Talk:Sinfest

Very much out of date

I don't know if anyone who reads this has noticed, but Sinfest has taken a very, very dark path in the last few years. Ishida has turned it into a mouthpiece of anti-trans, anti-"woke," and now outright, aggressive antisemitic tropes. It's... bizarre, but there is no mention of the last few years in the article, and I don't have time to research and edit it myself, so I thought I'd bring it to people's attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.192.70.106 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

End or glitch?

Two days ago the last strip was posted: 2013-10-29: Broomstick. There’s two more pages, but image for the strip on them is causing a 404 server error:

• 2013-10-30: Incantation Words
• 2013-10-31: Weaponized Fembot

If this is the end, it doesn’t seem to have been planned that way. :-( Tuvalkin (talk) 00:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

It is back! :-) Tuvalkin (talk) 12:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Meh. Might have stayed that way back then. :-( Still great art, but… Tuvalkin (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Article bias

There is no mention of any criticism whatsoever (st least no clear section), while there is plenty, mostly aimed at the radical feminism employed in the comic. - Redmess (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A quick google search turned up only a few websites with obsessive accounts of this person's work, especially in recent years. The length and content of the talk page here suggests far greater biases among readers. Squabbles in here or on forums are not notable. Jacotto (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hiatus

The comic currently isn't updating because the website has been hacked, see http://sinfest-mod.livejournal.com/1119039.html . – gpvos (talk) 08:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be solved by now. – gpvos (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Short discussion regarding rewrite

A short discussion regarding my rewrite of this article has taken place on my user talkpage. ~Mable (chat) 18:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Drastic change of {what sinfest was} vs {what sinfest is now}

On the main page sinfest's genre is stated to be "comedy", however many things were changed, and sinfest really is more of a propaganda than anything else. There is a page on badwebcomicwiki.com that has more info about what happend. I don't say we should make this page to only say "sinfest is propaganda and nothing more", but genre stating only "comedy, satire" is really misleading to what sinfest is recently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.32.58 (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Frustratingly, and somewhat understandably, no media outlet has been reporting on Sinfest at all in the past few years. There are no sources to cite with regards to all the transphobia and community toxicity and stuff like that, making it difficult for us Wikipedians to write about it ourselves without original research. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 16:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Sinfest is very obscure now to people who didn't already know what it was, nobody really cares much about it. As such, nobody reports on it. I mean, what outlet is going to talk about some obscure Twitter artist making anti-trans comics? That's on par with reporting on what Shadman is doing. In fact it's even less relevant. Such is the fate of a webcomic. If you want, you could email a few outlets about it and see if they're interested in picking up the story. All of that said, I do think it's silly to report on "community toxicity", as that's generally out of the creator's direct control. I don't believe the page for K-pop mentions how awful their Twitter stans can be, for example. 93.107.149.152 (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

In this case, from what I understand, the following of Sinfest is very strongly shaped by Ishida's own behavior. Either way, I wouldn't be surprised if publications simply don't want to touch it, which puts us in an awkward situation where this article is stuck in time. Alas. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

You know what? Considering the vast majority of citations on this page are literally just links to Sinfest comics, I think it's safe to say you can use Ishida's own work as a valid source. Make a draft article citing some of the severely anti-trans work he's done and get input on it, you might get enough support to implement current edits to reflect the TERF nature of Sinfest now. Just try to keep it as objective as possible, start with "Since 20xx Sinfest has been releasing comics strongly criticizing LBGT culture" or something to that effect. Just don't necessarily say that's bad, we're not RationalWiki, so it shouldn't be obviously biased and actively defending LGBT causes. 109.76.84.43 (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

That will be, or should be, rejected as original research. That's exactly the sort of thing ("we editors looked at a bunch of stuff and decided there's a trend") that wikipedia frowns on. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

My relatively fresh IP may mislead you into thinking I'm new to the website, I assure you I've been editing on various IPs for at least ten years. I understand OR is generally very looked down upon, I'm only suggesting it as article already heavily relies non-journalistic outlets. Of the 49 citations, a mere 9 aren't direct links to Sinfest comics, though there has been an OR template warning placed on the article since. If you feel this would be too much of a problem, maybe the entire Characters and Lankmarks sections should be removed? 109.76.84.43 (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps it should; such lists tend to be more fancruft than informative. Lack of objective sourcing is a common problem, as you probably know, on articles about topics that are just barely notable enough for an article. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

You know, maybe it should be rethought whether or not Sinfest even is "barely notable enough" anymore. This article was made in the mid 2000's, both Wikipedia and the internet in general have changed a lot. Webcomics are nowhere NEAR as relevant anymore, an Sinfest certainly isn't one of the few that still are. In fact, I'm not sure Sinfest would be allowed an article if it were being suggested today instead of 2004, even with the current citations in place. There are far more famous webcomics such as Stonetoss (yes, I know it's an alt-right comic, that doesn't change its popularity) that don't have articles and likely wouldn't be considered notable enough to have one. Hell, a lot of the proper citations are generic "Top XX Best Webcomics of 20XX" or "Webcomics you just have to check out!" lists, hardly the most rigorous example of notability even by the standards of 5+ years ago. Of course it's almost impossible to have pages this old removed, it would never get past the deletion proposal stage. What do you think? 109.76.84.43 (talk) 17:30, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(unindent) A tough call. The comic has been around for a whole bunch of years and longevity is one measure of importance, and it has (self?) published a couple of collections, although that's much less of a big deal than it once was. Without any kind of objective measure, like number of newspapers where it is printed (now there's an old metric), I'm unsure how to measure notability. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

