Talk:Daria Morgendorffer

Untitled

"Daria, wears rounded, thick glasses and shapeless, bulky sweaters. John Allemang of The Globe and Mail said "to surrender is to be normal, to sacrifice your brain in the rush to be popular and wear uncomfortable shoes that make your legs look hot. Daria, as always, keeps her integrity. She wears sensible shoes, and finds her intellectual reward in not being hot." " I would describe her shirt as a blazer. Also, Jane refers to her footwear as "boots" in episode 2. Just saying. 24.68.48.130 (talk) 20:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The birthdate given for Daria is undoubtedly incorrect.

First, there is a long-standing controversy over the real-time year the series ended (see the discussion section of the Stacy Rowe article). Second, we absolutely know that Daria was not born in March. A source from Beavis and Butt-head indicates that Daria is a Scorpio; therefore Daria was born between late October and late November.

Template of the Daria Characters

The Daria characters need to have a template which shows, relatives, height, weight, relatives, friends, religion, and also, likes and dislikes. --PJ Pete

Um...why? For many of the characters those things aren't established. I'm sure Daria would have something snarky to say if you asked her her weight, though. Wyvern 09:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Quotes

If anyone has any, I think there should be a "memorable quotes" section here. I know, she has a lot of quotes, but still, there ought to be a section. Magicflyinlemur 21:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's already a collection at Wikiquote: Daria. I'll put a template on this page linking to it. —Jonathan D. Parshall (Talk | contribs) 03:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

High School Graduation

Daria was in high school in every episode of the cartoon. She graduated from high school in the telefilm, Is It College Yet?. The final episode of the cartoon was Boxing Daria, though it didn't have anything to do with graduation, but the episode took place in some of the times before Daria graduated from high school. --PJ Pete

Daria and her attitude towards homosexuality

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daria_Morgendorffer&diff=322690720&oldid=322497021 "revert--this doesn't seem to be a source that merits weight in the article"

This is from an academic journal called The Journal of Popular Film & Television - Academic journals are the highest among the reliable source totem pole on Wikipedia. It is acceptable if you can find another place for or otherwise organize differently the "Dennis says that Daria finds homosexuality disgusting" attribute. However, it would be unacceptable to remove this from the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

First off, you created that article for the journal just now, clearly in response to this issue. Just sayin'. Second, how often is this journal cited in academic research? That, to me, is a much more interesting question than whether it's published by academics. Third, that is such a weird sentiment, especially considering that the topic of homosexuality comes up in the show...once(?)...that in fact INCLUDING it in the article is unacceptable, as it does not deserve weight relative to anything else about the character. Finally, the proper place to discuss this is the article talk page, not here. Croctotheface (talk) 08:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll state my rationale more clearly. First, that journal strikes me as a little shaky. If we can find out how often it's cited by other academics, then I'm open to persuasion on this point. However, despite my serious concerns about the quality of the sourcing, even if that were not an issue, the opinion strikes me as so completely bizarre and so disconnected from the text of the show that it's analogous to a fringe opinion. The article is behind a paywall, so I can't read it just by clicking the link; it would be helpful to see what text from the show the author cites to support his position. If it's just a "sense" he gets from watching the show, then the fact that he got some random journal to publish it doesn't mean we need to highlight his opinion. Would a single journal article be an adequate source for an editor to put ANYTHING in ANY article on Wikipedia? Croctotheface (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, to the idea that "sources decide what's important," a Google news search for daria mtv returned 1200 hits, some of which were grouped together. When I searched for daria mtv homosexuality in the same manner, 13 results came up, none of which said anything like what our article says. You're not following what the sources think is important, you're highlighting a fringe view that the sources do not consider important at all. Croctotheface (talk) 09:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I found the journal entry on EBSCOHost, which is a database that hosts academic works for research purposes. That is how I learned about it to begin with, and this is why I believe that it is a credible journal. I suppose I could do more searches to see how often this particular journal is cited in research, but I have found works by the journal on academic database websites.

