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.

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)

We’ve got a quote. Care to explain why you’re removing it? Le Blue Dude (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It is quote from a Reddit moderator, that isn't reliable. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s a quote from a valid source, it has become reliable as a result. Le Blue Dude (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Simply being quoted in a reliable source does not make a statement reliable. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So long as it’s quoted as being true… It does. Le Blue Dude (talk) 21:41, 28 January 2025 (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)

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."[1] 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)

  JPxG: See [2] for his MTV archive. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

  ... and [3] indicates there are at least close to a hundred of his articles sub-bylined under the "MTV Geek" byline. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:28, 28 January 2025 (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."[4] 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?

The Absurdity of This Article's Situation

Imagine a Wiki article on a previously well known restaurant. The article can cite reliable sources in the culinary media about the restaurant and its Chef Owner and the food as it enjoyed a period of time in the spotlight. Like many restaurants, that time long since elapsed but the positive coverage can still be located in the archives of reliable sources.

Then, some time after that initial coverage faded, the chef/owner took a strange turn. He started crafting and serving food that nearly every diner considers vile. In fact, he crafts it out of human waste and now cultivates a much smaller clientele of people who enjoy consuming human waste. The restaurant that garnered positive press arguably no longer exists.

But we have a problem. Since the reliable media no longer covers this restaurant, there are no reliable sources that can be used to update the Wikipedia article. A few food bloggers have commented but despite their popularity and reputation among diners, they do not meet Wikipedia's reliability standards. The obvious answer is to delete the article as it is now entirely an inaccurate portrayal of the restaurant. But now the policy about deletion slams down and says no because the restaurant was once notable. So the article stays.

And the closed loop of Wikipedia policies leaves an an absurd situation completely unresolvable. Wikipedia is hosting an article that is hopelessly outdated and completely inaccurate. A diner seeking out a reservation is in for a horrendous experience, but Wikipedia can do nothing about this because these policies in tandem REQUIRE the encyclopedia to host an inaccurate article.

That's the situation with Sinfest. I don't dispute that the interpretations of policy is accurate, but the resulting situation is absurd and leaves an ENCYCLOPEDIA hosting an article that is at best incomplete and at worse completely inaccurate with no recourse. This is a perfect test case for the need to change this platform to keep up with the rapidly shifting nature of attention in today's media economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.143.105 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

In my mind, if the article cannot be updated to reflect the current status of what it is describing due to a lack of reliable sources describing precisely how it has drastically changed, then allowing the article to remain up does the average reader a disservice and it could be argued that the article's subject is no longer noteworthy enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. It is better to have no article than a woefully outdated, misleading one. Contrary to what others have said, things are not necessarily permanently notable, particularly given the ephemeral nature of the internet.--Rosicrucian^Talk 22:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Actually WP:Notability is not temporary. Citations are dated so readers can know when the information came from.

There are no BLP nor ethical concerns relating to outdated information causing harm here so I don't see any good basis for an IAR situation either. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think a Wikipedia article blithely glazing a webcomic that has devolved to non-stop virulent anti-semitism every single day for months on end, to the point of literally lynching a Jewish caricature and celebrating the corpse, is an ethical concern, actually. --Jordan117 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

By ethical concerns I mean any real world-harm that could from it. We have tighter standards for medical articles due to that potential but nothing else.

I disagree with your characterisation of the article as being blitheful. There is a sentence on the change in direction of the comic. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

the issue is that the two policies working in tandem require - as interpreted here - an ENCYCLOPEDIA to host an article that misinforms readers. No print encyclopedia would continue to host this article given the inability to cite secondary sources about its current state and its current state being so radically changed. This ought to be a test case for how the rules need the ability to adapt in an information economy that moves as rapidly as todays compared to when they were written. 74.64.143.105 (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't misinform. Wikipedia is littered with articles that are outdated; however, so long as there are citations with dates a reader can know when the information came from. There is even a tag at the top of this article that says the article is out-dated.

>This ought to be a test case for how the rules need the ability to adapt in an information economy that moves as rapidly as todays compared to when they were written.