(For the record, if it was my call, I would have removed the "Characters" and "Setting" sections a long time ago. All that original research bothers the hell out of me.) This article has eight proper citations, and that's quite alright, especially for a webcomic. I have written articles on way less, and this article would look pretty good if it wasn't for those two unsourced tables. It's just unfortunate that we can't write about how it is received today. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 21:43, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The article may have eight citations, but it's the quality of those citations that counts. I've had to expand uncited articles using only two or three sources before, but said sources were often quite robust and detailed. A lot of the citations on this page aren't exactly the best. Regardless, why not remove the tables? They're literally entirely OR, it's pretty hard to defend that, especially considering they're not at all vital to the article. A list of landmarks and locations is something that belongs on a fan wiki, usually only extremely notable pieces of entertainment (e.g. Springfield from The Simpsons) are allowed such a privilege on Wikipedia. 109.76.84.43 (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good argument. Ditch them! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel that he has declared that the comic is radical feminism from the news."The new forum will be anti-pornography, anti-prostitution. It will favor the radical feminist perspective over a liberal or conservative one." Would this count as a proper source? https://www.sinfest.net/news.php 2601:600:997F:4370:9111:AA63:AA75:712F (talk) 10:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately it runs afoul of three wikipedia policies/guidelines: It skirts dangerously close to the rule to avoid using Primary Sources i.e. something the creator said/did, secondly a blog is not a Reliable Source by any means i.e no editorial oversight and fact checking, and third it completely violates the policy of No Original Content i.e. something YOU found. Encyclopedias are collections of notable mutual wisdom and human knowledge. Seldom is something "i said therefore is true", so you don't generally use primary sources. All too often blogs and internet postings are false, so you want reliable, reviewed, fact checked sources. They are collections of MUTUAL knowledge, not knowledge you found, so we cite someone else who found the knowledge. Having said all that, your citation is an extremely compelling argument, and i'm personally willing to let it stand. I can't speak for other editors though, we do stuff by Consensus here. Timmccloud (talk) 15:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If the blog in question is written by the author of the comic, and the citation is for something he said about the new tone/focus of the strip, then wouldn’t that count as reliable?

I get why generally this wouldn’t be a good source but I’m confused as to why this sort of example is not an exception. If the issue is the accuracy of the source/the “I said therefore is true” issue then wouldn’t the author’s own words be the most accurate source on what he is presently doing with the comic?

To be clear, I’m not trying to debate! I’m just genuinely curious and trying to wrap my brain around the issue since I occasionally run into scenarios on here where it’s difficult to find an acceptable source for relevant information since obviously there’s bias and limitation in terms of what ends up in the news. Especially in situations where a topic is controversial, or where controversy gets sidelined due to being from the perspective of marginalized groups.

I guess I’ve also been confused by the notion of “it was reported in the news” as a gold standard for reliability since it’s also always a bit debatable whether any news source is totally reliable and bias-free (heck even scientific journals aren’t exempt from this). I know the line for “acceptable level of potential bias” has to be drawn somewhere or we’d have no reliable sources for anything, I just sometimes am unclear on the rationale in certain cases. But this may be getting a bit-off topic… Catfrost (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Except you are not using the author's own words e.g.: 'my comic is about X', you are inferring from the contents what it is, e.g.: this comic features a swastika, thus the comic author must be a nazi.

The latter is unacceptable WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH Traumnovelle (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I was referring to quoting his own news post as the person a couple replies above my reply mentioned (the "The new forum will be anti-pornography, anti-prostitution. It will favor the radical feminist perspective over a liberal or conservative one." quote), not adding any other inferences. That would be using the author’s own words about his own comic.

Timmccloud replied to that earlier post saying primary sources/original research are problematic, and mentioned that “all too often blogs and internet postings are false.” My point was, wouldn’t this be an exception? Because that issue wouldn’t apply here since it’s a given that the author’s own words about his own comic are about as reliable a source as it gets when it comes to the author’s intent/opinions represented in his comic. Catfrost (talk) 09:09, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

It normally would but all the people here complaining about how the comic is characterised as such and how it's white-washing it. Something like 'in 2XXX Sinfest announced he would adopt a radical feminist theme to his comic' would typically be fine, although the quote in question is talking about a forum not the comic. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

If you ask me, Tatsuya Ishida used to illustrate the woke revolution for quite some time (the academic left, if you will), enthusiastically so, though mostly with a pinch of salt, always entertaining. As of late, however, he seems to have started to see things more critically. This should be noted, as far as there are sources mentioning it, though certainly not in the form of a hatchet job like shoutwiki's conclusion. "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." tickle me 07:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Transphobia, Anti-Transgender Activism, and alignment with TERFs

In recent years, Sinfest and its creator, author, and illustrator, Tatsuya Ishida, are and have become much more increasingly, noticeably and unignorably transphobic, anti-trans, and aligned with TERFs. All of this should be edited and added into this article extensively, as it is completely indisputable if you ever look at and read the comic's awfully and disgustingly toxic takes on trans issues. ~~Krextzin~~ (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

To a more experienced wikipedia editor

The information about the webcomic is old and doesn't seem to include it's more recent shift to a more political message. tvtropes seems to be more up to date about this. Can someone put the Update template to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.65.136.209 (talk) 08:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

TV Tropes is not a very reliable source... and it seems no one else cares about Sinfest's editorial recent changes. Sad. Sammyday (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know what would be a reliable webcomic review site?

Searching for review and sinfest shows me tvtropes and badwebcomicswiki hosted on shoutwiki but I think that one might be considered biased. 92.65.136.209 (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Sinfest has gone off the radar of major webcomic review websites like Comic Book Resources or ComicsAlliance, largely because they tend to focus on webcomics they enjoy. Sadly, the change in focus of Sinfest hasn't really been documented in any reliable sources, and thus we're left with this weird incomplete article. User-generated collaborative writing projects like TVTropes or other wikis can't be cited on Wikipedia. We could maybe take Ishida's own words as a primary source to at least acknowledge the transphobia in some way, but I'm not sure how to handle that. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The article isn't simply outdated, it is grossly outdated to the point of being compltely inaccurate. I recently checked out the comic out of curiosity. I was prepared for the TERF stuff and transphobia. What I wasn't prepared for was going down a rabbithole of elction denial, antivax conspiracy theories, pizzagate and other QAnon bullshit. Worlds apart from the impression this article gives. If there are no recent reliable sources covering the comic, it might be better to just conclude that it's no longer notable enough to warrant an article and simply delete the whole thing. 46.97.170.32 (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