2. There has been a response to Jeffrey Dennis's work published in Animation World Magazine here: http://www.awn.com/articles/drtoon/deconstruction-zone-part-2/page/1%2C1 - Martin "Dr. Toon" Goodman says "Dr. Dennis, as I have noted, holds several advanced degrees and is certainly no slouch" before dissecting and disputing much of what Dennis said. I'll see if this particular work mentions Daria... EDIT: The response article doesn't specifically mention Daria.

3. "Third, that is such a weird sentiment, especially considering that the topic of homosexuality comes up in the show...once(?)...that in fact INCLUDING it in the article is unacceptable, as it does not deserve weight relative to anything else about the character." - The argument here sounds like Wikipedia:Original research - If one wanted to dispute his findings about Daria, you need a reliable source that has the writer dispute that about Daria. (If the original author of Daria disagreed about that aspect, then you could cite his comments on it, etc) Goodman disputed several things that Dennis said, but I don't think Goodman mentioned anything specifically about Daria.

4. I found articles from the journal in bibliographies and research guides I found on the internet, including http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/arabbib.html and http://guides.swem.wm.edu/content.php?pid=1505&sid=64257

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The journal seems at least half-way reputable, but I still have a sourcing concern based on the fact that, from what we can see, we have one source for the opinion (Dennis's original article) and one source apparently saying that the given opinion is crap (Goodman's) and nobody else who holds a similar opinion or comments on it. Again, this seems like a fringe opinion to me; as I said, 1200+ hits in Google news, and none of them say anything like that paragraph. As far as your #3, that is certainly my opinion, and it would run into trouble with WP:OR if I wanted to publish it in the article. However, I don't want to publish it in the article, so no harm done there. I brought it up because when it comes to the topic of what viewpoints deserve weight, there's no benefit to pretending that we're incapable of evaluating those viewpoints.

Also, I posted this to the help desk (you can see I am less than knowledgeable when it comes to knowing which board to go to); they suggested I post to WT:TV, which I did. In the course of helping me out with where to put it, one editor raised a couple of additional issues, such as "extraordinary claims require extraordinary support" that seem to apply here. Croctotheface (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a more in-depth look at your posts later. In the meantime what I exactly posted was "Dennis said that Daria had these feelings," meaning that he interpreted the character in that way. To say that "Daria had these feelings" based on the source could/would be POV, but saying "Dennis said that Daria had these feelings" makes it clear that the concept is his interpretation. If you want I can post the entire relevant sentences from the actual journal article so people who cannot access the text from a library can see exactly what he said and how he based his rationale.

The Goodman critique doesn't attack everything that Dennis has to say, but Goodman has a problem with Dennis's thesis on the overall development of American cartoons and some specific aspects of Dennis's paper.

WhisperToMe (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify, my position is that Dennis's opinion shouldn't receive weight in the article, not that the phrasing you added wasn't neutral. Croctotheface (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It would be one thing to say "it shouldn't receive weight" if the Daria Morgendorffer article had plenty of in-depth character analysis content from third parties. The problem with the current Daria Morgendorffer article is that it does not have any "creation and conception" information (where the creator talks about how he or she created the character and why), and it has very little information on "reception" (what outside sources thought about the character) - Yes, Daria was named in the best characters list, but the source used does not have any explanation why. As the Daria Morgendorffer article stands now, it would be merged into a character list.

