Talk:Mary Sue/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

An old Staying

Just something that SHOULD be added, if I could source the darned thing. A Mary Sue is "Smart as Spock, Something as Kirk, Something as Bones, and sleeps with all three." But I can't remember the darn form, or the source. Page had red-on-black text...Checking the links.

Sexy as Kirk? 139.153.13.32 16:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You can add it, provided you give its source in a reference or footnote. Breed Zona 23:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a Thought

But in a "Sprite" comic just an example let's say the infamous author sprite would be known as a Mary Sue? And I mean a character that makes fun of the characters breaks the fourth wall too many times to count, and ultimatly has "teh uber POWAS!!!" should be called a Mary Sue? A guy!

I would sincerely advise against using "real" examples from anywhere except parodies, because otherwise, you're going to open a whole can of worms that we'd already slammed shut a few months back - right before we cut the list of so-called Mary Sues, many of whom were only superheros or magical girls, and some of whom were VERY debatable, and almost all of which somebody took offense to them being on the list. Best to stick with the original Paula Smith character (who was a parody to begin with), and descriptions of common perceived "Sue"/"Stu" subtypes. Believe me, you could rip the descriptions from any two of a thousand different "New girl comes into town and wows the rest of the cast" stories on fanfiction.net alone and change the names and mix them together and chances are, no one would notice. But naming names is VERY POVish, especially if there's no notable sources describing them as a Mary Sue. Beware of name-dropping in a case like this, believe me. - Runa27, not signed in because she's not at home. 67.8.207.23 02:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Kira and Lacus?!

Question What tells me that this Sue/Stu accusation against Lacus Clyne and Kira Yamato isn't just a fan revenge against Fukuda and Morosawa after the end of the SEED: Destiny series? Beause, HONESTLY. I myself didn't like the ending a lot - but the bitteress, hatred and idiocy that appeared after that... they still baffle me. Lunamaria 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it; eighty-sixed it. ;) None of the examples featured a direct usage of the concept in popular culture so much as behind-the-scenes fansversations. You CANNOT say such and such character "is" or "is not" a Mary Sue, because it's a subjective term. Thus, any "example" of a "Mary Sue" is inherently POV, just as it would be to go to an article on say, idiocy, and place characters as "examples" of idiots. Unless they were intended to parody the concept (Jonathon in the Buffy episode "Superstar" comes to mind, for example, in regards to Mary Sues), it really shouldn't be here.

I'm planning on placing notable parodies of the concept (such as "Superstar") from popular media in their own section eventually; for now, I've retitled it to reflect only mentions of the term/concept of Mary Sue seen in "the media", which of course refers to reporters and reviewers and newscasters and the like - professional ones. As it was, that kind of thing was mixed in with the POVish list of characters that were alleged "examples" of Mary Sues. Now, when a reasonably notable reviewer uses the term in print - that's different. It's not anonymous or non-notable fans (I keep getting a mental image of The Blob wearing an anime shirt and groaning "Suuuuue.... SUUUUUE.", here) slinging mud using the term, it's somewhat notable people using the term (in print, so far), and that's quite different. Fanpinions need to be left out; otherwise, the article on the concept will be useless. Runa27 21:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, I Need To Watch This Page

Alright people, caaaaalm down. I'll get around to it this weekend. I'll be putting this page on watch as soon as I get home and am signed in.

I've also put in a picture request because, frankly, I think the article would be better with one and it would be VERY easy to create a picture that looks sufficiently over-the-top to capture the essence of the (stereotypical) Mary Sue. Maybe a cartoonish one, or, maybe, an actually vaguely pretty one. - Runa27, not signed in because she's not at home.

Statement removed from "Etymology" on Sept.1, 2006 - my reasoning

I just removed the following statement from the bottom of the "Etymology" section:

A well known alleged case of this context of Mary Sue is in the 2004-2005 sequel to Gundam Seed, Gundam Seed Destiny. This placed Kira Yamato and Lacus Clyne to director Mitsuo Fukuda and his wife, the show's series supervisor, Chiaki Morosawa. Supporting this threom is the fact that both chracters begain showing signs of being overpowered and, especialy in the case of Kira, untouchable in battle.

I removed it for the following reasons:

1.) It is quite badly worded, to the point where I can't even be entirely sure how it's trying to make whatever points it has. I mean "This placed [characters] to director..."? That makes no grammatical sense. Placed where? There's also a number of misspellings here - "especialy" instead of "especially"; "threom" instead of "theorem" (and it is NOT a theorem, it's a theory; please do not confuse the two); and "chracters" instead of "characters." This leads me to believe that this edit was made quickly and without much thought or work put into its writing, which isn't a standard we should really hold to, especially not in unsourced, highly POV statements - it makes Wikipedia look really bad.

2.) It has VERY little to do with the actual etymology of the term; while I understand the desire to use an example to make sure the reader "gets the jist of it", to use a SPECIFIC character or set of characters as an "example" (even if you use weasel words like "alleged") when this view has yet to be advanced or referenced by a notable source that you can and have cited for it, and which has referred to the character as an actual "Mary Sue" or Gary/Marty/Larry Stu(e)/Sam/whatever, is NOT a good idea. It is bound to create a POV-riddled edit war; I have seen it happen time and time again. You KNOW it will. Please don't do it.

3.) This kind of thing would probably be better kept to another section, say, "Characters in original fiction who have been called a Mary Sue in the mainstream media"... but, other than Rose Tyler from Doctor Who, I do not know of any remotely notable case of a character being called an actual "Mary Sue" in the mainstream media (and I really stress "mainstream media" here, because Joe Fanboy or Jane Fangirl is NOT a notable enough source to quote or advance the POV of here on Wikipedia and you know that. See: WP:Notability and WP:Fancruft).

4.) It is completely uncited and unsourced... and a POV view (albeit more weasel-ly worded this time around) should never go uncited or unsourced, especially if it's supposedly so "well known" (which would, presumably, provide easy access to sources; another thing that makes me think this edit was made on a whim and not out of a genuine desire to improve the article).