This 2012 TCJ article seems useful to use to discuss the turn in plot.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That is a good find! I may try to incorporate it later. It's not quite recent enough for the full turnaround, but at the very least we can now communicate that "feminism" has become a major topic within the webcomic. That's something... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The strip seems to have had three distinct phases: the early phase as described in this article, the feminist phase beginning by 2011, and the current TERF / anti-trans / conservative political messages phase. There's an interesting essay about it on Reddit ([2]), but Reddit's not a reliable source, and I don't see any other articles about it. - Brian Kendig (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I would think there are more articles out there, but I'm not sure. Historyday01 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Reccomend this article for deletion

The article is laughably outdated and cannot be updated because there are no sources on the changes that are considered reliable. In fact, many of the original sources should not have been considered reliable in the first place. Recommending deletion. 04:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)2601:447:C883:5430:47B:20A7:DDC8:B8B5 (talk)

I disagree. There are enough articles to show this topic is notable and worth keeping.Historyday01 (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. If an article subject was notable at any point in time, it is always notable even if no further coverage about it ever happens. Silverseren^C 20:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a good point. Historyday01 (talk) 21:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I may at some point nominate this article for deletion per WP:SUSTAINED, but I think the argument would not be strong enough. Six years of Sinfest impressing journalists followed by six years of no coverage at all is not unusual for a webcomic, after all. But I hope that argument might stick if Sinfest concludes and noone does a retrospective on it. I indeed do think the lack of any coverage of Sinfest evolution into transgender-obsession, and thus our severely outdated description of the webcomic, is a problem. It's a problem hard to solve with our guidelines, as far as I know... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

And with the present proposal to delete the article, your comments are even more apt today. Historyday01 (talk) 03:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

While I think an AfD may pass off a lack of sustained notability, the CSD is unfortunately incorrect. After a quick search, all recent mentions of Sinfest seem to be on sites like Reddit and user generated websites. Once the CSD is gone, if the IP editor doesn't put it up for AfD, I likely will. The recent murder mentioned below, unfortunately, doesn't mention the comic directly and I believe putting the image of the perpetrator's twitter & the murder together would constitute WP:OR. Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I would support the AfD proposal. If I have time to do the research, I might create one myself - there are a lot of webcomic articles like this that probably dont meet modern WP notability standards. HappyWith (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

If an AfD is to be considered, it is worth reading the previous AfD discussion which voted to keep the article, just for background: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinfest. In terms of webcomic articles, it can be a challenge to find citations sometimes, but most of the ones I've come across, at least when it comes to those with LGBTQ+ characters, seem notable to me. I will say that if there are nominations, apart from this one, of any LGBTQ+ webcomics, for deletion, I will not be supporting those deletions. Of course, not all articles are the same (and I'd examine each AfD on its merits), but, when it comes to deletion, users must be very careful to not make mistakes and cause problems for readers. Historyday01 (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Sinfest is not a LGBTQ+ comic. It's also anti-semetic in the extreme. The only transgendered characters that exist exist for the purpose of being mocked for being transgender. It's an anti-LGBTQ+ comic. 15:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C883:5430:BD22:BCA7:B1A5:8926 (talk)

I'm not sure whether it is or isn't, but I would not oppose an AfD discussion in the case of this article.Historyday01 (talk) 23:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Patreon

If you have an issue with the paetron thing... If Ishida's blog isn't a valid reason to mention the Paetron ban, then the comic favoring radical femnisim which is also sourced from Ishida's blog is also not a valid source. 17:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)~~

This article contains a paragraph about Sinfest's now-defunct Patreon account and the author's lockout from Twitter. The user PrincessPandaWiki has made multiple edits deleting this information entirely: [3] [4] [5] [6]. Seeing as the paragraph provides several references, quoting sourced statements from Ishida himself, it is well founded and warrants inclusion. Moreover, it is an important part of the history of Sinfest, and it says something about how the strip has been received in recent years. If it is a matter of how the paragraph is worded, we can of course discuss it here, but all-out deletion is the wrong approach, I think. BurningLibrary (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I've been removing the Patreon ban statement that has only been sourced to that of Tatsuya Ishida's tweets and added by anonymous editors, because I thought the connection to the comic would be the result of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. I recently removed User:BurningLibrary's version of the statement because I thought, to repeat, the tweet still does not establish the connection to the comic, as Ishida's wording ("And their guidelines 'extend to content elsewhere online.' So they can ban you for things you say or post anywhere online.") can lead to the interpretation that he got banned for posting unrelated hate speech outside of the comic. I didn't look much into the source for the Twitter statement, which made me rethink my additional removal of it, until I realized Ishida's words were only used to cite the bannings, not Patreon and Twitter's words themselves, which could be an WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH problem. After all, Wikipedia is not a place for users to right great wrongs themselves. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 14:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, let's go over the paragraph in detail, and compare the statements it makes with the statements its sources make. Note that I have recently added quotes to all the references in the article. That comes in handy here.

The article reads: "On December 7th, 2022, Patreon banned Ishida". This is sourced with the following Ishida quote from the Sinfest blog: "I got kicked off of Patreon so please support me at one of these platforms […]. Thank you!" There is nothing in the article text that is not in the quote, except for the date, which is obtained from Twitter. More on that next.

The article continues: "… for promoting 'sentiments of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation'." This is also sourced with an Ishida quote, this time from Twitter (2022-12-07): "Patreon removed my account for promoting 'sentiments of discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.'" Again, nothing is being said in the article text that is not expressed by the quote. Ishida quotes Patreon's wording, and the article quotes Ishida.

Then, there is the topic of the Twitter lockout. The article text reads: "Ishida had previously been locked out of Twitter for 'hateful conduct' in reference to a Sinfest strip." This is sourced with the following Ishida quote from the Sinfest forums: "Just got locked out of Twitter for this comic [2022-09-03]. They say it's 'hateful conduct.'" Again, the article states only what is backed up by the source.

