moving things from the lead to the body of the article if they are not elsewhere in the article. I am going to trim back the lead so it can summarize the body of the article. EdgierEdgar (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help. I’d gotten so exhausted butting heads with people like traumnovelle, czello, and triggerjay. Having three new people here, you and grabergs, and hyperion who aren’t jaded nor exhausted by the long running conflict and are willing to look with new eyes and actually fix things has been very refreshing and I very much appreciate it. Le Blue Dude (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I appreciate you saying that! Thanks everyone who has helped with this. This article has improved in the last week. EdgierEdgar (talk) 01:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree the lead needs work but cherry-picking of self-published sources over reliably published secondary ones is an issue. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like you are in a minority here and need to work on your skills at developing consensus. This whole article has been filled with "cherry-picked" fannish praise better suited for a fan letter or a press release than for an encyclopedia article. I've restored your ridiculous removal where you said The Comics Journal was a "primary source." This is a well-respected secondary source, probably the most respected publication in comics news and criticism. EdgierEdgar (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

And I also removed the ridiculous sentence about "Kleefeld noted ... that Ishida was 'thinking about cartooning now in a more nuanced and ethical manner.'" It is ridiculous to try to use a self-published blogger writing about anything about another person, but this is particularly ridiculous in this case to try to use a self-published blogger as if they are an expert on what another person is thinking. EdgierEdgar (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

You are literally taking sources that are positive of the comic and selectively cherry-picking quotes that make it seem like the authors hold a negative opinion of Sinfest. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

If you want to include the negative commentary from those sources it must be juxtaposed with the writer's opinion of the comic's change of direction. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with Traumnovelle's position and agree with EdgierEdgar for the purpose of delineating consensus 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4BAB:3719:6D2C:332B (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah no, you aren't allowed to just twist Kleefeld's words to present the narrative you want. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about the inelegant crunch -- I'll take another look at things later in the week. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 10:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Addressing the absurdity

It seems common and accepted for a webcomic's infobox to have a strip or panel from the comic on a fair use basis. Couldn't we do so with a recent strip - stopping short of one actually depicting murder, but typical of the recent comic? _That_ might give the reader a heads up that not all is well. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Something like [37]? My kneejerk reaction is that going beyond logo would generally fail WP:NFCC criteria. I looked at the "A:s" at Category:2000s webcomics, based on that a strip doesn't seem a common inclusion. And readers actually looking at this comic seems to be what worries some editors.

Having read a little of the comic now, I could see the argument for some sort of character gallery like at Order of the Stick, but the logo is the simple and basic way to go, and the current article hardly mentions any characters anyway.

Hmm, I just searched sinfest slick monique (Slick and Monique are early characters in the comic) on archive.org, the first 2 hits was Hustler Magazine. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Definitely do not need a "character gallery" like the The Order of the Stick article. That is part of why there's a big label at the top of that article that says it is "too long or excessively detailed." That is more like a fan page than an encyclopedia article. This article already reads too much like a fan blog. EdgierEdgar (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

As far as how to make the beginning of the article more factual, I am starting to rewrite the lead to summarize the body of the article. I should be able to get some of the sourced criticism of the comics racism and sexism into the lead. As fas as the infobox goes, maybe the "genre" listing could be more precise and accurate. It currently says "comedy, satire." I can imagine the creator and their fans might think this is a comedy or a satire, but while I've seen sources describe this as racism and sexism, I'm not sure I've seen any source describe this as satirizing anything. Maybe the genre in the infobox would be more precisely and accurately described as racist jokes and sexist jokes, since we seem to have clear sources with long-standing consensus for that. EdgierEdgar (talk) 00:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

It's generally a good idea to keep the names of specific critics out of the WP:LEAD, just attempt to summarize their views per article content, positive and negative (or neither) if existing. For example, both Garrity and Kleefeld commends Ishida as a an artist, which might be worth mentioning somewhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Questionable Content has a panel; Dumbing of Age a strip. It's hardly unprecedented. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it's not unprecedented. But is it generally a good idea for a WP:LEADIMAGE like in your examples? Your Questionable Content example is a character-gallery, the other is the first strip of the comic. Both make an amount of WP:LEADIMAGE sense IMO. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