The article Daria Morgendorffer has a lot of plot summary. We can't have standalone fictional character articles with a lot of plot summary. Standalone articles need "creation and conception" and "reception" information. Because Dennis is the only third party analysis available as of right now, it needs to stay in the article. If you found a wealth of other character analysis information from other prominent people, you could argue that Dennis's statements are not important enough. But as of right now it would be in the article's interest to have the Dennis quote stay and for other information about Daria to be found.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your position, and I totally agree with you as far as the need for more and better content. The problem is that Dennis's view is a fringe view, and it's especially dangerous to have a fringe view as the ONLY analysis present in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if the TV Guide feature that rated Daria as among the top cartoon characters has been digitized yet? Maybe that explains why the guide ranked her among the best of the characters. In any event, we need more analysis

When people refer to a fringe theory, usually its a statement that is in direct opposition to the mainstream position of a subject, like 9/11 conspiracy theories versus the mainstream account, Holocaust denial vs. the accounts of the Holocaust, etc. If you want to prove or otherwise characterize the Dennis analysis as a minority viewpoint and/or fringe theory, it means finding other analysis that states the opposite. Are there secondary sources that state that Daria has a tolerance for homosexuality, etc.?

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that "fringe theory" is not the perfect phrase to use here, but it gets at what I want to get at. The lack of other sources addressing Daria and homosexuality strengthens my position, not weakens it. In my view, homosexuality is just not on the Daria radar, as evidenced by the fact that sources aren't talking about it whatever position they take. So, it's a minority viewpoint that it's possible to draw any conclusions about Daria and homosexuality when that's not something the show or the characters really address. I am completely puzzled as to why you are so enamored of this one source that represents one person's viewpoint, and why you are so insistent that it has to go in the article. Croctotheface (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that the statements would put Wikipedia:Undue weight on the aspect? Is that the term you are looking for?

The way to solve that would be to add more commentary so proportionally the Dennis argument would make up not that much of the analysis section. Sometimes the way to solve these problems is to add more content.

Fictional character articles need to be geared towards analysis from secondary sources. See, I found the Dennis article while looking for articles discussing Rocko's Modern Life - The article discussed one character. I thought "why not add the information in the articles about the other characters that the journal article discusses?"

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

As you can probably tell from my post at WT:TV, I have serious concerns about using that article at all. And I have serious concerns with the fact that one guy, who apparently is a professor, publishes in a journal run by some out of the way university, his article never gets cited by anyone except to take it apart...and yet it's going to be the only source we use to say that this-or-that character is gay or that this-or-that character is uncomfortable with homosexuality or whatever else. These are shows that either never mention homosexuality or mention it only briefly. I mean--Yogi Bear? Seriously? For something this out there, ANY weight is undue weight. I would be opposed to mentioning this stuff (unless, of course, this article gets cited more or other authors come up with similar opinions) because, as someone who commented at the help desk said, these are some extraordinary claims. One article doesn't cut it. It doesn't much matter to me if the guy is a professor or if the journal is academic, since the entire topic of Daria's sexuality is not relevant, in the view of every source except Dennis's article. Croctotheface (talk) 18:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The journal is operated by Heldref Publications, not a university - Anyway, since it is peer reviewed, as the Gale Group page reveals, it has more validity than a non-peer reviewed publication would. We are obligated to apportion some weight to the article, since this comes out of a peer reviewed journal. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I came across this page: http://www.lib.jmu.edu/help/peer.aspx

It says that the way to tell if something on EBSCOHost Academic is to check "Scholarly (peer-reviewed) journals" so only those show up

When I search for "Rocko" the Dennis article appears, confirming that EBSCOHost has labeled it as peer reviewed.