Until recently, the article also included an additional reference for the 2022-09-03 comic, which Ishida was locked out of Twitter for. This was removed in an edit dated 24 August 2023, 13:59, with a terse edit message citing WP:OR and WP:NPOV as reasons. Let me give a little feedback here: I don't find this particularly informative, nor do I think it explains why the reference was removed. Personally, I think the reference very much warrants inclusion, as this was the very strip that Ishida was locked out of Twitter for. That tells us something essential about how the strip is received, and the paragraph was, until recently, part of the article's "Reception" section.

In short, I don't really see that WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH applies here, because the article makes no original statements whatsoever. Rather, the article text is wholly unoriginal in that it only repeats statements that are made by the sources it references, and in some cases it uses the original wording verbatim.

As another participant in this discussion has pointed out, we are already using Ishida and the Sinfest website as sources for other parts of the article. Moreover, the Sinfest blog and forums are hosted on the same server that hosts Sinfest, and this server is owned and controlled by Ishida. Nevertheless, there seems to be an inconsistent cherry-picking of sources where Ishida is sometimes deemed to be a valid source for a particular part of the article, and other times not.

The fundamental problem here is one of consistency. If we are not consistent in the way we are applying general principles, then it makes it very difficult to collaborate on the article.

I can appreciate that Wikipedia is not a place for users to right great wrongs themselves, but nobody here is trying to do that as far as I can see. People are merely reporting on the verifiable facts of the matter, such as they are, regarding a webcomic that has changed greatly over the last decade. BurningLibrary (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the strip because it doesn't say anything about being locked out from Twitter and interpreting it as hate speech would be WP:original research. Anyway, as I don't think I'm well-equipped for tackling this myself anymore, I'm gonna seek others' input at WP:NOR/N [discussion archived here]. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 23:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

But the article doesn't interpret anything as being hate speech. The article relays a quotation about a particular strip being deemed "hateful conduct" by Twitter. That is why the words "hateful conduct" are in quotes. The quotes signify quotation.

Again, look at the article text. The relevant sentence reads: "Ishida had previously been locked out of Twitter for 'hateful conduct', in reference to a Sinfest strip." Notice the quotation marks around "hateful conduct"? That is because it is a quote.

Consider the Ishida quote, which provides sourcing for the article text. Ishida says: "Just got locked out of Twitter for this comic [2022-09-03]. They say it's 'hateful conduct.'" Again, notice the quotes around "hateful conduct"? Those are Ishida's quotes around Twitter's statement. They signify that Ishida is quoting Twitter. It is Twitter that has deemed a particular strip, 2022-09-03, as being "hateful", and Ishida is reporting on it. The article text does not make that interpretation, nor does the Ishida; both merely quote the verdict of Twitter.

Notice, also, that the Ishida quote references a particular strip. The date, 2022-09-03, is a reference to a strip published September 3, 2022, and that is the strip which Twitter has deemed "hateful". That is why it is appropriate to add a reference to that particular strip.

Here is the full sentence from the 24 August 2023 12:02 revision of the article, with references: "Ishida had previously been locked out of Twitter for 'hateful conduct',[13] in reference to a Sinfest strip.[14]" Here, [13] is the Ishida quote, and [14] is a link to the 2022-09-03 strip. Both references are topically relevant and provide sourcing for the article text.

Do you understand the concept of quotation and how it is applied in this case? No one is adding interpretations of their own here. No one is doing "original research". All the article text does is to relay opinions expressed by others, with attribution, in the context of describing how the comic is being received by the world. That is what the "Reception" subsection is supposed to be about. BurningLibrary (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I actually agree with burning here; as long as we state that Ishida is the one making these claims and that they cannot be verified, there's nothing wrong with their inclusion. See if this works for you. DontKnowWhyIBother (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

If ""Ishida uploads a new black and white strip of Sinfest every day of the week, and publishes a larger, full-color page every Sunday. And starting in 2022, every strip was in full-color." isn't original research, then there's no reason we can't say "Since xyz date the contents of sinfest have centered around anti-transgender ideology". 20:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:447:C883:5430:31DD:509D:60CE:3D09 (talk)

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.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it would not meet the criteria for WP:A7. Pages with a lack of WP:NSUSTAINED should be put up for AfD, not CSD. See WP:NOTCSD:

"Notability. Articles that seem to have obviously non-notable subjects are eligible for speedy deletion only if the article does not give a credible indication of why the subject might be important or significant."

Best, Schrödinger's jellyfish ✉ 03:38, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with @Schrödinger's jellyfish. A CSD on this makes no sense. Philipnelson99 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I can agree per my comments in Talk:Sinfest#Reccomend this article for deletion. I have also removed the CSD claim in my recent edit.--Historyday01 (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Antisemitism?

Sinfest has recently undergone a massive shift in politics and has become little more than an antisemitic neo-nazi propaganda piece, and yet this doesn't seem to get mentioned in the article at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JSAH42 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it may have to with reliable sources... very few sources cover this comic at all these days... hence there have been efforts to delete this page... and personally I would not oppose an AfD at this point and time. Historyday01 (talk) 23:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I've gotten a reply notification on an earlier post. Regarding the first comment by JSAH42 (you can sign your post by using four tildes as such: ~~~~), you can put this in the article as long as you can back it up with a reliable source. Historyday01, if you find that the subject lacks sustained notability (per WP:SUSTAINED), an AfD could be appropriate. I don't see any news mentions past 2016 on Google. jellyfish ✉ 01:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Historyday01 (talk) 03:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I would likely support such a nomination per SUSTAINED. If the webcomic had ended in the early 2010s, then that would've been one thing, but being unable to cover the changing political content over the course of a decade is a serious problem I think. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Attempt at an update

I don't feel good about deleting an article about something that has been worthy of inclusion in the past, but the current article largely overlooking its latter-day history isn't great, either. I've done my best to cite coverage of the strip's evolution (or devolution) using recently-published sources from a range of experts in the webcomics field, including a 2020 academic book by Sean Kleefeld documenting the turn to radical feminism, a follow-up article from his professional site last month discussing the more recent turn to political extremism, a newsletter article by journalist Ryan Broderick on similar ground that Kleefeld references, statements quoted from Tatsuya Ishida via the (now-closed) Sinfest forum, and commentary from The Webcomics Review noting the explicit antisemitic and neo-Nazi content of the last few months. That last one is probably the weakest source-wise, but the author is a well-known webcomics critic and bases his observations directly on Sinfest imagery included in the page. I'm fairly confident these are the most authoritative sources in the webcomics field that have referenced Sinfest's transformation in the recent years; there are other sources that go into more specific detail but those are limited to various Reddit posts, tweetstorms, and other less-reliable sources.