To add a non-free image you'd need to first see if there are any free equivalent, which means checking if any Sinfest strip (or even drawing) has been licensed under a CC licence. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems impossible to prove that negative, and it clearly hasn't been done (because it's impossible) for webcomics that do have a strip or panel on their WP pages. To the best of _my_ knowledge there is no such material. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a high standard for non-free content on Wikipedia. WP:NFCC lists it. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I am well aware of that, just as you must be aware that no-one has ever proved that there is no free equivalent (because that is impossible to prove) and hence it is not necessary to do so to meet the standard. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

How about if we use this cover from the first book[38]? It's fairly common to use cover.art as WP:LEADIMAGE, and it has some characters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Er... well, that wouldn't help to address the absurdity. A recent strip would let the reader know what the comic is like _right now_. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it was a bit off-topic for this thread. But it might be an improvement of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Btw, thanks to whoever re-named the refs, that helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

This comic is literally called "Sinfest." Yes, reliable sources say it has offensive material

This comic is literally called "Sinfest," but Traumanovaville seems to want to remove all information suggesting it may have offensive material in it, even when sourced to The Comics Journal, probably the most respected publication in comics news and criticism. Here is a reminder that this is an encyclopedia article we are writing, not a fan letter. We have multiple sources that were already used in this article, that say that the comic includes offenisve content. For example, The Comics Journal says this comic contains "offensive material," "racial caricatures," and "lots of sexism" at https://www.tcj.com/the-sisterhood-of-the-pimp-ninja-sluts/ EdgierEdgar (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking quotes to POV-push which is the issue, not that the sources state there is offensive content.

The source also states "Also recently, in a surprising twist given the strip’s early fondness for jiggly pimps-n-hoes humor, feminism has invaded the world of Sinfest." "Does the feminist plotline suggest that Ishida himself has mixed feelings about the politically-incorrect humor in his older strips?" "The ongoing storylines started developing about two years ago, ten years into the strip’s run, and have transformed Sinfest from an attractive diversion to a must-read"

Yes the source states the early comic was offensive, but it also states that the comic has changed is and is overall positive about the comic calling it a must-read. Yet if we were to read what you added one would come to the conclusion that the source is negative about the comic. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

So, the source says the comic was racist, sexist, and offensive for "ten years," and less so for "about two years." Those racist, sexist, offensive ten years were not in the article until I added it. This article is written like a fan letter that really wants to focus on that maybe two years that got some praise and ignore the part about ten years of racism and sexism. This is not neutral editing. This is fan letter writing. EdgierEdgar (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

No, that refers to ongoing plots. Neutral editing is not misrepresenting a positive source to only support a negative point of view. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe you are engaged in a form of exit warring where you have a preferred form of the article and revert any changes to that preferred form reflexively. Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

• I agree that the quote by Garrity which Traumnovelle recently removed should be excluded from the lead because it is not a fair representation of the content in the source. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 20:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Another blog

24 Hours of Webcomics: Sinfest (2013). By one Laura Sneddon, who has written on comics and such in The New Statesman and The Independent [39][40]. Seems ok-ish like Kleefeld. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Throwing my support behind this source for consensus building. Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:52, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to have this but it's not exactly addressing the issue that since 2013 Sinfest has become openly anti-Semitic and it would be nice to have a source that reflects that! Pinkbeast (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

It is not, but this thread is not about that. The article can be improved in other areas. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not think it improves the article to talk about an era of Sinfest that is long past without being very careful to indicate it is long past. It is rather like telling someone that some food is delicious with no indication that it is now rotten.