"as someone who commented at the help desk said, these are some extraordinary claims." - It's not extraordinary to claim that Dennis, the guy who wrote an article in a peer reviewed journal, said it. If the help desk people knew this was a peer reviewed journal, maybe they would be singing a different tune.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(removing indents) If we accept your view here, then we can literally never exclude ANYTHING that appears in an academic journal from any article to which it is remotely relevant. Pick any crazy-ass viewpoint; so long as someone said it in a peer reviewed article (even if the journal isn't affiliated with a university), then it has to go in. I think that if you stop and think about the ramifications of what you're saying, you might reconsider--and either way, that view is not the consensus view on this encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 05:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The thing about real peer reviewed journals (not fake ones like Journal of Frontier Science) is that the author has to submit his or her work to a review by other experts (hence a peer review). Because a peer-reviewed academic journal decided that the viewpoint was credible and published it, we have to at least show that person's viewpoint. http://lib.calpoly.edu/research/guides/peer.html discusses how a peer reviewed journal publishes content. http://www.knowledgecenter.unr.edu/instruction/help/peer.html also discusses a peer reviewed journal. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this page http://www.acquirecontent.com/titles/journal-of-popular-film-and-television the Journal of Popular Film and Television is peer reviewed. This [1] also says the journal is peer reviewed.

In this database [2] says that the journal is "Refereed" - meaning it is peer reviewed

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, I know what peer reviewed means; I even referenced it in the comment you're responding to here. I'm not entirely sure what to make of your assumption that I am altogether ignorant of this stuff, but this is not a case where I would only agree with you if I were somehow more educated. Two things: first, peer review does not mean that the peers find the article credible, just worthy of publication. They could find the opinions ridiculous, but decide that for whatever reason, they're better off publishing it. It would be patently ridiculous to just say that peer review trumps everything else. I'll just quote my post above again: "Pick any crazy-ass viewpoint; so long as someone said it in a peer reviewed article (even if the journal isn't affiliated with a university), then it has to go in." Your response to this was, in essence, "Yup." Again, this strikes me as a very extreme viewpoint that does not reflect current consensus. If it were widely adopted, I believe it would do harm to the encyclopedia. This case is a perfect example; the article would be worse for having Dennis's opinion included. I see that you have several outside links here: do we have a policy or guideline that mandates inclusion of EVERY viewpoint from ANY peer reviewed article? Croctotheface (talk) 20:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources (content guideline) says "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable; this means published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." - In other words, Wikipedia's criterion for a reliable journal article means one published in reputable peer-reviewed sources. It doesn't say anything about "the journal may publish it, but it doesn't mean they think the article is any good"

So a standard of whether a journal article is a reliable source is more or less whether it is published by the peer reviewed sources. On Wikipedia we tend to go by what policies and guidelines say.

Re: "first, peer review does not mean that the peers find the article credible, just worthy of publication. They could find the opinions ridiculous, but decide that for whatever reason, they're better off publishing it." - Do you have a reliable source that states this? I don't understand why a journal would risk its own credibility by publishing an article that peers would not approve of.

You said: "Pick any crazy-ass viewpoint; so long as someone said it in a peer reviewed article (even if the journal isn't affiliated with a university), then it has to go in." - But the "crazy-ass" bit is your personal viewpoint on his viewpoint, and it's not published anywhere. We aren't supposed to use our own viewpoints in judging material. We are supposed to go by the consensus indicated in reliable sources. We are supposed to follow the framework done by Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

That doesn't mean we give equal weight to every viewpoint; we go by the overall consensus on a subject (i.e. earth is round, instead of flat, the holocaust happened, etc.) - The thing is that Dennis's statements stand alone. Nobody said the opposite of what he said, and because the current article is just a bunch of plot summary, we have to include the Dennis statement as commentary on the character as that is all we have. No, Daria will not be a great article, but character articles are supposed to include commentary.

Your personal viewpoint regarding Dennis's statement is not sufficient in opposing it; you have to use the framework of other reliable sources. You talked about a Google news search, but that's not enough. We have to build up the article first. We have to include a large amount of analysis from other sources before you can say that Dennis's statement has too little weight. We have to make sure that analysis about the character is present as opposed to simply discussing the show.

Also I included mentions from the Goodman response in articles involving subjects mentioned in the Dennis paper which Goodman addressed. AFAIK Goodman did not address the statements about Daria.