I would appreciate it if people would make an attempt to keep this article free of POV or rush-job entries such as the above, and focus on sourcing everything and finding more notable references to the term/concept in mainstream/notable media. I would like to bring this article to GA status some day, and letting either spam or POV to slip in continously and go unchecked while more important bits go not properly cited or sourced, will prevent this article from being, well, good. Or useful. Runa27 05:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

September 1 Talk page archival

I have have archived discussions from before this past August (see top of this Talk page), because almost ALL of the discussions had been completely dead for weeks or months on end, and it was getting really unweildly, wading through all of them (that, and you have to realize, people with certain browsers or browser plug-ins will have trouble with longer pages being cut off unexpectedly when they go to try and edit them, as well). :) They can still be read on this page, however. - Runa27 05:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It was NOT a "random link": Response to Ken Arromdee's Sept. 8, 2006 edit

This is in response to Ken Arromdee's most recent edit to the Mary Sue page, the edit summary for which is the following:

Tweaks. And contrary to popular belief, you're not supposed to link to random terms; it's very unlikely that enough people reading this would want to know more about eyes, that we need an eye link

Bolding mine, because I plan to refute the idea that "we [don't] need an eye link" or that "it's very unlikely that enough people... would want to know more about eyes" (by the way, it is NOT an "eye link", and it's NOT about the general topic of "eyes", it's an EYE COLOR link, about ONLY eye colors, which were referenced in the criticism section as part of a typical and common anti-Mary Sue concept argument, and which I'll get to in a minute. Please be accurate if you're going to criticize one of my edits, OK?). The following is largely the same as what I posted to his Talk page, but for full clarity and full disclosure, I chose to post it here as well (he seems largely adverse thus far to discussing his changes on the Talk page, ranging from removing the "photo request" tag without replacing it with the appropriate-if-existing "illustration request" or "picture request" tag, to his more common edits to the main article itself; thus, my reasoning behind posting it in both places).

The link to the eye color article was done as a citation for the fact that there are odd eye colors that though rare, do exist in humans; in other words, pointing out that violet and especially amber eyes (the latter of which I know of no famous celebrities that have that trait, unlike Elizabeth Taylor having violet ones) exist, as well as explanations for the colors (which are on that page, but not here on Mary Sue because it's a side-issue, not a main issue, to do with the "unrealistic" aspect of the concept of "Mary Sue"). It was NOT a "random link", it was more information that was related to the topic in that section/sentence of "unusual physical traits that are often treated as the mark of a Mary Sue, but which do occur in real life sometimes." (to paraphrase). I'm reinserting the link, because darnit, do you know how long it took to figure out where it was that I could prove there were "honey-colored" (amber) eyes (over an hour, thanks to "yellow eyes" not having a redirect or even a disambig. Come to think of it, I should fix that...)? That page is the only one on Wikipedia that had that information, that PROVED that the trait of amber eyes - which was being cited as an example of a "rare but real trait that sometimes is used for so-called Mary Sue characters" exists! And I do believe it is worth linking, and more to the point, see NO reason whatsoever why it HAS to be removed. If people don't care about amber or violet eyes, they won't click on the link; if they DO, however (for instance, if, like me, they didn't originally know those traits did exist in humans, or are curious as to how common they really are), they won't have to search for it... which is the whole point of internal links (before you argue, consider this: do we "need" links on Dixie Chicks to the articles on its individual members? Not technically, but it's a convienience for the reader tha wants to know more about the individual band members, so they don't have to search for it and possibly come up with unrelated pages as well. Also, again, "yellow eyes" and similar terms do NOT redirect to the appropriate page!).

And if you don't think the fact that "yellow" or violet eyes of a kind exist in real human beings is relevant to the concept of "Mary Sue", you've not read enough fan fiction; practically every werewolf character that gets labeled a "Sue" has a yellow eyes, and due probably to the influence of anime and manga on American teenagers (who are apparently the producers of the majority of fan fiction today, if you go by the largest archive, FanFiction.net), "weird" hair and eye colors - including violet! - are also common. The fact that these eye colors do exist provides a minor counterargument to the "unrealistic" aspect, and that's exactly why it was mentioned under "Criticism" (along of course with the appropriate countercounterargument pointing out that they're still fairly rare traits).

If you don't think that people will be "interested"... I gotta ask why you CARE. Plenty of people are "interested" in things that many of us could not care less about, such as string theory or spatulas, yet THOSE have pages. I'm not particularly interested at the moment in reading about Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks and whose article is linked from the main page for the band, but I appreciate that some people WILL want more than an "overview" of one area or another of a subject. Just as I don't feel the need to remove links to individual famous people's pages in references to them on other Wikipedia pages (since arguably, there is only going to be one page for JK Rowling and it's NOT going to be hard to find through the Search/Go box), I fail to see the need to remove the link to eye color here, especially since eye color covers the subject referenced in the sentence it was linked from here in more detail. The point isn't whether "a lot of people will likely be interested" or not, it's whether we should think ahead to the undetermined (and thus, just as potentially large as it is small) number of people who will in FACT be "likely interested" in it, and take the really simple step of linking to the appropriate page, so that both camps will be covered.

And if you don't think the fact that "yellow" eyes exist is worth citing... well, I have no answer to that, because that thought process makes no sense at all to me, since I didn't realize at all that they were a real trait in HUMANS until a couple of years ago, after I pointed out that the main character of Big Wolf On Campus had yellow eyes that "didn't look like contacts" to my mother and she said "oh yeah, I actually dated a guy who really had that eyecolor." It's not a common enough trait that everyone realizes it exists, and if they try to verify it, at current, they'd have to go through a minor rigamorale in order to discover it's correct. I'm of the mind that it's better to give them the link and make it easier for them to personally verify for themselves that it's true, than it is to make them go through that much work to find it, because I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia should be as easy to use as possible, and that that would help. Again, if they don't care about the eye colors they won't click the link; but some people will be curious, and I wanted to make it convenient for any readers who were curious enough to want to look it up. Additionally, it becomes an issue of citation, as I pointed out above; the fact that violet eyes exist may be easy to verify due to Elizabeth Taylor having them, but "yellow"/"honey-colored" (amber) eyes are NOT as easy to verify WITHOUT looking at that page.