I have partially re-written and re-organized the article to give a more balanced perspective on its overall history, including subdividing the History section into background, pre-2011, and post-2011 eras (as Kleefeld's book notes the sudden introduction of radical feminist themes as the dividing line between the original strip and the new, more polemical version). I have also removed the Reception section and incorporated the few accolades there into the relevant parts of the History section to avoid implying their endorsement of the modern incarnation of the strip. --Jordan117 (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Please don't use self-published sources to make contentious claims about living people. Read WP:BLP. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of unsourced/poorly sourced BLP content

I've removed a lot of content per WP:BLP, it's in the edit history if anyone wants to try and properly source it. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not a BLP. I agree that direct references to Ishidia personally should be removed, but this is an article about a specific webcomic. Sources reviewing and discussing the content are valid secondary sources in the same sense that a published book review discussing content and themes is a valid secondary source.

While the linked sources may be speaking to the author's personal views and stances, this article is specifically about the comic he produces. The sources are still valid on that front as they reference and link to appropriate primary sources (i,e. the comic itself). Kontakr (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

They're self-published sources from blogs, they wouldn't be appropriate sources regardless about BLP concerns. BLP applies here because this a comic written by one person, so saying the comic is anti-semitic is also an accusation against the person and their behaviour too. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Self published does not mean unusable or inappropriate, just requiring of additional scrutiny. If you feel that these sources do not meet the criteria for reliable sources beyond "self-published", please enumerate.

It is entirely possible to separate art from artist, and describing statements of fact e.g. "This work contains a specific trope" is not discussion of a person or their thoughts. Kontakr (talk) 22:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

The sources were definitely inappropriate. Random blogs should almost never be used as a source. And whilst saying something like 'Sinfest has a bad drawing style' or 'Sinfest is a unique comic' don't cross into BLP, what was said about the comic in the article certainly did cross into BLP because it reflects on the person behind the comic.

If you wanted to discuss if this is a BLP issue you could take it to BLP/N but it doesn't matter much because the sources aren't usable anyhow. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I believe the consensus of one on BLP/N is that this is not a BLP. I will keep an eye out for more authoritative sources, including appropriate SPS. Kontakr (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

No, anything about the person who draws this comic needs to meet the standards of Wikipedia:BLP. If no reliable source has considered the decline and fall of Sinfest worth writing about, it's not usable. Daveosaurus (talk) 10:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Kontakr, you wrote: Self published does not mean unusable or inappropriate, just requiring of additional scrutiny. Have you read WP:SPS? It says 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. Any editor who wants to cite a self-published source has the responsibility of convincing other editors that the writer meets that requirement. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, I agree that sources need to be improved.

My point is that saying "This is BLP and therefore any and all self-published sources are forbidden" is, in my opinion, inaccurate.

To your point, the key factor is defining an SME. Who is an SME for online webcomics? The list of rejected references include:

Ryan Broderick, a (semi disgraced) journalist

Sean Kleefeld, who has written about the comic and webcomic space since 2006 and a book on the topic

Daniel Kelly, who operates a "webcomics review" blog and has authored several webcomics

Would any of these qualify as an SME in your opinion? Kontakr (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:USESPS that'd justify the use of SPS for these claims. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I think we do our readers a disservice if we remove any mention of the antisemitism entirely. The comic is at this point regurgitating outright Nazi propaganda. Having an article on it that doesn't even mention that amounts to legitimization.

Furthermore, while I do agree that blogs probably don't count as reliable sources, I disagree strongly with the idea that coverage of the comic itself falls under BLP. Simply put, Sinfest is not a living person; it is a webcomic. The idea that saying that this comic is antisemitic is also an accusation against the person making it just doesn't make sense, in my opinion. Wehpudicabok (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Saying X writes a comic that is anti-semitic is tantamount to saying that X is anti-semitic. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Respectfully, no, it isn't. The article isn't about what Ishida believes in his heart, it's about the comic that has been published. That comic is extremely blatantly antisemitic, incorporating conspiracy theories about Jews controlling the world's governments directly into its plotline. Readers may draw their conclusions about his character from that (I certainly have), but it cannot possibly be libelous to report factually on what someone chooses to publish themselves. BLP simply does not cover works of fiction. Wehpudicabok (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The purpose of BLP is to avoid poorly sourced contentious claims that could damage someone's reputation and avoid legal issues of defamation. Both of these still apply here. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF issues

I removed these edits[7][8][9] on WP:UNDUE and WP:ABOUTSELF grounds after the BLPN notice. Not only are they undue without secondary coverage, they are self-serving (persecution!) comments about other parties aka the platform companies. These shouldn't be reinstated without consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Holocaust denial/Nazis as sympathetic

I hadn't looked at the strip in a while, but the one from May 26, 2024, and following are... jarring, even horrifying. (Link to strip is on blacklist. I can see why, actually.)

I think at this point the sheer, naked antisemitism has taken over the strip so thoroughly that the article should reflect that. 47.192.70.106 (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

This is discussed above. You need reliable sources to add this information on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

If no acceptable sources (and the comic itself does not count as one) are available for this situation, and the Wiki information basically ends before this incredibly jarring shift over the last couple of years, what can be done? Would it be better for the article to be deleted? Because without that information, I think the Wiki article is misleading. Is there another option? 47.192.65.247 (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

There's no policy/criteria for an article to be deleted due to this.

>Is there another option?