(This isn't trying to get around sourcing requirements; sure, we can't put in the article that Sinfest is now viciously antiSemitic without a source to that effect. But since we all know that is in fact the case, we can _not_ put things in the article which suggest to the reader it's a very different comic.) Pinkbeast (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Afaict, noone has used this source to put things in the article which suggest to the reader it's a very different comic. You can update Sinfest if you like, that's way more behind than this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, this is excellent. —Alalch E. 17:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

What is it you are hoping to include from the Comics Beat blog post? Is there something in there that isn't in the other sources in use, or are you intending to use it just as an additional source for things already stated in the article? EdgierEdgar (talk) 01:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It can be used to expand the "feminist" part a little since it goes into that, and perhaps a quote like "Journalist Laura Sneddon said in 2013 that "Sinfest has always been a fun and entertaining strip, but now I heartily recommend it to each and every reader I meet."" And like you say, can have use as an additional source, 2 sources are sometimes better than 1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

This would be more like an encyclopedia article if it had more reliably sourced facts, rather than more more fan blog opinions. "Fan blogger said they suggested the comic to their friends" isn't really encyclopedia material. EdgierEdgar (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It's critique, part of the topic. Is "It’s a move that has seen a huge influx of new fans, and a world of butthurt from a vocal minority of older fans outraged that the comic is now focusing on women and the ways in which our society can silence their voices." fact, opinion or a mix of the 2? WP-articles on books, films, games etc will, when available, include some sort of "reactions" from reviewers (and sometimes politicians etc). Sometimes there's not a lot to choose from, sometimes there's a lot. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

There's no indication this is a trustworthy, reliable source. Just reading that sentence you quoted, there is no indication that this blog is a reliable source for measuring "a huge influx of new fans" or for measuring "a world of butthurt from a vocal minority." So, no, this is not a reliable source, nor is this reporting facts. EdgierEdgar (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

IMO, [41][42] indicates the writer is a usable source on the topic of a comic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It's most definitely reporting facts. Mostly pretty detached, factual writing, with some explicatory (and obvious) barely-transformative analysis to explain to the reader what its about, and a comparatively small amount of praise. —Alalch E. 23:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

From the opening line, "Sinfest is most probably a comic everyone has heard of," this is not a blog post that is grounded in facts. EdgierEdgar (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Please read that in context. That speaks to the reader of the blog. What it says is exactly: "As a reader of this blog about webcomics, you have most probably heard about this webcomic", just using different words for style. It's some form of figure of speech, probably synecdoche. In webcomic circles, Sinfest being a very long-running comic, and as we are discovering more and more coverage of it, it would appear that that is also a very ordinary statement of fact: a reader of a long-running webcomic blog would be familiar with this long-running, relatively well-known, webcomic. —Alalch E. 00:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No, those words you just completely made up to express your personal point of view are not "What it says is exactly" in this supposed reliable source. What it says exactly is "Sinfest is most probably a comic everyone has heard of," which is a patently ridiculous statement. You can also save me your lecture on "reading in context" and "figures of speech." EdgierEdgar (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Nah, gotta read and comprehend in context with the target audience in mind. —Alalch E. 01:13, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

No, it is you who has to work on your reading comprehension! This wikipedia-style conversation is amazing. EdgierEdgar (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

When you say how "Sinfest is most probably a comic everyone has heard of", in the context of that article and publication, is a patently ridiculous statement—that is a patently ridiculous statement, showing that you are not properly appraising the source. —Alalch E. 01:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Look at the big-time reading comprehender over here, giving another lecture on their big-time reading skills. EdgierEdgar (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Can we not fight? Anything that approves more sources seems good to me. Le Blue Dude (talk) 06:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Alalch E., this objection is silly. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Main characters, original source of "Pimp Ninjas and Geisha Sluts"