Therefore, I actually take offense to the suggestion that the link is worth removing. It provides easy verifiability for a claim mentioned in the article, and let alone being, yes, Ken, of potential interest to some besides that. Again: I am reverting that portion of your edit and reinserting the link, because reader convenience and verifiability are to me very important in making Wikipedia as good as it can be, and I think both apply here. Runa27 05:16, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

ADDENDUM: Also, I see your actual comment, Ken, as being not very nice at ALL. You seem to be implying that I have no idea what I'm doing and/or am stupid (in being supposedly unable to discern a useful link from a "random" and "unintersting" one) just because I made one edit to include one link that you didn't think was "interesting", regardless of the fact that it helped clarify what the section was talking about and verify claims made in it. There's no need to bite off the heads of other editors for such things, and I would appreciate it if you'd be a little nicer in any future edit summaries. We're all here to improve the article, not denigrate each others' work. :| Runa27 05:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

SECOND ADDENDUM: Now that I actually look at the article, though, you didn't even remove the link. WTF? No offense, but WHY are you biting my head off over "uninteresting" and "random" links, and then not doing anything about the links you're complaining about? Your edit summary makes it sound like you removed the link, which you did NOT do. If you're going to talk about other factors of the article WITHOUT doing something about them, do it on the TALK PAGE of the article, not in an edit summary. :\ Runa27 05:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

THIRD ADDENDUM: Nevermind, people, he apparently was fixing a typo in the link in the article (which apparently DID read "eye" and not "eye color", despite, of course, my edit summary actually including the RIGHT link. No, I still have no idea how that actually happened, myself...), his edit summary was just kind of hard for me to dechipher; he clarified the issue on our Talk pages. (And of course, I apologized for the mistake and thanked him for the correction and quick response). Runa27 06:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

Some of the categories this article has been put in are a little... odd, to me. I'm going to go over them and discuss what bothers me:

• "Alter egos" - the page for alter ego begins thusly: "An alter ego (Latin, "other I") is another self, a second personality or persona within a person. The term is commonly used in literature analysis and comparison to describe characters who are psychologically identical.". This does not quite seem to fit. I mean, I get that they're talking about self-insertion, but it STILL doesn't sound right. It sounds, frankly, like the person may have been thinking of the concept of the avatar, but then... not every Mary Sue is a reincarnated god, in fact, most probably aren't.
• Stock characters - read stock character and tell me please how this concept fits that description. I don't think it does, except as parody.

Runa27 00:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Example

I think Chuck Norris from Walker Texas Ranger be a Gary Stu. 67.140.50.81 (talk) 01:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

How about James Bond? And many of Austen's protagonists? This article desperately needs some examples that normal readers will have heard of. Greglocock (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

You're still not getting it. If you say "James Bond is a Mary Sue because his actions and attributes fit the description of a Mary Sue", that is circular reasoning. Wikipedia standards are asking for documentation from notable sources, and they have a very specific definition for what they term a notable source. It has to be a book or magazine article, not just any magazine either but things like Newsweek and Popular Mechanics. I mean, it has to be something that anyone can get like in a library or something. You give citations so they can find it. This is what normal readers need to have heard of. You have to have a book or article or television documentary that uses the words "Mary Sue" in describing him. Like Pierce Brosnan is being interviewed and Barbara Walters says "A lot of people nowadays feel that Bond's adventures are too fantastic; compared to today's more realistic action heroes, Bond is a Mary Sue." Something like that.

There is a blog with a terrific essay making a case for Mary Sue shaming as a form of bullying, but I can't use it because Wikipedia does not allow you to cite blogs. ETA: In fact, there have been several major discussions in online fandom in the last six months or so about the detriments of Mary Sue paranoia, the Mary Sue police, etc., but I can't use any of it. --Bluejay Young (talk) 03:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you use James T. Kirk? On p. 97 of Enterprising Women by Camille Bacon-Smith, it says "Other fans have noted that James Kirk is himself a Mary Sue, because he represents similarly exaggerated characteristics of strength, intelligence, charm, and adventurousness. They note that the soubriquet 'Mary Sue' may be a self-imposed sexism -- she can't do that, she's a girl."

In fact, I just went and put the full quote in the reference to Kirk under Criticism, to make it clear what I was talking about. I also think you are more likely to find notable critiques of the Earth's Children series that call Ayla a Mary Sue. --Bluejay Young (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the viewpoint that all Mary Sue stories are female empowerment: Bella Swann, a character widely agreed to be a Sue, has almost no identity apart from being Edward's love interest. Pretty much the same goes for Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way of My Immortal, only with Draco Malfoy. Mary Sues aren't necessarily female empowerment, and a story including female empowerment doesn't necessarily include Mary Sues. -72.73.35.238 (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The point is that people are finally bringing up the fact that a lot of stories with or about empowered women are being unfairly accused of being a Mary Sue. None of these people are saying there is no such thing as a MS or that every story labeled MS is really about powerful women. Anyway, My Immortal is an obvious put-on, it shouldn't even be used as an example because it was written as a gag. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The character Ayla could certainly be called "empowering" for women in a way - definitely "Up Women" particularly given the very narrow confines given to women in the fictional Neanderthal setting she's supposed to have grown up in - a woman can't say "no" to ANY man (mate or otherwise) for example. Nevertheless Ayla is as classic a Mary Sue as Wesley Crusher - except her character is better developed (and a more sympathetic one IMO). Also how “empowering” is it to make out that ONE woman seemed to invent just about everything, and domesticate not just dogs but horses too? Surely it’s a bit too OTT to be credible. Enough is written about Bella without me adding anything, but both she, and the rush of "fan fiction" which started the original "Mary Sue" story in the first place was all about the mushy fantasies of adolescent girls which were more than just being a lieutenant at 15 and ½, but also about “getting her man” (in one sense or another) – usually Kirk, Spock, McCoy or all three as mentioned in the article. I am not really sure this sort of obsessing with a male character is all that “empowering”! Perhaps female characters are more closely checked for “Mary Sueness” than their male counterparts would be – although since it was the proliferation of female “Mary Sues” in Trek fan fiction that sparked the term, it is understandable that people would be sensitised into thinking “not another one”.