Get a reliable source to talk about it. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

NO SOURCE FOR DAILY COMIC

To whomever keeps adding that Sinfest is published 'daily'. There is no source that says that. This is original research. If we can't say it's anti-semitic, you can't say it's daily. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:4401:E46F:BEE7:403 (talk) 04:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. "Daily" or "weekly" or such are always a pain in webcomics as it is impossible to cite, and likely to change over time. Regardless, your vandalism under the banner of making this change puts all of your edits under suspicion and I cannot blame anyone for undoing your changes. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Traumvocelle removed accurate categories

Traumnovelle removed fully accurate categories on the sinfest page. Categories are not subject to the same verification requirements as written information, these should be restored at earliest convivence. Please act to restore the categories 'alt right' 'conspiracy theory' etc. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:DCAA:787F:36B1:C75F (talk) 14:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CAT 'When naming, use words and phrases which exist in verifiable reliable sources (particularly for technical subjects), so that those sources may be used to support inclusion of information.' Traumnovelle (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a direct link

Given the nature of the contents (Extreme anti-semitic content), and the lack of warnings thereof on the page, I believe it's irresponsible to provide any direct link. It could cause trauma or harm to people who view it without warning. Le Blue Dude (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe this is worse than Stormfront. WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NDT are relevant here. The comic may be offensive but the cartoonish theme combined with needing to understand context to put things together make this far less likely to cause any harm than many other articles we have on Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a very important distinction between those two articles and this one: Those two articles give clear, open, explanations of what someone clicking on the link will see... open antisemitism. The sinfest article gives no indication. And, yes, this is quite likely to cause harm. Several of the recent strips have been shockingly antisemitic. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Apart from your argument here, which I agree with, I would add that WP:ELNO states in point #2, "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting", which is possibly relevant here. Furthermore, there's no requirement that an article MUST have an external link, so it can easily be removed. It may also be common sense to not include the link as well. Historyday01 (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:ELNO#2 is about things like including a site on Covid-19 misinformation in the article on Covid-19. If we were on the article of Doctor John Doe and Dr John Doe ran a website where he publishes misleading information it would still be included as a link. This is the Sinfest article so naturally we will link the comic. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

As a compromise one could potentially put the link behind a trigger warning. I would prefer not to have a link entirely, but... this is an option. Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NDT.

This is not a link to a website that is censored from Google. A reader can very easily find the website by just searching for Sinfest. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:24, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

That's exactly why we don't need a link. Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The idea is to aid readers not make them jump through a hoop for something they can find without it. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Why? How does it improve the article to include a link? Including the link does not improve the article. The link is unnecessary. Removing it DOES improve the article by preventing people from unexpectedly finding themselves in a triggering situation. Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:39, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Links have been seen as useful given they have an infobox parameter. Do praytell the difference between someone getting 'harmed' from clicking on a link in the article versus searching for Sinfest and having the website as the top result. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTCENSORED. — Czello ^(music) 15:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Sinfest does contain COVID missinformation, so if that's only intended for COVID missinformation, Sinfest is still covered. Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I can agree. Historyday01 (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

You missed the point. It'd be inappropriate to link to Sinfest on the article on Covid-19. It is perfectly appropriate to link to Sinfest on the article about Sinfest. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

just to point out that WP:ELNO has bolded text at the top reading "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid providing external links to:"

the link in question is a link to the official page of the article's subject, so I don't think any of the categories of avoidable links apply here. Hornpipe2 (talk) 15:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Excellent point, thank you. — Czello ^(music) 15:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED, also WP:OM. A similar discussion took place on the article for Stonetoss and this really is a repeat of those arguments - ultimately the decision was taken to include the link, as should be the case here. — Czello ^(music) 15:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a very important difference between this article and stonetoss: Stonetoss explains what the comic is about. This article does not mention the anti-semitism at all. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

So? — Czello ^(music) 17:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s kinda a big deal. That’s kinda what the delete discussion is about. This is a bit like if the article for John Wayne Gacy just said he was a party clown. Le Blue Dude (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. You're saying we shouldn't link to their website because it has antisemitic content, but antisemitism isn't mentioned in the article? Have I understood that right? Because if so I'm not sure how it relates to whether we should have a link. — Czello ^(music) 18:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

The reason we shouldn’t have a link is that there’s no warning in the article about the contents of that link.

Sinfest is extremely anti-semetic. This is not the problem.

Sinfest’s article does not mention the anti-semetisim at all in the body of the article anywhere. This is part of the problem.

Linking sinfest directly from the article is a bit like linking a gore image after describing it as ‘a cute little comic about friendship’. It’s deceptive and potentially harmful. Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

We aren't required to present warnings to objectionable content.

I have no issue with mentioning the fact there's antisemitic content in the article, provided it's reliably sourced. — Czello ^(music) 19:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m not talking about ‘trigger warnings’. I’m talking about any mention at all.

But you’ve brought the discussion to why the article should be deleted. There’s plenty of reddit threads about it, but no news articles.

So, let’s put the boot on another foot: Sinfest has been anti-trans for about several years and anti-Semitic for one. How about you find an article any of it?

If you can name another article where there’s so much mismatch please do so. Frankly this is an unprecedented situation. New rules should be written to cover it

Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources not covering a detail about a subject, even a controversial one, is not new for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that would mean the article needs to be deleted – all it means is that information isn't notable. The subject is still notable, though. — Czello ^(music) 19:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

No it's not. It is one of the most precedented situations possible. jp×g🗯️ 01:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Link me to some precedent then.Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Every time someone starts a conversation like this I lose another IQ point. This is silly -- we have hundreds of articles about morally objectionable websites that link to them. Our job is to document things, not actively prevent people from seeing bad things online. jp×g🗯️ 01:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If our readers were so damn stupid as to glance at a comic strip that says "durrp da j00z did 9/11" and instantly transform into rabid Nazis, we should just shut down the entire project, because there would be no point in having an encyclopedia in a world where people were such brainless cattle. We could just bring about world peace by deleting every page and replacing it with a popup banner that said "don't kill people". jp×g🗯️ 01:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Where did you get that from my ‘this might cause trauma’ comments? Because I’m not afraid of people becoming nazis from seeing this. I’m afraid of people reading the article, not realizing the contents of the comic because they are not stated in the article, and then seeing them and having a panic attack. or worseLe Blue Dude (talk) 19:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Panic attacks aren't dangerous and wouldn't occur from Sinfest's style of comic as it is a rapid onset not something that happens after slowly processing information. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

