Talk:List of lesbian characters in anime/Archive 1
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Historyday01 in topic Content dispute
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Content dispute
A very large number of cases do not refer to any canon confirmation from the authors, but to reading various reviewers, resources with a very strong tendency towards yuri shipping (including the heading "This week in anime" with ANN, whose authors disclaim responsibility) or are simply a banal interpretation. For example, in one of the cases, the friendly childish heroine of the game is declared a lesbian because she hugs her BFF and says that she loves her very much. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Solaire, I appreciate your comment here, but this is a much better place than putting tags on the page. The main page uses reliable sources which is acceptable under Wikipedia rules to use, which I followed when creating this page. Getting comment from the authors on every single character would be near impossible. If you would like to cite examples for your broad claims here, that would be great, because talking in generalities does no one any good. I'm willing to accept removal of entries for Kureha Sakamachi, Reina Kousaka, and Kumiko Oumae, but NOT: Anne and Grea (Sentai Filmworks licensed the anime in the first place so this is a reliable source), Pecorine (its an ANN article, which is considered a reliable source), Maria Campbell (ANN article makes it pretty clear), Mary Hunt (again, ANN article is pretty clear), Kyarl (clear in the ANN article), and Maihime Shirayuki (unless you can prove its a joke). It annoys me when people like you come to these pages and make these broad declarations, acting like the original editors are incompetent, when you haven't even edited this page before today. Its just tiring. --Historyday01 (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- It cannot be considered a reliable source, because it is literally based on the author's interpretations of the characters' relationships, which is not confirmed by any official source. ANN is not an official source, even if we forget that this resource is extremely biased towards potential queer content, this is still the opinion of the reviewers. And as far as I understand, you yourself read it pretty badly, as anyone who read that blog about Eros could see that it was a joke comment and not actual content. At this point, you are playing a typical game of rules, demanding to blindly accept ANN as an authoritative source while ignoring the context of the links that caused the claim. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Solaire the knight, have you even read the entry for ANN on WP:A&M/ORS (its under the "Situational" section)? It says: "A note about using Anime News Network as a reference: ANN is divided into sections of varying quality. For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga. The "fan interest" pieces, however, may be pulled directly from unreliable sources and generally should not be used - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news is the "reliable" feed. In addition, because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards." I have followed that to the letter. It IS an authoritative source. Good luck trying to find sources of the authors discussing LGBTQ anime characters, because that's basically impossible in many cases, especially if you don't know Japanese, or what sources to look at. Do you want me to cite episodes instead? Seriously. Opinions of reviewers MATTER, I'm sorry to say. @Solaire the knight, since you are the one you made these absurd claims today, without ever having edited this page before today, YOU need to fix the page. Good luck. I'm willing to write off the page altogether until YOU fix it. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's about news, not reviews. This is the first thing. Secondly, your attempts to discuss the authority of the resource itself in a vacuum while stubbornly ignoring the context of our dispute is a very crude game with the rules. You should also understand that reviews are subjective information that cannot serve as confirmation of the canonicity of a particular reading. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I also want to point out that if there are no authoritative sources for a topic, then the topic as a whole cannot be described here. If you think that we can close our eyes to the weakness of the source because there is no better, then you do not critically understand how Wikipedia works. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh. Reviews and news are fine sources, I'm sorry to say. Reviews more often note LGBTQ characters than news, but very rarely news items will note it. I've read enough of ANN to know this is a case. There are authoritative sources for the topics on this page and they are already listed there. As I said in other edits, if you want to fix the page, do it yourself! If you had posted on here FIRST before making your huge edit, I would have been much more receptive. Unfortunately, you decided to be like a bull in a china shop and charge in, without worrying about how your actions would cause problems for others. That is the saddest thing of all here. Historyday01 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The credibility of a source is not measured by how convenient it is for you. Secondly, even if their reviews were authoritative, they are still interpretations, not official confirmation of anything. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh. This discussion is getting tiring. The reviews are authoritative. If we had your way, I'd have to cite a bunch of tweets for every character or something like that, which would run afoul of guidelines about self-published sources, like WP:SPS. That is why I cite ANN and other sources, so I don't run afoul of those rules. I used to cite Twitter and others more, but I have tried to limit that on pages such as this one. Historyday01 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still not realizing that convenience doesn't necessarily mean authority? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Whatever, man. Which entries specifically do you have an issue with? If we can determine which ones need to be improved, we can go from there. Historyday01 (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- We cannot "improve" anything. At least one third of the list just needs to be deleted, since it is based either on someone else's interpretation, or on unauthorized content, and so on. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why, of course, we can improve it. All these LGBTQ pages are fluid. If there are specific entries you have an issue with, please note which ones here, as that would be the best way to go. I'm totally fine with deleting entries on the list, as I have done huge removals before, but I'd like to know which ones. Historyday01 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you can find an official statement from the authors that romance was really meant to be, then you can "improve" it, yes. But if it's based only on reviews of resources like ANN, then I'm afraid this is the purest original research. But I will say right away that I will not touch things like Comic Girls or Senran Kagura as I don't think that such things need any confirmation in most cases. For obvious reasons. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. It looks like you removed original research notice, which is good, but considering your previous comments it makes sense that the factual accuracy tag is still there. So I guess just about everything else is fair game in your opinion, sigh. Historyday01 (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- If this is so personal for you, then I can say in advance that after a cursory examination I have no problems for half or even two-thirds of the article. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, good! @Solaire the knight, I see you changed the name of the article and I reversed that as List of bisexual characters in anime exists... I think lesbian and bisexual characters should have their own pages. If there are any bisexual characters on this page, which is definitely possible, by accident, then those entries should be moved to the List of bisexual characters in anime page. Historyday01 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, most of the queer characters from Dear Brother are bisexual, while Citrus characters are most likely purely homosexual. Also, given the context, I won't mind if you move Bakarina's characters to the bisexual list too. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, I could do that. I think there is that one character in Citrus who is bi or pan, but since its hazy, I never added her on the bisexual list, from what I remember. I'm sorry for getting all heated before, I guess I'm just really passionate about this...perhaps too passionate. Historyday01 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, @Solaire the knight, a good chunk of the entries have been removed and I'd say the notice you put on the article is no longer applicable. Every single entry has two or more sources to support its inclusion. I will say that relying on the official websites of anime for "confirmation" is a fool's errand because more than half of the time they: mention nothing about LGBTQ characters if they exist in the show or are not readable because you can't select the text because the character description is in an image. In very rare cases, LGBTQ relationships are actually mentioned on the official anime sites (if they are even available and accessible), some of which I've used. But I never depend on that as a be-all-end-all. Looking for interviews with staff and cast would be nice, but I'd say that a waste of time. For one, I don't know what publications the interviews are in, and secondly, what's to say that the interviews aren't behind some paywall? Thirdly, I can't read Japanese, so that's another barrier. Anyway, this is English Wikipedia, not Japanese Wikipedia, so English-language sources are preferred. Per WP:NOENG, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." So, if you put the notice back on this page, it would be highly unfortunate, and I would hope you would not do so. In closing, if you have issues with any specific entries, please mention each specific entry here, because I'd rather deal with a specific entry than just making a broad statement about the page as a whole. Historyday01 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unavailability or difficulty in obtaining a source cannot justify original research. Either you have confirmation of this or that statement, or it should be removed from the article as having no authoritative source in support of it. You yourself also contradict your citation, forgetting that the interpretations of Western authors and the statements of the original authors do not have equal authority. Have you forgotten everything the other participants have told you about using the rules in these situations? It remains for me to repeat to you once again that the purpose of Wikipedia is to create the most complete encyclopedia, and not to purposefully advance this or that point of view in any way. I try to assume your good intentions, but now you are starting to make it too personal again. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Solaire, using sources from Western authors and such is NOT original research. How can you not recognize that? ANN is NOT a biased source and neither is THEM Anime Reviews, which are most of the sources here. I feared this would be your response (although I hoped you would be more positive) after doing all this work on the page, something which you clearly don't recognize. It is deeply unfortunate and it is really telling, as you continue your unnecessary circular arguments. So, I'm taking the nuclear option here and removing myself entirely from the page. Feel free to fix the page yourself. Have fun. I want NO part in editing this page at any point going forward. Please, do not mention me on this page or in relation to this page, either here, or on any part of this site, ever again. If you do so, I will not respond. Historyday01 (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- Unavailability or difficulty in obtaining a source cannot justify original research. Either you have confirmation of this or that statement, or it should be removed from the article as having no authoritative source in support of it. You yourself also contradict your citation, forgetting that the interpretations of Western authors and the statements of the original authors do not have equal authority. Have you forgotten everything the other participants have told you about using the rules in these situations? It remains for me to repeat to you once again that the purpose of Wikipedia is to create the most complete encyclopedia, and not to purposefully advance this or that point of view in any way. I try to assume your good intentions, but now you are starting to make it too personal again. Solaire the knight (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
- So, @Solaire the knight, a good chunk of the entries have been removed and I'd say the notice you put on the article is no longer applicable. Every single entry has two or more sources to support its inclusion. I will say that relying on the official websites of anime for "confirmation" is a fool's errand because more than half of the time they: mention nothing about LGBTQ characters if they exist in the show or are not readable because you can't select the text because the character description is in an image. In very rare cases, LGBTQ relationships are actually mentioned on the official anime sites (if they are even available and accessible), some of which I've used. But I never depend on that as a be-all-end-all. Looking for interviews with staff and cast would be nice, but I'd say that a waste of time. For one, I don't know what publications the interviews are in, and secondly, what's to say that the interviews aren't behind some paywall? Thirdly, I can't read Japanese, so that's another barrier. Anyway, this is English Wikipedia, not Japanese Wikipedia, so English-language sources are preferred. Per WP:NOENG, "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance." So, if you put the notice back on this page, it would be highly unfortunate, and I would hope you would not do so. In closing, if you have issues with any specific entries, please mention each specific entry here, because I'd rather deal with a specific entry than just making a broad statement about the page as a whole. Historyday01 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, I could do that. I think there is that one character in Citrus who is bi or pan, but since its hazy, I never added her on the bisexual list, from what I remember. I'm sorry for getting all heated before, I guess I'm just really passionate about this...perhaps too passionate. Historyday01 (talk) 00:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, most of the queer characters from Dear Brother are bisexual, while Citrus characters are most likely purely homosexual. Also, given the context, I won't mind if you move Bakarina's characters to the bisexual list too. Solaire the knight (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- Well, good! @Solaire the knight, I see you changed the name of the article and I reversed that as List of bisexual characters in anime exists... I think lesbian and bisexual characters should have their own pages. If there are any bisexual characters on this page, which is definitely possible, by accident, then those entries should be moved to the List of bisexual characters in anime page. Historyday01 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