As for Kirk. He has some “Mary Sue” traits. He always seems to win his battles; always gets the girl (they actually keep throwing themselves at him) etc. However he cheated to get past the Kobiashi Maru (a real Mary Sue wouldn’t do this) and Spock tends to solve a great many of the problems that beset him. He’s a young Star Ship captain (he was 34 at the start of TOS) but it isn’t an unbelievably young age – there are a number of examples of naval captains who got the job at that age or younger. Spock would be a better candidate – he has the Vulcan neck pinch; funny ears; a green pallor; is exceptionally strong; and solves all sorts of problems, including ones outside his areas of expertise such as telling McCoy how to finish off the operation to reconnect his brain!

I don’t think that Bond qualifies as a “Mary Sue”. He may have been the fantasy projection of Flemming – but if you read the books, Bond is much more vulnerable and has things far less his own way in them. The other 00s tend to get the glamour assignments, and he tends to get beaten up a fair bit. He’s a fantasy figure, but there is a difference between that and a “Mary Sue”. He doesn’t invent Q’s gadgets as well, for example. I don’t think Jane Austin’s characters qualify either. She wrote romantic “chic lit”, and, yes, the women all seem to face some sort of “tragedy” (usually about going down in the world financially), but they are not unbelievably gifted, and don’t do improbable things – like get appointed to Parliament even though women are officially barred, or “advise” the Prime Minister, or get proposed to by the Prince Regent, or invent nitro glycerine in between to attending balls where she was the acknowledged belle. Wesley Crusher “wonder boy” always fixes the Enterprise when it breaks down when La Forge fails. No matter how clever you are, you still need time to learn things, and you can’t know all the technical details at a glance just because you have tremendous aptitude for physics. Crusher goes from the “suspend your disbelief” scenario to the simply ridiculous, and with a fairly one dimensional character too. I think that’s the essence of a “Mary Sue”

Sure. The problem is finding books, magazine and newspaper articles, etc. that bring up the points you mention and use the term "Mary Sue" in discussing them. The only thing I would question is the idea that the term "Mary Sue" was sparked by so many of them popping up in stories. Actually, there weren't that many at the time Paula Smith coined the term. There were a handful of very prominent ones, and they got to be prominent because they appeared in some of the first Star Trek fanfiction novels. See The Misfit by Sharon Emily and the Sherrith McRaith stories, beginning with The Affirmation by Sheryl Roberts.

Now, I can't bring this up in the article itself, but there is a lot more to the origins of the "Mary Sue" concept than just dewy-eyed little neos writing themselves into their favorite Star Trek character's bed. Paula Smith had a definite agenda when she came up with that term. To explain what she did and why would make this page way too long. Send me a PM if you want to know. I would also encourage you to read Mary Sue at Fanlore. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:04, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree this article needs more examples outside of star trek, because as I was reading it, that would have helped increase the understanding of it. The Bella Swan example is good, however there are also some good examples of male sues in fantasy fiction that people may be able to source criticisms of more easily. Rhonin and Krasus from R A Knaak's World of Warcraft writings are very commonly criticized. Drizzt Do'Urden is another popular character you maybe able to source accusations of sue-dom. If anyone was wanting to try to add examples (I'm not going to myself because I fear I would do so incorrectly and draw the ire of moderators, so I'll leave it to someone with better Wikipedia skills than I) I would look at them to start. 124.148.252.77 (talk) 10:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It needs examples outside of fandom, that is, science fiction and fantasy, video games with stories to them, and the fan fiction writers thereof. It has to be mainstream. It has to be something non-fandom people would have heard of, which is why Twilight is such a perfect example. That is about as mainstream as it gets. I am genuinely amazed that no mainstream publication has used the term "Mary Sue" in a book or film review of Twilight. I'm sure there are Mary Sue-like characters in Lost or Mad Men or that Lindsay Lohan has played a Mary Sue-like character in a film, but until Time or Newsweek or the Saturday Evening Post runs a review that uses the words "Mary Sue" to describe those characters, we can't cite it here.

I did a Google news archive search for "Mary Sue" and found a lot of real people by that name, and one example of a politician (Chuck Webb) accused of "Mary Sue Syndrome" -- by which they meant running such a lackluster campaign as to blow the huge lead he had. I have no idea what that's about. When I typed in "Mary Sue Syndrome", I found myself on salon.com, where author Laura Miller earnestly advised other writers to "Beware of Mary Sue". This would have been fine -- it was her column, not a blog -- except that she didn't cite a single example outside of "Trekkie's Tale", instead giving us the usual "You all know what I mean by Mary Sue, you all know her when you see her" cop-out. A reader (handle: tomreedtoon) commented to another article, citing Glee as an example of Mary Sue syndrome, but that can't be used.

I did find one reference to "Mary Sue" in a mainstream context, that being Stieg Larsson's Blomqvist. The only other mainstream sources I was able to find which mentioned "Mary Sue" at all, were sneering newspaper articles on fan fiction which gave the impression that all fan fiction was graceless smut written by 14-year-olds. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Here. When you are trying to ascertain how to cite examples of Mary Sues on this article, look at this. That's really similar. The article writers cited the names of artists and critics who were quoted in articles in major newspapers (which they put in the references) as using the words "chocolate box" to describe peaceful, pleasant art like some of the Impressionists. --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:42, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyone else thinks that all the main characters in Enid Blyton books are Mary Sues?. Even as a kid, I use to hate the lot of them(Famous Five, Secret Seven, Retarded Nine), so much so that I would subconsciously sympathize with the antagonists. Don't have any sources to cite though. Actually, It is as obvious as gravity; It doesn't need any sources. We should just redirect all Enid-Blyton-related articles to Mary Sue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.64.20 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Enid Blyton's stories (particularly her moralizing fairy tales) can be extremely annoying, but you need to find a discussion board to vent your wrath upon the late unlamented authoress. If you find a book or magazine article (not a blog or Livejournal entry) that uses the words "Mary Sue" to describe what Enid Blyton does in her stories, you would be more than welcome to cite it in the main article. I keep combing the net for mainstream references. --Bluejay Young (talk) 12:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the 'Famous Five' characters fit the "Mary Sue" criteria. Only Julian would possibly qualify. They're all still at school; none have exceptional intelligence; none have superb physical prowess; and they certainly never “get her man” or “get the girl” at all, much less every time. Blyton’s work are children’s stories, Noddy is a toy for heaven’s sake. Should “he” be considered a “Mary Sue” due to the improbability of a talking, thinking Toy who can drive a car? As annoying as Blyton’s characters can be, they are annoying in ways that aren’t quite “Mary Sue”. Hermione Granger is a much better “Mary Sue” candidate, particularly the way she’s portrayed in the movies. In the books she didn’t know what a “mud blood” was being “muggle born”, just knew it “sounded really rude”, but in the movies she knew all about it, even though it was clearly not a term that would have been put in her school books. I don’t think I would call her a “Mary Sue” either. She’s very clever and talented, but is hardly perfect.