WhisperToMe (talk) 22:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You're making an error that is unfortunately far too common among Wikipedia editors: you seem to believe that striving for neutral writing in our articles means that we need to pretend we are incapable of holding opinions or using them in our editorial decisionmaking. We make subjective judgments all the time. You just said that "we go by the overall consensus on a subject," but discerning such a consensus requires forming an opinion, a "personal viewpoint," as to what that consensus is. Interpreting sources is subjective and involves forming a "personal viewpoint." Deciding if the text someone included in an article is neutral involves forming a "personal viewpoint."

I'll assume, for the sake of argument, that the journal article is reliable. I'm not ready to concede the point, but I don't think it's important to the issue at hand to argue about it. I think my position would still stand even if Dennis's article appeared in the Columbia Law Journal.

You did not quote me any policy or guideline that mandates the inclusion of material because of the quality of its sourcing. You just quoted a policy that establishes academic journals as generally reliable sources.

Finally, you didn't respond to my actual question about whether we must publish any crazy-ass viewpoint that shows up in a journal article. It seems that your answer to that is yes, but you would not affirm that here. Do you or don't you believe that we are obligated to include ANY viewpoint that exists in a peer reviewed journal? Croctotheface (talk) 06:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying that an editor should use his or her own personal opinion in judging whether an opinion expressed by a published source is "crazy-ass" and therefore not worthy of being discussed on here?

IMO by relying too much on one's own subjective opinions it causes needless conflict with people who have other subjective opinions about what is correct and what isn't, what is reasonable and what isn't, etc. By letting the general body of reliable and published sources speak for themselves, it allows the reader to decide for himself or herself whether an opinion is correct or whether it is incorrect.

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, but then we're going to have a subjective disagreement and conflict about what it means for sources to "speak for themselves." Does Dennis's opinion accurately reflect what sources are saying? Again, that's opinion, or "personal opinion" since you prefer that formulation. As to your first question, the answer is yes, editors can and should evaluate what effect certain text has on the article and make editorial judgments about that. It's exactly the same as any other editorial judgment about anything else.

Let me give you a hypothetical example: let's say that we agree that there should be some reference made to the Stabile/Harrison analysis you quoted in the article. (Incidentally, nice work on expanding that section.) However, let's say that I think another quote is better to include in the article. You like the one that's in there now. This is a subjective disagreement, based on "personal opinion," about which quote to use. What's the solution? It seems like you'd say that since they're both quotes from a reliable source, we must use both. Seems fine for two quotes, no big deal. What if the section on Daria were 20 pages long, and 100 different editors wanted to include 100 different quotes. At some point, the editors would need to get together and make the subjective determination based on our "personal opinions" about what to include or not to include. If we adopt your formulation that "personal opinions" can never exclude material from a source, then all 100 quotes must go in. I don't particularly want to live in that brave new world, and I don't really think you do either. So of course we can exclude information based on such opinions; it's what we do every single day.

So my answer to your question is yes. Could you say once and for all what your answer to my question is? Do you think that Wikipedia must publish any opinion from any journal article? Croctotheface (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

So if there was a dispute regarding including one quote instead of another, and the section did not have room for both, one wouldn't say Well I like this one better, so this goes for either one. One has to use external criteria in order to judge which quote is preferable. Has one quote been referred to more often in the national media? Is one quote mentioned in secondary sources as a key quote for the series? You said: "So of course we can exclude information based on such opinions; it's what we do every single day." - But our framework for exclusion is based on outside criteria, not simply on personal opinions. When it is a question of balance and/or weight, one does have to use his or her own judgment, but using more objective criteria, not simply his own personal likes and dislikes.

