Talk:Mary Sue/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Are we REALLY to the point where one of us has to make a blog entry about Bella Swan, just so someone else can "cite" it?

I'm Jewish. Every other Jewish person reading this knows exactly where I'm going with this already, but let me explain for the rest of you: In Jewish Rabbinical circles, nobody will take you seriously unless you cite another Rabbi when making a claim. For example, Rabbi A might say "eating pork is okay if it saves a baby's life", but no other Rabbi would accept it unless Rabbi A said "Excuse me, I meant to say that Rabbi B once said that eating pork is okay if it saves a baby's life". It seems to me that this is the point we're to with Wikipedia. We're all pretending that we can't state the obvious unless some doofus has made a Blog Entry somewhere backing up what we want to say.

The fact that people keep wanting to add Bella Swan to this page has nothing to do with "hating Twilight". In fact, classifying a character as a "Mary Sue" isn't necessarily a "bad thing" or an "insult", it's just a description. The people that want to add that particular character mainly want to do so because THAT'S WHAT THE CHARACTER IS. Yes, the books and movie are popular. Which is, of course, why the character is receiving attention.

Here's another example: Let's say that you were doing a Wiki entry on Superheros, and somebody wouldn't let you cite Spawn, because "Superhero is a term jointly trademarked by Marvel and D.C., and therefore Spawn cannot be cited as a Superhero". You'd think it was silly and stupid, right? And pretty much a disservice to Wikipedia, given that Spawn was one of the most popular and influential Superheros of the 90's.

In any event, I wish all of us could just get over the whole Fanboyism thing. Bella Swan should be referenced on this page because the character is the most high-profile example of the archtype. Keeping the character off because "fanboys love her" or "fanboys hate her" is just plain dumb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.202.98 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlike 209.33.202.98, I'm not going to make any gross generalizations about why editors add or remove references to Bella Swan; instead, I'll just say why I remove them: because they're never referenced. Any of them. Ever.

Wikipedia isn't a list of things that everyone knows—or at least it shouldn't be. It should be a compilation of what's been previously published by verifiable reliable sources. When you can find a reliable source that says that Bella's a Mary Sue, feel free to add that to the article (hint: blogs are explicitly not reliable sources). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Except that's not what an encyclopedia is. You should try reading a physical encyclopedia one day, as these were the precursor and entire basis of wikipedia. Encyclopedia entries were written by experts on the topic, nary a reference or footnote to be found. Bocomoj (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"When you can find a reliable source that says that Bella's a Mary Sue" How about the Twilight books themselves, are they reliable enough for you? 202.89.137.147 (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably never find a reliable published source that Bella is a Mary-Sue though. Most people agree that she is a Mary-Sue, but that's just a matter of opinion, isn't it? So where would one go to find a reliable source stating that she is one? I could write an article stating that, but it probably wouldn't be considered a reliable source. Even the fans of Twilight will admit she is one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.132.108 (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If a verifiable reliable source can't be found for a statement, that's usually a tip that it's not something worth including in an encyclopedia. OTOH, if something is commonly known, someone should eventually mention it in a usable source. For instance, this article in today's SJSU Daily Spartan. Consequently, I've added it to this article, and because it has a source, it's likely to remain. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that link doesn't succeed - it is an opinion posted in a student newspaper, not a proper critical analysis of the concept. --Ckatz^chat_spy 23:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Imo, that source completely supports the statement that "original characters in role-playing games or literary canon are also sometimes criticized as being "Mary Sues"". In that article, she's an original character that's being criticized as a Mary Sue, yes? The article doesn't say that it's solely about litcrit theory (f it was, it would be considerably shorter and should include {{litcrit}}). And pretty much anything that uses the phrase "Mary Sue" will be someone's opinion. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read your own Wikipedia article on "Mary Sue" you'll notice that Bella Swan actually fulfills the criteria listed in this very article. Therefore, she is technically a "Mary Sue". 202.89.136.172 (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And if you read WP policies (such as WP:V or WP:RS), you'll see what can be added is what's independently verifiable. "Meets the criteria" isn't what matters. "A published academic paper says she meets the criteria" is. Now, as to whether this article should allow statements published by verifiable reliable sources outside of the litcrit world—ah, that's another discussion altogether. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying Bella Swan isn't a Mary Sue because nobody else has published anything stating that she's a Mary Sue and therefore it isn't "official" that she is one. 203.211.77.193 (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Because, obviously, someone is going to publish an "academic paper" about how a character is considered a Mary Sue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.31.152.140 (talk) 22:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Academic papers about fan fiction, including the Mary Sue concept and citing examples, already exist. That isn't the point. The point is that Wikipedia has rules for what can and can't be included, and the subject of this article is extremely subject to personal interpretation. Wikipedia wants writers to cite "notable" third-party sources, like books or magazines that anyone can get access to. (Not just published academic papers) So if the Newsweek book reviewer wrote up something on Twilight and used the words "Mary Sue" in describing Bella, I would think that it should be allowed. The example given of an opinion published in a student newspaper is iffy, because is a student paper "notable"? But no, it doesn't have to be an academic paper as far as I know. --Bluejay Young (talk) 10:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really care about Bella Swan or anything, but I agree that her inclusion would make sense. Simply stating "because 'Bella Swan is a Mary Sue' cannot be found in any official document, we cannot include her in the Wikipage," is silly. "Mary Sue" is not an official term. You won't find it in the official dictionary, so why would any official document it use it? Furthermore, what is considered an official document anyway? I found a review in the paper the other day (yes, the actual newsprint) for the second movie, and in the article the critic explains the character as, well, a Mary Sue. He/she doesn't use the term, of course, for said reason above, but he/she essentially describes exactly that which a Mary Sue is. You will not find exact official documentation on Bella's Mary Sue-isms, nor will you of any character, but I believe this is as close as you could possibly get.Milkman7777 (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that kind of official document: I said notable, which on Wikipedia means accessible books or articles on the subject. The word "documentation" means something a little different from, say, the dictionary or the Constitution. The actual term "Mary Sue" is used by a handful of reviewers, who are cited in the Wikipedia article, and I think in this case that's the kind of documentation and "notable" sources Wikipedia wants to see. I'm not wild about their standards in some cases, but there you are. --Bluejay Young (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Between the novel "Twilight" and the Wikipedia article on "Mary Sue", it's apparent that the article succinctly describes the character of Bella Swan as seen in the novel. So either the novel itself isn't a reliable source, or Wikipedia is unreliable. Which is it? 202.74.194.57 (talk) 06:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not whether we think the novel's description of Bella Swan matches Wikipedia's description of what constitutes a Mary Sue. To look at a description, particularly one as subjective as this, and decide a character meets that description would constitute original research. As others have already stated, what's needed is a reliable source that explicitly states that Bella Swan is a Mary Sue. —tktktk 01:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing "original" about it, Wikipedia has already done all the research in this very article. 202.74.194.57 (talk) 04:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's original research because we would making a statement that the sources did not. Specifically, it would be synthesis of published material that advances a position. In other words, we would be combining the book's description of Bella Swan with another source's description of a Mary Sue to advance the position that Bella is a Mary Sue. —tktktk 03:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)