Then you should take this discussion to the relevant policy pages such as WT:N or WT:OR, although I don't believe any change in policy is likely. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This page does, in fact, misinform. Badly. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:1868:D81E:E578:6008 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That you can say with a straight face that this article does not misinform readers is an astonishing example of rules becoming self justifying even if they do not function rationally anymore. 74.64.143.105 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

You're one of a very small minority on this whole talk page who believes that BLP applies to this article. Please stop with your false consensus.

WP:BLP does not apply. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:1868:D81E:E578:6008 (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLP 'This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.' Traumnovelle (talk) 05:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

One person repeating something repeatedly does not a consensus make. 2601:447:C801:3AD0:1868:D81E:E578:6008 (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Traumnovelle is quoting correctly. On this website, WP:BLP is considered a big deal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

A couple people tried to mention that it had turned into swassed slop, using the one source that it was possible to find. There were a very large number of, in my opinion frivolous, objections raised to doing so, and as a result the article just obliquely says that some guy said its quality deteriorated. jp×g🗯️ 09:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Incomplete articles is kind of what we do on this website, for various reasons. In WP-verse the obvious answer is to wait for new usable sources. If they don't appear, they don't. The internet is vast, there are other places to write in non-WP ways. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s not just incomplete though. The article as-is implies that the contents of the comic are something they’re not. It’s beyond incomplete and in the territory of actively misleading. Le Blue Dude (talk) 06:01, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The goal of Wikipedia is to be an ENCYCLOPEDIA.

Can you name one other encyclopedia that would continue to host this article give what has happened to the subject is purports to provide information on? 74.64.143.105 (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

There are dozens of online encyclopaedias that are out-dated. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So, what, being outdated is a positive goal to shoot for? Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It is inevitable when you want to try and cover as many topics as possible. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So name it. Where is there an encyclopedia that would continue to host this article with no possible way to bring it up to date? 74.64.143.105 (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

If your issue is with Wikipedia's policies you should seek to get them changed on the policy page and not here. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

One of the existing policies apparently recognizes that absolute adherence to the rules can create situations where an article makes the encyclopedia worse:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules

While obviously not license for anarchy, consider this: Obviously, having secondary sources is paramount for an encyclopedia. The whole purpose of an encyclopedia is to aggregate and summarize secondary sources. Good enough. That standard means the more than a year long descent into material that would be comfortable for Julius Streicher cannot be added to this article.

But it also means this article does not represent the topic accurately, a topic which is current and likely will remain current. It means this article is, day by day, increasingly a misrepresentation of what Sinfest IS.

That means the rule about "notability not being temporary" keeps this inaccurate article up to the detriment of the project. It cannot be sensible to permit that under the guise of the rules. So while it would be very detrimental to allow original research it is far less detrimental to remove the article under the grounds that the rules, applied absolutely, prevents improving Wikipedia.

The rules already allow for the solution that causes the least harm to Wikipedia and stops misinforming readers. 149.150.236.91 (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the RfC template. If an WP:RFC is wanted, please start a new section with a brief and neutral statement that asks a clear question. Johnuniq (talk) 06:12, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Johnuniq A new rfc appeared, Talk:Sinfest#Request_for_comment. I don't know if pages like Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law will "get this", automatically. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Putting it up for Arbitration

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.

---

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sinfest article

If anyone else wants to be involved, go here, plead your case. Thank you Le Blue Dude (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That will likely be declined pretty quickly as written, since Arbcom looks at behavior, not content. Looking at your "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried", while the 2024 afd mentions anti-semitism, it's very much the wrong forum for a content discussion on that. The rfc has been open since the 26th, that's not "trying" (30 days before (if necessary) asking for closing is standard) and it seems to lack the "initial brief, neutral statement or question about the issue" per WP:RFC. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you please help then? I’m not good at this sort of thing, I’ll be the first to admit. I’m just trying to find some way to resolve the whole problem. Le Blue Dude (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Per my brief look at the above rfc (never heard of this webcomic before I glanced at the arbcom page, so my ignorance is massive), where the OP states "I don't dispute that the interpretations of policy is accurate", I'm not sure you can. If you haven't, look for sources in other languages than English (check other language WP:s, you might get lucky). Ask Wikipedians who speak Hebrew and German if they can find anything usable. Perhaps MOS:PLOTSOURCE can have some constructive use. The rfc is brand-new, give it a chance, perhaps WP:APPNOTE it a bit. If everything fails, off-WP alternatives like [5] might be the place to write. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The interpretation of the rules is accurate.