Clear “Mary Sues” are the obnoxious Wesley Crusher (I particularly hated the “nanites” episode); Nancy Drew (many of my female friends used to complain about how she was “so thin, soooo good looking” and how although she was in high school, she was always going out with College guys, and leaving her fat and frumpy friend in her wake); the Hardy Boys (the Hardy’s and Nancy Drew are more adolescent fiction than childrens’); and, of course, Ayla, the cave woman feminist hero of the Earths’ Children series. Ayla invented, well practically everything really. She lived 35,000 years ago: her parents were killed in an earthquake when she was five, and she was taken in by a passing band of Neanderthals after narrowly escaping being killed by huge cave lions! She had blond hair whilst the Neanderthals had dark hair (check 1), was forced by them into their view of the subordinate position of women; and gets raped by the chief’s son. When he takes over, he has her banished and she is forced to leave behind her son (and his). Together with being orphaned that gives a very tragic background (check 2). Nevertheless she wins over the shaman, the skilled medicine woman and the original chief, just as she subsequently wins over all the important figures (except a few villains) she meets when she is forced away. She then proceeds to become the greatest of medicine women – knowing all the herbs, including effective oral contraception, and invents surgical stitching, plus is the one who discovers the link between sex and reproduction. She domesticates the dog, the horse, invents the bridal and the travois. She also invents the flint and pyrites form of making a fire, and is really behind inventing the spear thrower. And so it goes on (check 3). Also, because she grew up with Neanderthals who were very physically strong (fact) she had to work very hard from childhood making her exceptionally strong and fit (check 4) and the author Auel imagines the Neanderthals also have some kind of ancestral/race memory, which means Ayla has to develop a phenomenal memory merely to keep up. (check 5). She also teaches herself to use the sling which the Neanderthals can’t use properly as their arms won’t swing as easily (strangely her later love interest who could use it well had never seen one until he met her) and becomes the “best in the world” at it, able to fire TWO stones in a “rapid fire” (not even sure if that’s possible) (check 6!). Whilst all novels would have to involve some form of “wish fulfilment” on the part of the author (or exorcising their demons), Auel seems to go quite far with Ayla and it seems to get worse as the series progresses.

Ayla has already been discussed in considerable detail and I think we're all in agreement about her, especially after the final book in the series. I picked up a Nancy Drew not long ago and was amazed at how Sue-ish she was. However, we need to find a place to let off steam about characters we consider Mary Sues (I could write you a paragraph or two about what I think of Menolly, not in Dragonsong, but in Dragonsinger). This space is supposed to be for discussing how to improve the article. Believe me, some verifiable, reliable source is bound sooner or later to link the name "Ayla" with the term "Mary Sue" at which point either I or someone else will cite it within the article. --Bluejay Young (talk) 18:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The male characters from Earth's Children series are no different than Ayla, in being idealized characters representing human advancement in a whole era. This is totally incompatible with the concepts of a Mary Sue. It is also incompatible with the supposed intents, and the reasons it is negative, unskilled, or otherwise undesirable. Also, many of the minor characters also have exceptional abilities. As far as the nonsense comparing Ayla being physically different than the Neandertals, that only is the first book; the vast majority of the story she is interacting mostly with other modern humans, and she actually has typical looks for a person from her geographical region. That is explored in a number of different ways, from her being seen as very ugly by the neandertals, to being an exotic beauty in different-looking modern human areas, and then being recognized as having a local look towards the end. So it is a rather unskilled assessment on a variety of levels to try to put her into that box. Mary Sue doesn't mean triumphant idealism. As for Wesley Crusher, I think he is more likely a sarcastic and cynical internalization and capitalization of the actual high popularity of Mary Sue characters, rather than some reflection (cited by a broken link) of the producer's personal fantasies. 2001:470:1F04:3DF:0:0:0:2 (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup

Criticism section

Criticism still needs work, both for tone (This book says X, but term paper by so-and-so says Y) and fixing the sourcing (Is "Smith" supposed to be Paula Smith, or Camille Bacon-Smith?).

A few changes so far:

• Camille Bacon-Smith is published in an academic press, so her work seems worthwhile.
• Chander & Sunder are a bit obscure, and writing about the subversive potential in re-purposing intellectual property—in other works, fanfic, not Mary Sue in particular. I removed their paragraph.
• Johanna Cantor appears to be a zine writer or editor. Probably only useful when quoted through Bacon-Smith (or some similarly credible critic).
• Repeated references to "Smith" look like they are referring to Paula Smith, who may not be notable outside fanfic circles. Hopefully they really refer to Camille Bacon-Smith.

I'll visit a copy of Enterprising Women at Philly's public library so I can straighten out the sourcing. I'm now seeing the term Mary Sue used frequently outside the subject of fanfic, so there should be more scholarly mention, but "mary+sue"+fiction Google Scholar lists only a few mentions that look minor, with some heavily paywalled. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this section needs a bit of cleanup again. Nowadays, "Mary Sue" doesn't just get affixed to female characters or used as a "shut down" tactic- it's become a valid criticism of any character that's unbelievably over the top. I also think we need to have more than just feminist takes on the subject.-RomeW (talk) 04:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem has only grown. The criticism section is a mixture of tangentials and non-notable academic criticisms. It's longer than the body of the article now. "Mary Sue" is commonly used to describe major characters, male and female, that are "over the top". This relatively small article in counterpose to a laundry list of post-modern and feminist critiques is in flagrant violation of WP:NPOV.