- If this is so personal for you, then I can say in advance that after a cursory examination I have no problems for half or even two-thirds of the article. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Ok. It looks like you removed original research notice, which is good, but considering your previous comments it makes sense that the factual accuracy tag is still there. So I guess just about everything else is fair game in your opinion, sigh. Historyday01 (talk) 23:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- If you can find an official statement from the authors that romance was really meant to be, then you can "improve" it, yes. But if it's based only on reviews of resources like ANN, then I'm afraid this is the purest original research. But I will say right away that I will not touch things like Comic Girls or Senran Kagura as I don't think that such things need any confirmation in most cases. For obvious reasons. Solaire the knight (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Why, of course, we can improve it. All these LGBTQ pages are fluid. If there are specific entries you have an issue with, please note which ones here, as that would be the best way to go. I'm totally fine with deleting entries on the list, as I have done huge removals before, but I'd like to know which ones. Historyday01 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- We cannot "improve" anything. At least one third of the list just needs to be deleted, since it is based either on someone else's interpretation, or on unauthorized content, and so on. Solaire the knight (talk) 22:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Whatever, man. Which entries specifically do you have an issue with? If we can determine which ones need to be improved, we can go from there. Historyday01 (talk) 22:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Still not realizing that convenience doesn't necessarily mean authority? Solaire the knight (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh. This discussion is getting tiring. The reviews are authoritative. If we had your way, I'd have to cite a bunch of tweets for every character or something like that, which would run afoul of guidelines about self-published sources, like WP:SPS. That is why I cite ANN and other sources, so I don't run afoul of those rules. I used to cite Twitter and others more, but I have tried to limit that on pages such as this one. Historyday01 (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- The credibility of a source is not measured by how convenient it is for you. Secondly, even if their reviews were authoritative, they are still interpretations, not official confirmation of anything. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:52, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Sigh. Reviews and news are fine sources, I'm sorry to say. Reviews more often note LGBTQ characters than news, but very rarely news items will note it. I've read enough of ANN to know this is a case. There are authoritative sources for the topics on this page and they are already listed there. As I said in other edits, if you want to fix the page, do it yourself! If you had posted on here FIRST before making your huge edit, I would have been much more receptive. Unfortunately, you decided to be like a bull in a china shop and charge in, without worrying about how your actions would cause problems for others. That is the saddest thing of all here. Historyday01 (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- I also want to point out that if there are no authoritative sources for a topic, then the topic as a whole cannot be described here. If you think that we can close our eyes to the weakness of the source because there is no better, then you do not critically understand how Wikipedia works. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- It's about news, not reviews. This is the first thing. Secondly, your attempts to discuss the authority of the resource itself in a vacuum while stubbornly ignoring the context of our dispute is a very crude game with the rules. You should also understand that reviews are subjective information that cannot serve as confirmation of the canonicity of a particular reading. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- Solaire the knight, have you even read the entry for ANN on WP:A&M/ORS (its under the "Situational" section)? It says: "A note about using Anime News Network as a reference: ANN is divided into sections of varying quality. For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is a reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga. The "fan interest" pieces, however, may be pulled directly from unreliable sources and generally should not be used - http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news is the "reliable" feed. In addition, because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards." I have followed that to the letter. It IS an authoritative source. Good luck trying to find sources of the authors discussing LGBTQ anime characters, because that's basically impossible in many cases, especially if you don't know Japanese, or what sources to look at. Do you want me to cite episodes instead? Seriously. Opinions of reviewers MATTER, I'm sorry to say. @Solaire the knight, since you are the one you made these absurd claims today, without ever having edited this page before today, YOU need to fix the page. Good luck. I'm willing to write off the page altogether until YOU fix it. Historyday01 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
- It cannot be considered a reliable source, because it is literally based on the author's interpretations of the characters' relationships, which is not confirmed by any official source. ANN is not an official source, even if we forget that this resource is extremely biased towards potential queer content, this is still the opinion of the reviewers. And as far as I understand, you yourself read it pretty badly, as anyone who read that blog about Eros could see that it was a joke comment and not actual content. At this point, you are playing a typical game of rules, demanding to blindly accept ANN as an authoritative source while ignoring the context of the links that caused the claim. Solaire the knight (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)