But the situation created by the rules is absurd. An encyclopedia finds itself hosting an article about a subject that is not entirely in the past, that is currently active, but for which the article is blatantly uninformative in critical ways and cannot be updated.

If a currently active subject changes vastly over time to the point that it no longer resembles the subject that was written about but no reliable sources exist to update the article it is an absurd situation to continue to host the article. 74.64.143.105 (talk) 15:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I noticed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sinfest article which will be declined because ArbCom only deals with big disputes. See WP:DR for routine arguments. Regarding diff, the standard response at Wikipedia is that an article about a comic is not the place to tell the world about the person responsible for the comic. If the person is notable, write an article about them where the content from the diff might be appropriate. The text is a WP:COATRACK problem here. Johnuniq (talk) 06:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, let’s strip it down to the bare bones. All the article needs to say is that sinfest is a webcomic. Details about its’ contents are excessive and unnecessary.

I’ve tried removing the incorrect references to feminism (which is no longer a topic of sinfest), and other unnecessary subjects such as the update schedule, and got accused of vandalism.2601:447:C801:3AD0:711B:A795:4E40:5A96 (talk) 06:49, 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.

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.

Antisemitism category

The comic that this article is about is unambiguously anti-Semitic. I know that doesn’t sound neutral, but it is. There are no ‘reliable secondary sources’ reporting on the comic’s long running anti-Semitism. I would like to add the category:anti-semitism to this comic, which seems uncontroversial as it’s true. Other users are claiming this is OR. Is it permissible to add the anti-Semitism in literature category to this article? Le Blue Dude (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It is not permissible, because there is no verifiable statement in the article that the comic is antisemitic, so we have no basis for adding this category. —Alalch E. 16:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Ultimately you do need a source to add this. That's how Wikipedia works. — Czello ^(music) 16:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:CATV says It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Nothing in this article says that the webcomic is antisemitic, so we should not categorise it as such. When reliable secondary sources report on this, we can add text to the article discussing it. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Le Blue Dude, this doesn't work per WP:CATV. That's a very good example (yikes), but WP-scripture is quite clear on this: we need at least something like Screen Rant to make the interpretation/connection for us. ADL would work too. Or Polygon. If we have that, we can use it in the article and then you can add the cat. I get the impression that the relevant comics are pretty new, if so, sources may come in time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s really not that recent. It’s gotten a bit worse recently, but this has been going on for a few years now. Le Blue Dude (talk) 16:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe a DFTT approach, then. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

DFTT? Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll. Ishida being the troll. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

We tried that too, when we tried to have the page deleted. Le Blue Dude (talk) 18:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT rarely works in an afd. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

The argument made in the AFD was ‘page is inaccurate to the point of being actively misleading, since there’s no articles about this in the past ten or so years, it’s probably not actually notable, and the original articles used to make it really wouldn’t cut the mustard on modern Wikipedia.’ It was about 50/50 between delete and not. Le Blue Dude (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, if the policy you're referring to is NOR I feel like at some point the examples are blatant enough one could make the argument that any educated person with access but specialised knowledge would be able to verify it as a fact. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