All sorts of things can cause panic attacks; we still don't use trigger warnings for them. — Czello ^(music) 07:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, no. We don't remove links around here just because they might make people upset. You can feel free to not visit the site if it upsets you, and the same goes for anyone else who reads this article. Jtrainor (talk) 21:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"Downward spiral" portion

I tried to link directly to the AFD in my edit summary, but the link didn't work. (Don't use wiki software as much as I used to, I'm afraid, and I'm a bit rusty.) But anyway, the edit by User:JPxG was the result of consensus reached on that AFD. Kleefeld is a reliable source for information about webcomics and is already cited elsewhere in this article. This portion should not be removed without discussion on this page. Wehpudicabok (talk) 02:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately.

I have removed the claim, poorly sourced to an unreliable blog, saying that a living person is in the view of the blogger supposedly "on a downward spiral" and "at odds with reality." Poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. This poorly sourced material has been added again by Wehpudicabok. I am removing it again and creating this talk page section to discuss this. It may be helpful for people to refer to our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy which says, "Never use self-published sources." Elspea756 (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I already created a section to talk about this. Why did you create another one? And Kleefeld was saying the comic was on a downward spiral, not its author.

As I said in the edit summary, it's not poorly sourced; Kleefeld is a reliable source on webcomics. Again, this was the result of consensus from several editors at the AFD, as I have said multiple times now. Wehpudicabok (talk) 02:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

This comment is explicitly about the comic and not Ishida, although some more neutral wording would be preferable to 'downward spiral'. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

No, this unreliable self-published blog is to talking about a living person when they write "we've seen a comic creator slide into a headspace that seems at odds with reality."[10] Do not add this type of unreliable self-published blogger opinion to any article ever. Elspea756 (talk) 03:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

>This isn't the first time we've seen a comic creator slide into a headspace that seems at odds with reality. (I hesitate to call this type of behavior a mental illness; I think that can be a bit reductive and, barring a psychological examination, probably not accurate anyway.)

You're right about that line, it's a description of Ishida and not the comic so would be inappropriate. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I removed the "at odds with reality" section per this discussion, but kept the remainder as it's about the comic. Wehpudicabok (talk) 03:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Elspea756, I'm going to stop editing this article for the time being. I don't like being in a revert war any more than you do. However, I find it extremely frustrating that you have not acknowledged anything I've said here. There was a discussion about this addition to the article already, at the AFD. The consensus was that Kleefeld is a reliable source (after all, his book was one of the main sources that established notability in the first place), and that talking specifically about the comic and not its creator is a way to thread the needle of covering the topic accurately and avoiding BLP issues. I even removed the "at odds with reality" quote after you and User:Traumnovelle pointed out that, even though we used it to talk about the comic, Kleefeld used that phrase to refer to Ishida. I'm not saying consensus can't change, but just repeatedly reverting these changes without acknowledging what I or anyone else has said here is unproductive. Wehpudicabok (talk) 03:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Since you said this same thing at the AfD, I will make the same response here as I did there.

You've got to be kidding me -- this is one of the silliest comments I've read all month. A widely published scholar on the topic of webcomics said on his own website that the comic -- not the guy, the webcomic that the article is about -- had gone on a "downward spiral". Like, to be clear -- this is a farcical understatement. The comic is now, on a daily basis, the author going on extended rants about how he hates Jews and transgenders et cetera. To limit our description of this to "downward spiral" is already an extremely mild milquetoast phrasing resulting from massive concessions to BLP.

Your reasoning here is obscene: we can't write anything at all suggesting that the comic is bad, because it's so bad that mentioning how bad it is constitutes defamation, because it makes the guy who wrote it look like a bad person. Well, this makes no sense, there is no policy that says this, and nowhere else on Wikipedia do we make content decisions on this basis.

Do you genuinely think that WP:BLP says we're forbidden by policy to include any negative assessment of a creative work? Have you, or anyone else, successfully applied this reasoning to any other content in any other article? I claim the answer is "no", and this is a 100% diametrically-incorrect interpretation of what this policy says and how it works. jp×g🗯️ 05:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

• It's not a BLP vio, but it is UNDUE. It's sourced to his own website which is a self-published source, so we would need independent coverage from third-party reliable sources showing that Kleefeld's opinion about this webcomic is notable in the first place. Isaidnoway (talk) 11:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  Like Wehpudicabok said, all of this stuff was already covered in great depth at the AfD. He wrote a column about webcomics for MTV's news site -- the entire website was shut down and all its archives deleted by MTV's holding company in 2023 to improve algorithm placement, sorry, no cites.

  • Sean Kleefeld (2020). "Bloomsbury Comics Studies: Webcomics". Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9781350028173.
  • Sean Kleefeld (2009). Comic Book Fanthropology. Hamilton, Ohio: Eight Twenty Press. ISBN 9780615336169.

  I have no idea what kind of proof is necessary to demonstrate that the guy is a scholar on the topic of webcomics.

  Is publishing two books on the subject not enough?

  Is spending years writing a column for a news site about them not enough?