Lede section

Also noticed: the primary definition in the lede section is from a book on career building for young adults. Better than nothing, could use a more literary source, especially for such an important part of the article.

Lede is not up to WP:LEDE standard either. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"In Fan Fiction"?

The opening line gives the impression that the term only applies to fan fiction, however the article itself mentions several critics who have used the term to describe non-fan fiction characters. I would argue that the opening line should be changed to better reflect what the article actually says.67.234.54.93 (talk) 06:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Roddenberry as Wesley

In the "Variations" section, it says "Indeed, there is speculation amongst fans and academics, mainly pejorative, that Wesley was a self-insertion character for Gene Roddenberry." Roddenberry himself stated that he based Wesley on himself, qualifying that with he is not as smart as Wesley. I don't remember which interview that was from, but in his son's documentary, Trek Nation, Rod Roddenberry interviewed Wil Wheaton. Wil said that at a convention, Gene defended him, telling the crowd that "I based Wesley on myself, so if you say you don't like Wesley, you're saying you don't like me". That's as close as I can remember off the top of my head. So it's not quite a case of self/author-insertion since Wesley isn't an idealized version of Roddenberry, but rather a little better or smarter version of Roddenberry.

So if this the quote can be verified by someone who has Trek Nation, would that be appropriate for updating that sentence? –RRabbit42 (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mary Sue/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article is actually pretty good. Its informative, deteailed, and relativley consistent. However, is still flawed in some ways. I would recommend some pictures of a few "Mary sues", as well as some records of the earliest records of the dysphemisms usage.Busboy 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 03:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC).

Substituted at 21:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Labelling canon characters as Mary Sues

I added the following to the article, but it was reverted by @Altenmann: with the edit summary "Nonsense". I don't understand why it was reverted, because it is academically-sourced discussion published in a peer-reviewed journal of applying the term "Mary Sue" to well-developed female characters as a badge of shame. I would appreciate it if it could be reinstated in the article. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It has been suggested that the tendency to label a canon character as a "Mary Sue", such as Nyota Uhura in the Star Trek 2009 film reboot, is a result of slash fiction fans resenting time spent on developing female characters on screen which 'take away' from emotional bonding between two 'slashable' male characters.

We don't publish every random opinions from every primary source published by unknown people. This is encyclopedia, we publish well-established information. You are welcome to add something about this when you can replace your "suggested" with "commonly recognized", or at least when someone else cites this opinion as having merit.

An additional problem is that the article is behind the paywall, so I cannot verify whether you correctly rendered the article. In particular, the statement "is a result of slash fiction fans" is rather extraordinary and as I suspect overgeneralized. - üser:Altenmann >t 18:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the statement were not so categorical, e.g., restricted to slash subset of trekkie fandom, then it would make sense, because for them female stars are nuisance. Something, "slashers tag Uhura as Mary Sue because Uhura unslashes the slash."- üser:Altenmann >t 18:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Concluding, I am taking back my opinion "nonsense", but it took me quite some effort to understand the grain of truth in the statement. Can you quote the original article here, for verification of the context? - üser:Altenmann >t 19:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Altenmann:. Thanks for the reply, I really appreciate it, and your retraction of 'nonsense'. There are a few things I'm still not clear on, though. Why is it not suitable to cite material that's been published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, particularly when there's a notice at the top of the page saying 'this article needs more citations to reliable sources'? Why can't I add one academic article and let someone else add another, without having to survey the "Mary Sue literature" myself? That seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia:Editing policy: "Please boldly add information to Wikipedia, either by creating new articles or adding to existing articles, and exercise particular caution when considering removing information." Later on that page, it stresses that while sourcing is important, perfection is not required. Removing reliably-sourced information because I did not add enough of it seems counter-productive.

Scodari has published before on the topic of Mary Sue and slash, in:

• Scodari, Christine (May 2003). "Resistance Re-Examined: Gender, Fan Practices, and Science Fiction Television". Popular Communication. 1 (2): 111–130. doi:10.1207/S15405710PC0102_3.

Do you have access to that article?

Here's a quote from Scodari's "Nyota Uhura's Not a White Girl" article, I hope it helps:

Most male screenwriters are unlikely to project exalted versions of themselves onto female leads, but fans began justifying their distaste for fictional female protagonists by proclaiming them Mary Sues. This occurred when Major Samantha Carter of Stargate SG-1 (1997–2007) was situated as confidante to her commander, Jack O’Neill, whom traditional slashers pair-bonded with another male principal. Although there was never a romance between Carter and O’Neill, these fans begrudged Carter the screen time and heroism they felt rightfully belonged to the male duo they reckoned as the core of the show (see Scodari 2003). Consequently, if canonical homosociality between men is a catalyst for traditional slash, it is not threatened merely by male/female romance, but by a female character’s centrality in the narrative. p.343

So you can see that the concept of Scodari saying "screen time spent on female characters is begrudged by slash fans" is not a matter of my interpretation. If you want to split hairs about 'begrudged' and 'resented', I was searching for a synonym for 'begrudged' so that it would not be considered plagiarism.

Scodari goes on to discuss Henry Jenkins' (and others) negative reaction to Uhura's relationship with Spock, which I've covered briefly in the Kirk/Spock article, and tried to cover here in my initial addition.