No, the guideline I was referring to was WP:CATV: Nothing (decently sourced, WP:PROPORTIONate etc) about it in the article, no category. The WP-theory is that when the examples are blatant enough, sources will notice at some point. And some sources have [6], though not afaict sources WP-articles should use as sources. I added that one to the EL-section, though. This webcomic might be mostly forgotten by the world, but perhaps Screen Rant or somesuch will notice at some point. Personally, I'm hoping for something better like Haaretz, it's not like there's nothing to notice[7][8]. Is that Jew gold I see in the comic? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Le Blue Dude please see WP:BIT, as what you know or assert about something does not matter one single iota when it comes to what is included in Wikipedia. Now, what you know, can be used by you to seek out reliable, secondary sources, that support your position, and that is about as far as what you know to be true can take you. To a limited degree you can (in a non bludgeoning way) present what you believe to be true to the broader group on the talk page, where you might find other volunteers who choose to help you find the proper evidence to support that claim, but again the key here is MIGHT and LIMITED. (The times you have asserted anti-semitic without evidence is a textbook case of bludgeoning). If you don't find those people to help you, then WP:DROPTHESTICK entirely on the talk page until you can come back with the required verifiable, reliable secondary sources. If you cannot find any then simply walk away from that issue or the article entirely. There is zero tolerance for people pushing any position that is not properly verifiable and sourced. If you believe that such things do exist (ie WP:WAX), then by all means bring it up on that articles talk page, and it will be handled accordingly. TiggerJay (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That the comic is anti-Semitic is a simple, unassailable, fact. Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

TiggerJay has my sympathies for writing out a lengthy, helpful, and intelligent post only to be met by this. — Czello ^(music) 23:10, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Lengthly unhelpful posts get short helpful responses, what can I say. Le Blue Dude (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

So what do you want to do since you don't have any sources here. Continue making the claim without a source, which is disruptive, or walk away until you can find sources for it? Your call right now. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the talk page, we don’t need to pretend there’s any doubt about the comic on the talk page. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

We do need to. We don't really have a reliable source that says it is antisemitic. That was why I said in your first RfC that your statement was not neutral due to your claim that the comic is antisemitic. (That's also why I am happy you did try to find a source with the second RfC.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't unhelpful - it cited the exact issues with your edits and how you can resolve them. — Czello ^(music) 14:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

No. All it did was rehash the problems we’ve been going through and trying to find solutions for without helping find a solution. Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

“I’m having problems with xyz” “It looks like you’re having problems with xyz, do you want help” “yes” “your problems are xyz.” … “that’s not helpful” Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

"Notability is not temporary"

This is getting brought up repeatedly as if it's the final word. However, nobody seems to be reading the second paragraph of the policy:

"While notability itself is not temporary, from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion, or new evidence may arise for articles previously deemed unsuitable. Thus, an article may be proposed for deletion months or even years after its creation, or recreated whenever new evidence supports its existence as a standalone article."

And I honestly think we're nearly at this point. Per WP: Ignore All Rules, if a Wikipedia rule or procedure is standing in the way of an article being informative and accurate about its subject matter, it's the rule that has to yield for the sake of the quality of the article. If there is no consensus on a way forward to informing readers that Sinfest has devolved into antisemitic propaganda and graphic depictions of violence against the Jewish people, and no signs of sources that Wikipedia considers reliable dedicating any significant word count that could be cited, then what service are we performing keeping this article trapped in amber with incorrect information rather than deleting it? Wikipedia is not, and should not be, a permanent record of every early 2000s webcomic that achieved a brief flowering of press coverage. Wikipedia has deleted articles for far less, and it's not at all uncommon to decide that something which seemed notable years ago hasn't really proven out.--Rosicrucian^Talk 18:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me Le Blue Dude (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This argument is not going to work in AfD, and articles can't be deleted based on talk page discussions. —Alalch E. 19:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware that this is not a formal AfD yet. This is me stating that if we do not find some way to fix this article in a way that meaningfully does not ambush our readers by letting them possibly click a link into what on any given day may well be a depiction of a lynching rather than a fun comic strip. If the consensus is that there's no way to do that within the bounds of how things are done in Wikipedia, then the article is a black mark on the site. If the issue simply is that there isn't a consensus, then we either build that consensus or we acknowledge that the article is a lost cause and begin the deletion proceedings because the current state of it is unacceptable by any standard. So that said, how do we square this circle? --Rosicrucian^Talk 19:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think that argument will work in an afd either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe try putting it up to arbitration? Didn’t work for me, but i’m also not the most coherent person in the world. Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