  How many more rocks must be brought? jp×g🗯️ 13:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  We require reliable sources analyzing, interpreting and reporting on Kleefeld's specific comments he made on his self-published blog in this particular instance about Sinfest to clearly demonstrate his viewpoint is notable in order to make it DUE for inclusion. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:36, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  He’s obviously a subject-matter expert under WP:SPS. To argue that his views are not due (not notable, that’s a different concept) you need to show that there is some body of mainstream views that he lies outside, you can’t just assert it’s undue without an argument. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  No we do not. There is no basis for this claim. jp×g🗯️ 21:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

  In order for his viewpoint to be DUE for inclusion, it has to be shown that it is significant and/or notable, which is why we rely on independent sources to make that determination for us. I'm not seeing any published reliable sources reporting on his viewpoint, which would make it significant enough for inclusion. And quite frankly, when I search for "Sean Kleefeld", I'm not seeing any reliable sources with WP:SIGCOV that would even qualify this guy for being a "scholar" by our guidelines, or to even have a biography. In my view, which is supported by an absence of reliable sources about this guy, his viewpoint is non-notable and insignificant. Isaidnoway (talk) 10:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  You seem very confused. He is a subject-matter expert, who has written and had published two books of comics criticism, and whose writing is an independent analysis of the subject of this article. His writing is the reliable source. We’re not writing an article about Kleefeld, we’re using Kleefeld as a source. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  You seem to have not read my comment, as it lists multiple sources you say cannot be found. The comment where I listed them explicitly, several inches above yours, would have been a great place to start the search. jp×g🗯️ 13:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  There is absolutely no policy, guideline, or consensus, anywhere on Wikipedia, that says individual publications used as references must themselves pass the notability guidelines for articles. I have never heard of this practice being followed anywhere on the project. I claim you have made it up in order to justify removing a specific sentence from a specific page.

  I am not asking you to repeat the claim over and over. I am asking for any evidence that it is true.

  Either provide specific evidence that the claim is true, or stop making it. jp×g🗯️ 17:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  I wouldn't quote Kleefeld if he predicted the weather was going to be hot and humid tomorrow. Sadly, but understandably, he's earned the dreaded Siskel and Ebert's two thumbs down for commentary about Sinfest that is non-notable and insignificant. 👎🏻👎🏻
  Of course your mileage may vary, good for you. And since this discussion has now become unproductive and boring, I will now exit, stage left. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Okay, so still no evidence that the claim is true, just repeating it again -- thanks -- I think we can be done here. jp×g🗯️ 17:52, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  Isaidnoway is correct that attempts to insert these quotes from a self-published blog would be giving WP:UNDUE weight to a single source. They are also correct that the blog is not a reliable source, and that sources do not support the suggestion that the blog's author might be a subject matter expert on any subject, let alone this one. The responses of "you seem very confused" and "you seem to have not read my comment" directed at Isaidnoway are unnecessary and not helpful. Wikipedia:Civility has more information on maintaining a pleasant environment while working on a collaborative volunteer project. Elspea756 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  The reason I said "you seem to have not read my comment" was an attempt to be polite and assume good faith. When someone responds to a comment listing sources by saying they were not able to find any sources, there are two explanations: either they somehow failed to read the comment they're responding to, or they are deliberately making false claims to filibuster the argument. jp×g🗯️ 17:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

  That... isn't how DUE works. It just isn't. If a notable reviewer reviews a book, we don't need another review of that review to establish that that review is worthy of inclusion. Likewise here; this guy is an expert on webcomics, so his viewpoint is reasonable to include. Now, if we had dozens of good reviews of this webcomic, we'd have to start considering which we should include... but with just one? It's obvious.

  I'm more sympathetic to the BLP arguments here, but even then the pared down version should pass muster. I don't think the description of this webcomic is "contentious" at all -- if anything, it's rather mild compared to the conclusion literally anyone would come to actually reading the webcomic. Elli (talk | contribs) 00:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  unrelated to all this discussion, your link to the MTV News shutdown is making my blood boil Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

It's a fine bit of reception, which is helpful as we do not have any other reception for the past eight years. This is not a BLP issue. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 12:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Maplestrip. The BLP issue is that there has been a suggestion to use an unreliable blog post as a source for claiming that a living person is allegedly on a "downward spiral" and "at odds with reality." The blogger makes it clear they are talking about the person when they title their post "On Tatsuya Ishida."[11] The blogger's claim of a "downward spiral" is "everything you need to know about Ishida [the artist] and the downward spiral of Sinfest" is "The long, rambling, and hateful journey from ... nerd [to] addict [to] theorist [to] TERF [to] extremist." The "at odds with reality" claim is that "we've seen a comic creator slide into a headspace that seems at odds with reality." WP:BLP says "Never use self-published sources." Elli is "sympathetic to the BLP arguments," and Traumnovelle says "it's a description of Ishida and not the comic." Can you, Maplestrip, explain why you disagree with other editors here when you simply say "This is not a BLP issue"? Elspea756 (talk) 13:08, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This is completely false. jp×g🗯️ 18:33, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

BLP says self-published sources can't be used about living people; the text you've continually removed doesn't qualify because it refers to the comic, not the artist. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 18:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the qualities of the source. The "downwards spiral" is used to describe Sinfest as a creative work and is a summary of an article by Ryan Broderick, which perhaps we could use in conjunction with this source. "A headspace that seems at odds with reality" is a direct criticism of the creative work as well, as it does not claim anything about the Ishida except what the creative work indirectly conveys. If we were to use, from this source, for example, that Kleefeld was theorizing about Ishida having a form of mental illness, obviously that would be out of line. Even Kleefeld himself is careful to avoid that. Using this combined with the Broderick post, I would be willing to include more direct language about Ishida too tho, as this is all we got on this webcomic that professional publications don't want to touch with a ten-foot pole. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This is true. jp×g🗯️ 07:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the webpage was titled "On Tatsuya Ishida" if the actual content of it is a webcomic review rather than a biography. And, indeed, Kleefeld explicitly makes the point that we have no real biographical information to go on; the only information anyone has is the strip itself. XOR'easter (talk) 18:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

"Later years (2011-present)"

In reference to the debate about sources, there is no source claiming that 2011-present represents a single time period for the work. Shouldn't it be 2011-2015 when that's the time of the final non-debated source? 24.63.197.174 (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

new web address / domain

Howard from NYC (talk) 09:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The current url redirects to it so it is fine for now, but I might request a whitelist for it. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I've updated the URL after having the Sinfest.xyz domain approved to be whitelisted. Traumnovelle (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

h t t p s : / / s i n f e s t . x y z /

given that domain extension is banned, ought this be updated? or not?