Assuming that there is enough room in the article, and balance is not affected, I would be willing to include anything from a real peer-reviewed journal (one identified as one by Ulrich's Periodicals Directory). WhisperToMe (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The notion that "the section does not have room for both" is itself subjective. Maybe you issue here is that you seem to associate subjective judgments with likes and dislikes, divorced from evidence. My judgment here is not that I dislike or even that I disagree with the opinion, it's that it brings an issue that is not at all important to the character to the fore. How can I tell it's not important to the character? Because no other source talks about it. Including this material would serve to confuse the issue of what Daria is about, and it would not serve to inform our readers. Yes, this is opinion, but that's why I'm writing it here on the talk page and not in the article.

I also want to say regarding the dispute over my "which quote" hypothetical, that in the vast majority of cases, neither quote would be referenced at all in the national media. So as much as it would be nice if we could appeal to that to solve the issue, it wouldn't get us very far in a practical sense. (And incidentally, as far as I can tell, the Dennis article has never been referenced in the national media except by someone who thinks that it's complete crap, so I think that test would support my position here.)

Finally, the issue of article "balance" is precisely what's at work here, and that is itself a subjective determination. I think that a paragraph about the quote is too much, and you don't. Your argument against me has been that since it's a reliable source, so it MUST go in the article. However, you envision rejecting precisely that argument if the text in question brushed up against your viewpoint (or your "personal opinion") of whether it's balanced or not. So can we please dispense with the idea that having an opinion is bad? Croctotheface (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

In short: I don't think there is a balance problem right now. There's plenty of plot summary in this article that needs to go. No matter what, the article should not be laden with plot summary. With the plot summary gone, there would be no problem regards to undue weight or balance when placing in the Dennis statement, which is one sentence long.

There is a distinction to be made regarding personal dislike and personal opinion and a subjective argument which addresses why A is more important than B. There is an essay which is often repeated and mentioned (it's not a policy or a guideline) called Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Personal point of view - it shows why certain subjective arguments are problematic in regards for making decisions. There's also Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#Subjective importance WhisperToMe (talk) 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

(removing indents) Whisper, come on: you didn't address anything I raised here, except to say you don't think there's a balance problem right now. That's a subjective statement. Assuming you mean you don't think that referencing the Dennis article creates a balance problem, then, well, I do think it does. That's what this debate is about. In general, please stop treating me like a rookie editor. I understand that you've been here forever and think you know everything about how Wikipedia works. If you don't want to consider my opinions, fine, but don't try to dismiss them as uneducated. I've read that essay. (As you may suspect, "I don't like it.") I think that it says some silly things, but my major issue is that people think they have a license to dismiss any opinion they disagree with as another editor saying "WP:IDONTLIKEIT." That seems like what you've tried to do here. Croctotheface (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was kind of thinking about the WP:IDONTLIKEIT principle. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television, 20:47, 31 October 2009 you said: "I think it's very unlikely that one guy's speculation about the sexuality of Heffer from Rocko's Modern Life or about whether Daria is repulsed by homosexuality is going to receive any attention from other sources because, well, it really doesn't deserve any attention." - In that sense it's not up to the editor to decide whether it doesn't deserve any attention. Because the other issues in the Dennis essay were addressed by Goodman, one could argue that someone else could do the same years later. If the statement was "there is too much detail in the article, so we shouldn't address every aspect of it and this isn't an important aspect" it would be different. WP:IDONTLIKEIT would not be applicable in that sense.

You have brought up concerns of balance, and that is an important subject. Look, I think we should address a balance standpoint and figure out when and how the article would be balanced.

Better yet, I thought I would link to the discussion from the animation WikiProject page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animation - Maybe a third or fourth opinion would clear this up.

WhisperToMe (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I do believe that, from what I've seen so far, the article doesn't deserve any attention from other sources. If it was widely cited and approvingly referenced by other authors, then we're having a conversation, but I don't see that happening here. And of course, just to be clear, it is entirely up to editors to decide what receives attention HERE. That's what editors do: we put stuff in and take stuff out.