If the errors of this comic, is so egregious as you have stated, I am frankly astonished that nobody has written about this in a reliable source, such as a Notable Rabbi has spoke publicly against it, there have been no campaigns to blacklist the sponsors, or other such notable things. But again, even if all of that happens, all you will accomplish is the possible ability to have that fact included in the article with the appropriate WP:WEIGHT that is due for such a statement in the grand scheme of things. (Which means at most probably a single sentence added). Realize that this material appears to cut against all sorts of norms equally (as it says its dark humor about religion, feminism, Americanism) -- its seems like their program probably holds no punches and offends just about everyone - I've never seen it myself. But simply know this, that it does not matter how offensive this is to your sensibility (or moralities or values) this article is, nor the website or content that it links to because of well established policies such as WP:PROFANE WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:NSFW. If that is your goal, then you will fail because the policies are strongly against what you (appear to be) trying to accomplish here. However, if you pivot to just making this page the most accurate description and improve it to WP:GA status, you might just do an excellent job having it self-describe itself for what it is. But again, this isn't by trying to POV push a narrative, but rather just accurately describe it for what it is using the proper, verifiable, reliable sources that area available. If you cannot accept that, then you ough walk away now because no amount of lobbying or wikilaywering is going to change the outlook for the forseeable future. TiggerJay (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

This article is categorically ineligible for GA and no one can improve it to such a degree that it may pass a GA nomination. The article is 100% liable for being quickfailed as it has a maintenance tag which is supported by consensus and objectively can not be resolved and it 100% fails WP:GACR#3: It does not address the main aspects of the topic. —Alalch E. 20:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alalch E. I would agree with you based on the minor research I've performed into this, it would likely never be GA quality. However, that being said, I would suggest that if more editors took the approach of trying to move the needle of the article towards what meets GA standards, we'd be in a much better place. When we lower our target standards, we then let cruft in that isn't in alignment with the goals and guidelines of WP. TiggerJay (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

TiggerJay, while I realize and fully acknowledge that the site itself cannot be used as a reliable source, I would really ask you to assume good faith on my part here and perhaps click through to the site in question, which is currently running a storyline in which the Jewish Blood Libel is treated as truth, as are other antisemitic conspiracy theories such as Jews poisoning wells, culminating in a public lynching of a caricatured Jewish individual. You genuinely do not have to take my word for this on my claims, this is the current storyline. While original research does not make for proper Wikipedia articles, I am extremely confused that you seem content to rest on the laurels of the article's current wording as to the nature of its content and harp on strict protocol, when the link in the article we are discussing will show that I am not exaggerating or pushing an agenda in the slightest. --Rosicrucian^Talk 20:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Rosicrucian - Let's say hypothetically I even agreed with you that they are being clearly antisemitic, that would get a passing mention, perhaps in the form of the overall arch of the comic, something (again hypothetically here) that in 2024 they began shifting their content to focus entirely on antisemitism. It would get a one or two word sentence. It would not, however, do anything towards getting the official website link removed, nor getting the page deleted -- which those who are POVPUSH the antisemitism angle seem to be lobbying for, especially Le Blue Dude. To be clear, I do not condone such (alleged) actions, but that is the sword that cuts both ways when we talk about WP:CENSORED. TiggerJay (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

If you don’t want to engage in good faith, why are you here? Le Blue Dude (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Le Blue Dude I'd welcome a citation of how I'm not assuming good faith. However, even getting into that realm would be simply a ad hominem attack to divert from the real discussion, which is how edits should be make to this page. The reason I'm here is to bring a fresh voice to this discussion based on policy, because of the noticed you've raised for support. However, the onus is upon you to provide compelling evidence, consistent with policy, that your position is correct, not to provide your own synthesis of the matter and insist that be included in the article. If you don't like this, you're welcome to present policy and guidelines that support your position as I have provided. If you don't like what the policies say about this, you are welcome to take your time and energy elsewhere. TiggerJay (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Look: You came into this talk page unwilling to play ball. You repeatedly accused me of trying to ‘force my opinions’ on people as though I were not speaking an objective truth, and you’re playing silly buggers where you pretend that this isn’t objectively anti-Semitic.