Uhura was one of two examples of "developed female character=Mary Sue in slashers' eyes" she gave in the article, so it can't be rewritten as you suggest to portray it as being specific to Star Trek slash fandom. To Scodari, the problem is broader than Trek slash fandom - it is endemic to modern science fiction slash fandoms. (Stargate SG-1, Farscape and X-Files seem to be the ones she's studied, besides Kirk/Spock.) Why 'modern'? Modern science fiction media place more emphasis on developing complex, persistent (not one-shot) female characters. To expand on Scodari's example of Uhura, Uhura has been used in much of the publicity for the film series, and she is more of a rounded character than she was in the TV series - at one point in the 2009 film, she saves everyone's bacon by translating a message that the ship is going to be nuked (and yet, Uhura is labelled as "Mary Sue" even when standing next to Kirk, who is commonly known as the Maryest Sue that ever Sued...), and Uhura has romantic agency in the films which would have been impossible to depict in the 1960s. Those complex and persistent female characters get scenes with the lead men, who really should be seeking to bond with (insert slashable guy here) and yielding more slash-fodder. I look forward to your response to my questions above, and I hope that Scodari's work can be added to the article to help broaden the article's coverage of the Mary Sue concept. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed answer. re " it can't be rewritten as you suggest to portray it as being specific to Star Trek slash fandom. " - "Start Trek" in my statement was non-essential. What is essential is that the issue, as I suspected, is related to a narrow category of fandom. And your explanation and quote confirms my suspicion. Long story short, here is my version which IMO more faithfully renders the fact you wanted to add:

Chrfistine Scodari, a researcher in media studies from gender perspective, noticed a tendency within slash fandom to label major female characters (eg. Nyota Uhura in the Star Trek 2009 film reboot) as "Mary Sues" because they "take away" screen time from "slashable" male characters.

Tho major changes: attribution (because it is not a widespread opinion) and clear indication of the scope of the noticed tendency. Please feel free to edit my English and style (I might've been overly terse) and re-insert the changed version into the article (it is your authorship anyway). - üser:Altenmann >t 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Now commenting on your "Why is it not suitable to cite material that's been published in a peer-reviewed" - The question is incorrect (kinda why you didn't stop beating your wife). First of all, you are not citing, you are interpreting. Your interpretation may be a 'bona fide' mistake, that's why I requested an exact citation. Second, peer-reviewed sources quite often publish erroneous information and dubious opinions; heck, even outright nonsense. Our guideline to cite from WP:RS reliable sources actually means "do not cite from non-reliable sources", but it does not mean "treat WP:RS as the mostest ultimatest unquestionable wisdom". - üser:Altenmann >t 18:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

re:'this article needs more citations to reliable sources' - the tag actually says "This article needs additional citations for verification", i.e., it needs more citations added to the existing text. - üser:Altenmann >t 19:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your rewording, @Altenmann:. I've had a go at re-adding it to the article. I've been rebuked before for adding in-text attribution because the author didn't have their own article on Wikipedia. Are there any guidelines as to when it's suitable to add in-text attribution, as opposed to just in the citation? I don't mind explaining the edit or providing a short quote - it makes me more aware of how to explain things clearly when I add sources, and we have discussed how to make it more clear together. I do mind having it robot-removed with a one word explanation, which seems to be against the editing policy. I find it really discouraging, particularly when I tried to do things properly when I added the material. By the way, Scodari's earlier paper and basic conclusion (that slash fans sometimes "uphold the hegemony" (by diminishing female characters while promoting guy-guy bonding)) has been included in literature reviews, so Scodari does seem to have some traction as an 'anti-slash' perspective. I was not only adding Scodari because she is a RS - I was adding her because her point was logical and novel, and it broadens the article's perspective of what the Mary Sue label is used for - to justify dislike of prominent canon female characters, by slash fans. I added it here because I thought that the tags and the less-developed nature of the Mary Sue article (when compared to the slash fiction article) might make it more welcomed. The Mary Sue article needs more citations added to the existing text, but it also needs more citations in general. The following describes Mary Sues as part of Écriture féminine, and might have some useful references which could be used to expand this article. Thanks again Altenmann for being willing to work with me on the addition of Scodari's work. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

• Bonnstetter, Beth E.; Ott, Brian L. (October 2011). "(Re)Writing Mary Sue: Écriture Féminine and the Performance of Subjectivity". Text and Performance Quarterly. 31 (4): 342–367. doi:10.1080/10462937.2011.602706.

• re:because the author didn't have their own article on Wikipedia. - There is no and cannot be such a restriction. In fact, attribution, with author's credentials necessary exactly because we don't have author's bio in wikipedia. Credentials are essential, to show that the author is cited within their area of expertise. As for missing author's bio, unfortunately wikipedia populist ciriteria for notability strongly disfavor scientists in favor of pornstars. Can you give me the link to the discussion where you have been rebuked? All depends on the context. For example, I would also object to the text, like, "According to John Random Professor, the Earth is a planet of the Solar System" (exaggerating). - üser:Altenmann >t

It was Talk:Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Compatibility_with_the_SDG - in this case, after another person backed up my point, the person who removed my text helped find additional reliable sources discussing the novel point that I was trying to make with the one source I'd read, and so I re-added the point with numerous sources stating it. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 22:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought: "Considering that this is an issue that has been discussed by many people from all fields" - the issue was well-discussed. Whereas in our case I don't think many made a similar notice about Masy Sue vs. slash, and Scodary was most probably the original author of the non-trivial observation (although my knowledge is limited). - üser:Altenmann >t 16:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

@Wing gundam:, I'm not sure how you're interpreting the above discussion as 'heavily against' the inclusion of Scodari's work, and as being against NPOV. As I explained to @Altenmann:, Scodari's conclusions from her 2003 paper are cited in literature reviews. --211.30.17.74 (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Rey

I think that the whole reference to Rey being a Mary Sue should be taken out. She is an orphaned, late teen or twenty-something scavenger who is barely scraping by. And is living on some backwater, undeveloped planet that nobody cares about and has no one to ever care whether she exists. Definitely not the overachiever-type usually portrayed by a Mary Sue. I saw the movie and I did not feel that she really seemed that adept at using the force by the end of the movie. Rather clumsy and limited uses. Certainly not like stopping blaster bolts in mid-flight, throwing lighting bolts, or levitating ships. Part of the problem here is that we want our heroes to be better than us, but not to the point of being absurd. Hard balance to strike. Nyth63 03:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a great observation -- "we want our heroes to be better than us, but not to the point of being absurd." I would like your permission to quote this in the Mary Sue article at Fanlore. But the point of including the mentions of Rey is not whether she really is a Mary Sue or not. As you point out, it's a hard balance to strike, and Mary Sue is an extremely subjective value judgment. Some people react to Rey as one, some like you do not. The point is that the term "Mary Sue" and its meaning were discussed in notable (albeit online) publications -- not blogs or fansites. That is what people working on this article have been looking for for years (as you've seen reading this talk page). As you can see, a second author disputes that Rey is a Mary Sue, and this has renewed debate over the concept in places where everyone can see it. --Bluejay Young (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to use the quote, no need to attribute it, just please don't claim or imply to be the source. Anony mouse would be fine. I read the article you linked and followed to Mary Sue Litmus Test. All the more reason that Rey should not be listed here as she would score very low on the grading scale. Nyth63 04:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! No problem, if you read a little more on fanlore you will see that there is a great respect for quotes from anonymous fans. As far as Rey being included here, the point of citing articles about her is to provide notable sources for the use of the term Mary Sue. We are not saying here that Rey is one, but that film reviewers, in the types of publications that can be cited on Wikipedia, are using the term "Mary Sue", with definition, and discussing whether she is one or not. There have not been very many uses of this term by appropriate sources. One way to make sure that an article will not come up for a deletion review is to make sure it's backed up with notable/reliable sources. --Bluejay Young (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

