yhwx said:
Well, you cited Wikipedia…And yes, before you “well actually” me, I know there are rules on Wikipedia, but an unmaintained Wikipedia page can have tons of misinformation on it.
Comparing Wikipedia to Urban Dictionary is utterly absurd, and you trying to hang a lampshade on it doesn’t negate the absurdity. The “Mary Sue” Wikipedia entry isn’t even remotely obscure/unmaintained. Just look at its lengthy “talk” page. Also, the parts I’ve quoted have citations, which are the actual sources.
Okay, I guess. But the fact that Wikipedia editors are overwhelmingly male (by its own self-admission) probably doesn’t help that article out.
You don’t think that the members of this forum, you know, the ones arguing that “Mary Sue” is a misogynistic term, are overwhelmingly male too? The difference is, baseless assertions don’t cut the mustard on Wikipedia. Also, that summary of the definition of Mary Sue in the opening paragraph is sourced, with the primary source being:
http://fmwriters.com/Visionback/Issue30/marysue.htm
Many of us have heard the term “Mary Sue” floating around writing communities. A Mary Sue is a character that the author identifies with so strongly that the story is warped by it. Sometimes male Sues are called “Gary Stus,” but more often the name is used for both sexes of offenders. The term was coined in fanfiction, made its way from there into the publishing world, and has slowly been filtering into the writing community as a useful shorthand for a frighteningly common error in characterization.
The author is named “Kat Feete” (female name). The other source given is:
http://www.springhole.net/writing/whatisamarysue.htm
Even if we assign some level of credence to your out-of-left-field conspiracy theory, what do those sources have to do with Wikipedia editors?