I'm certainly in favor of more opinions, and I want to be clear; I'm fine if I "lose" on the merits here. My preferred course could be wrong, though I don't think it is, and if this debate inspired you to seek out materials to improve the article, then all the better. My issue has been that you seemed unwilling to engage on the merits, preferring instead to say that my view somehow doesn't count because it's subjective or the journal is a reliable source.

I've said multiple times that I don't regard this aspect of the character as important, and that's the foundation of my balance argument. (But really, everything changes for you when we replace the "doesn't deserve attention" opinion with the "is not important" opinion?) At first, that bit from Dennis's article was the only character analysis we had here. (Thanks to your changes, it's getting better.) But still, I think that homosexuality is not a theme of the show or the character, as evidenced by the lack of time the show spent talking about and the lack of coverage it received in sources that talk about the show. Especially given the unusual nature of this opinion and the lack of very specific support it finds in the show, I think the article is better off without it. Croctotheface (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Other analysis/reception

As a note, just to see what else I could use to build up this article, I searched EBSCOHost Academic Search Complete for "Daria" and "cartoon" - the Dennis article was the only journal article I could pull up. So I need to search LexisNexis to see what news articles say about Daria. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I searched Google Books and found some other information that could be used. I still want to include what Dennis said, but I'm hoping that I can get other stuff in this article as well. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Daria Morgendorffer and journal article about perceived attitudes towards homosexuality

This RFC is about whether one should post the views of a person who wrote an article about cartoon characters and homosexuality in a peer-reviewed journal article.

Jeffrey P. Dennis, author of "The Same Thing We Do Every Night: Signifying Same-Sex Desire in Television Cartoons," (Journal of Popular Film & Television) wrote his interpretation of views of Daria characters and homosexuality

One user says that this is not significant enough to merit posting, while another user says that this is significant enough.

Refer to Talk:Daria_Morgendorffer#Daria_and_her_attitude_towards_homosexuality for previous discussion. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Involved Editors

Support

• Based on the above comments, WhisperToMe supports inclusion of the sentence. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Against

• Based on the above comments, Croctotheface opposes inclusion of the sentence. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved Editors

Support

Against

1. If another person publishes another article about this then I would say yes but basing a whole section on one article puts undue weight on that one source. (personal note: This was a big thing in the fandom for a while. There are lots of fan fictions that approach this as a slash paring.)--Guerillero | My Talk 23:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
   • It would not be an entire section. The information would take up a portion of a section
   • This is the revision with the Dennis content in question - It takes up one sentence.
   • The content would go in this section: Daria_Morgendorffer#Reception.
   • So only a portion of "Reception" would cover what Dennis talks about.
   • WhisperToMe (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for assuming things. After seeing what I see now the only problem I have with it is the fact that the sentence dosen't flow well into the rest of the article. However, copy editing concerns aren't enough to keep something from the article. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Cartoon_Sexuality WhisperToMe (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm heartened to see that basically every post at the fringe theories board agrees with what I had said here, over a year ago, before this was dredged up again. I hope that we can finally put this matter to rest and leave this fringe theory out of the article. Croctotheface (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the noticeboards are precisely how these one on one debates get resolved.

WhisperToMe (talk) 14:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

References

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Daria Morgendorffer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100530002713/http://www.outpost-daria.com:80/ch_diarrhea.html to http://www.outpost-daria.com/ch_diarrhea.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100106055930/http://outpost-daria.com/media_art28.html to http://www.outpost-daria.com/media_art28.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:05, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daria Morgendorffer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090603034915/http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/30/cartoon.characters.list/index.html to http://archives.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/TV/07/30/cartoon.characters.list/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120711192113/http://www.outpost-daria.com/ts_coolcrap.html to http://www.outpost-daria.com/ts_coolcrap.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101029022007/http://www.navtones.com/daria-voice-for-gps.html to http://www.navtones.com/daria-voice-for-gps.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:55, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Daria Morgendorffer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025065724/http://slate.msn.com/?id=2060921 to http://slate.msn.com/?id=2060921

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)