Gråbergs Gråa Sång made an edit "adding something on [early] characters." I can't see either source because I do not have ProQuest. I did track down an archived version of an early cast page at https://web.archive.org/web/20060704140043/www.sinfest.net/cast.htm and it describes the comics then two main characters as 1) "Slick age: between 14 and 21 ... Pimp Ninja, Calvin rip-off ... occasional pimp ... leader of the Resistance." And 2) "Monique age: 16 ... Geisha Slut Villainess ... SlutTrampHo ... jail bait, low fidelity, many tramp-like qualities, but deep down inside she's still a tramp." There might something usable in there as far as how the creator describes their own characters. Also, the "pimp ninjas and geisha sluts” portion of that is used in the title and body of the Shaenon Garrity Comics Journal article, giving some indication that these maybe be important descriptions. EdgierEdgar (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Personally I feel like this article doesn’t need to mention the early cast, especially as most of them haven’t shown up in years. Le Blue Dude (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Atm 4 characters are mentioned (not sure if this is Slick from last year and Monique from last year but they might be). Per sources, the article content on them seem WP:PROPORTIONate to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

That can have some use as a WP:ABOUTSELF source, but from the WP-perspective, what independent sources have to say is the important/interesting thing. You will get (free) access to ProQuest (and much more) if you stick around, see WP:LIBRARY. WP:RX might be of interest. Fwiw, the ProQuest source-text:

God and the Devil tussling over souls drives the overall "plot" of this irrepressible webcomic, but that's only a cover for satiric riffs on just about everything. Any cultural trope or point of view can be in for a figurative pie (or something smellier) in the face, like the Bible in blaxplotation-lingo, the Garden of Eden à la Beat poetry, politicians reconceived as musicians, or sportscasting porn. Slick, the main character more or less, is a hedonistic and wily scamp who confounds Satan by demanding a long list of outrageous goodies-like a "supermodel sandwich"-in return for his soul. As for God, He taunts His rival with hand puppets (yes, hand puppets) in the sky. There's lots of over-the-top sexual humor, including parodies of other comics characters ("Dilbert Does Dallas"), although no serious nudity or real sex. Slick, based on Watterson's Calvin, together with sidekick "It-Girl" Monique and their supporting cast are all drawn with considerable finesse in an American chibi style. Library Journal

Advertising, religion, sex and politics are just a handful of the topics touched on by Tatsuya Ishida's popular Web comic, Sinfest . This first volume collects the first 600 outings of the nearly 10-year-old strip. The cute, slightly raunchy cast of characters includes Slick, the womanizer, Monique, who may or may not be a tramp, the Devil, God and a slew of other demons, angels, animals and humans. While clearly influenced by comic strips such as Peanuts and using takeoffs on some of that strip's familiar setups, Ishida takes his work into dark, politically incorrect directions. The art is likewise a mix of comic strip cute and manga that's accessible to a broad range of readers. Bonuses in this volume include a sampling of Sinfest the College Years, proving that the comic was once raunchier and harsher than its current incarnation. Harsh as it is, Sinfest offers many laughs; it may be brutally funny, but it is dead honest and refreshing. And underneath the shock value of some of its gags is a comic strip very much in the classic newspaper tradition. PW Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for posting those quotes! EdgierEdgar (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Twitter

Ishida is no longer blocked from Twitter, and it's unclear for how long he was - it could well have been only a month or three given reinstatements in October-November 2022 after Musk completed acquisition. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but do we have any sources saying he was unblocked? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:5527:6BB3:6FCC:6E2C (talk) 04:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The only source he was blocked was Ishida himself. May as well remove the passage given it is obviously incorrect and only sourced to Ishida himself. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

"Was blocked" isn't necessarily incorrect, but the source is weak from the WP-pov. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, but it’s one of the only sources we have that talks about his recent behavior, and I’d rather not undo u/burninglibrary’s hard work. Le Blue Dude (talk) 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the support, but Gråbergs Gråa Sång has a point with regard to the weakness of some sources. See WP:BLPSELFPUB and this archived discussion. Therefore, feel free to keep whatever is useful and discard the rest. BurningLibrary (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I think his current account isn’t the one that got blocked. He has a number of twitter accounts, which to me implies ban evasion by setting up new accounts Le Blue Dude (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Given that it was apparently a 'Twitter lock', that sounds like it was likely the short-term punishment and not a long-term one. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)