We’ve repeatedly stated that the problem is the article is inaccurate, and it’s inaccurate in a dangerous way, and the only solution you’ve offered is “Have you tried fucking off to somewhere else and not doing anything about it?!”

We, meanwhile, are looking for solutions.Le Blue Dude (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Everything above is a personal attack and slanderous, and is not supported by any factual evidence. For example, I have never used profanity, not towards you, and never in over 18 years on this website. Furthermore, I have never stated any position on if any of the content is actually anti-semitic or not, so again, a false accusation. I suggest you need to take a serious look and consider that everyone is not the enemy you claim them to be. You're casting wide aspirations here, and I would challenge you to provide direct quotations to support your grand accusations.

Now, as far as the real actual solution I have provided is seek out reliable, secondary sources, that support your position - this is policy, not my opinion. I have also suggested, if you pivot to just making this page the most accurate description and improve it to WP:GA status, you might just do an excellent job having it self-describe itself for what it is. I have also pointed out very specific policies and said if you don't like what the policies say about this, you are welcome to take your time and energy elsewhere. which you agree to every single time you press "reply" to "publish" on this website. Now I will agree with you, if you don't want to play by the rules of wikipedia (eg not "your version of playing ball"), then you're welcome to leave, or if you keep this up be banned. The choice is up to you. You can either play by the policies and guidelines or go your own way. None of us have WP:FREEDOMOFSPEECH here, and we agreed to it, for among other things to be civil, which you are being quite uncivil. TiggerJay (talk) 05:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 [9][10][11][12][13] (note also [14][15]) ^~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 [16][17]? 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 [18][19], 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)

"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)

Web comics review

So, here’s a subject matter expert, who’s published some information on sinfest.

https://thewebcomicsreview.com/tagged/Sinfest

I don’t believe there’s any reason this wouldn’t be usable.Le Blue Dude (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Where has this person's work been published by a reliable source? Traumnovelle (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you please provide support for the claim that they're a subject matter expert. Please see WP:SPS. TiggerJay (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.patreon.com/danielkelly/about?l=fr << He’s a multiple webcomics author, with a well accessed webcomics review site, and he’s cited frequently in the webcomics community

https://leifandthorn.com/2025/01/roundup-of-webcomic-social-media-news/ << such as here Le Blue Dude (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:EXPERTSPS: ' when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.' The bolding is original.

Leif and Thorn is another self-published blog by a non-expert. An expert here is not a comic, it is a person whose commentary on comics has been published by reliable sources in the past. Kleefield has a book, a news column, and a review of his work in a peer reviewed journal. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This does not look like a reliable source or a subject matter expert. "Has a Patreon making $29 a month" is not helping make the case. EdgierEdgar (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

@Le Blue Dude: you were in error for adding the content while you knew this conversation was pending. Furthermore, your edit was appropriately reverted by EE. Per policy you should NOT further revert-his-revert, but instead work on the talk page to find consensus. This is clear cut WP:EDITWAR and it needs to stop. If you cannot find consensus, you just do not get to do whatever you want on the talk page itself. TiggerJay (talk) 20:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Question: Why am *I* the one who has to find consensus instead of the people removing data? 2601:447:C801:3AD0:945D:201C:85C3:FE63 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Because the WP:ONUS for inclusion of disputed content is on he who wishes to include it. Traumnovelle (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

As a point of order, the amount of money that somebody makes from something is a wholly absurd argument that has no bearing on a source's usability. jp×g🗯️ 20:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, I have no idea why Patreon links are being posted here or how they are expected to help with this article. EdgierEdgar (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

This exact source was argued about a few sections up on this very page: Talk:Sinfest#Poorly_sourced_contentious_material_about_living_persons_must_be_removed_immediately. There were a large number of explanations as to how it met the guidelines and was fine to use as a source (hence its inclusion in the article). I thought a lot of the arguments against it mostly did not make sense -- you could alwyas look through this section and see what you make of it? jp×g🗯️ 20:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

That section is about Kleefield no? This is about a different person. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, and per latest post at https://thewebcomicsreview.com/, that person is reading this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@JPxG No it wasn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:08, 31 January 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)