References

I don't think there's anything notable about the discussion about "Rey" in Star Wars VIII being called a Mary Sue that warrants a huge section, or even a mention, in this article. Other than being recent, why is it worth mentioning as opposed to the hundreds of other times the term gets tossed around? BoosterBronze (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Because the term, Mary Sue, which is what we're talking about here, was used (with definition) in notable, mainstream publications. That it referred to Rey or Star Wars is inconsequential. The point is not who is/isn't a Mary Sue. It's that with the discussions about Rey as Mary Sue we now have citations to notable sources. --Bluejay Young (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Mary Sues in the fictional city/country/world/universe/whatever?

Do we think whatever Mary Sues are roleplayed in the fictional media? 124.106.141.70 (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Extended content

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Mary Sue. 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/20121119141738/http://slayageonline.com/essays/slayage28/Carroll.htm to http://slayageonline.com/essays/slayage28/Carroll.htm 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) 12:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Surname

Got a last name for the original Mary Sue?

PS I’d go with "Mary Sue"s; not "Mary Sues".

MBG02 (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"Allusion" section

Hi. I am the individual who has been attempting to remove the Rey section on the Mary Sue page. I believe the section is completely out of place in the "Allusion" section. I could be used as an example in an entirely new section, however I still believe there are problems with using such an odd singular example. No other examples of a Mary Sue are used nor are other controversies discussed except for those dealing with the origins of the term Mary Sue as related to its original creation in the Star Trek community.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MordredRed (talk • contribs)

@MordredRed:First, you should _not_ remove properly sourced material, whether you agree with it or not. Second, you should not edit war, when there is not consensus that your removal is proper. You should be the one to discuss it here at the talkpage. I have tagged you for editwarring at your talkpage. You removed the tag, and continued to edit war here. If you continue to edit war, I will be happy to report you.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Hi. Sorry I didn't see that you moved this to the talk page. I just saw that you removed it from your page and thought you had no interest in discussing the issue with me. I saw the tag for the editwarring and tried to discuss on your page earlier. I removed again because I assumed you did not wish to talk with me. My point is the same as the one I made previously as stated above. What do you believe is wrong with the way I am thinking?— Preceding unsigned comment added by MordredRed (talk • contribs)

@Kintetsubuffalo: Nevermind. I now see how this page works and its purpose. I will be using it then. Sorry for the bother. No need to respond to me further.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MordredRed (talk • contribs)

I have undone your comment about a critic's lack of involvement in a project-involvement is not germane to critical commentary.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Kintetsubuffalo:The previous writing was confusing since it did not specify whether the individual was involved in the production of the film. Further specification makes the reading clearer.

Perhaps you would prefer if I instead cited/linked some of his works instead. This would accomplish the same goal.

This is the first article on Wikipedia I have found that has an "Allusion" section, and I have looked at many articles. I added a link as a follow up to the Max Landis tweet, which by the way, has been deleted from his account. This tweet is infamous and now gone, and the author of the tweet has backed away from the statement. However, this lost statement is the basis for an extended paragraph of one possibility of a character that might be a Mary Sue. An "Examples" section would be more conclusive than carrying on a debate with questionable motives within the article itself. The only true example remains the key original Star Trek fan fiction character, and it is one specific example of Author insertion in a story. An Allusions section does not belong in the article, "properly sourced" or not. Group29 (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Rey Skywalker/Palpatine

With the recent release of Rise of Skywalker, the character of Rey has become even more polarizing in the eyes of the fanbase. In light of the prominence and relevancy of this particular case I suggest placing a blurb at the end of the lead saying something like, "In modern media, the character Rey Skywalker/Palpatine's extraordinary powers are the subject of much heated debate regarding the differentiation between very powerful characters and perfect ones." Sources: https://medium.com/@matthewkadish/proof-rey-from-the-last-jedi-is-a-mary-sue-storycraft-72cb51aefd2b, https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2017/12/21/no-rey-from-star-wars-the-last-jedi-is-still-not-a-mary-sue/, https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/19/10626896/star-wars-the-force-awakens-rey-mary-sue-feminist, https://vocal.media/futurism/is-rey-a-mary-sue High Ground lll (talk) 02:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Well I wish you the best of luck getting that through as it would seem we have a merry subjective team of (Personal attack removed) even here on wiki, simply unable to (Personal attack removed) let something objective through unless it suits their convictions. I wrote this before the movie even came out:

Another more modern day example may be the controversial character Rey in the Star Wars universe. <refFramke, Caroline (December 28, 2015). "What is a Mary Sue, and does Star Wars: The Force Awakens have one?". Vox.</ref<refWoburn, Dan (December 25, 2015). "8 Problems Nobody Wants To Admit About Star Wars: The Force Awakens". Whatculture.</ref"

Note the "may be", "controversial" and even two references. Just to give an objective reader a contrast to the sentence before my addition, something to compare common knowledge; the sentence before mine, the one about Star Trek, against what is not common knowledge because its controversial/disputed; mine about Rey. Something to see where lines might be drawn between what everyone (common knowledge) considers/agrees is a Mary Sue and what is more controversial/disputed (not common knowledge, Rey). But hey, turns out she is a Skywalker, who would have thought... Definitely not even worth mentioning in a Mary Sue article oh no! Can't see what Palpatine has to do with anything.--84.209.8.208 (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)