Talk:Asami Sato/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

First major acknowledged LGBT couple in western children's animation

@Solarbird, G. Capo, Vaerith, and Maplestrip:

An editor, Dubcity4 (talk · contribs), has removed this phrase from the article three times now: [1], [2], & [3]. They also left a message on my talk page (I regret to say, I didn't remain as cool as I should have). I have opened this section so the matter can be discussed in a centralized way, without devolving any further. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 21:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Four times now. I have asked Dubcity4 to come here each time. [4] Solarbird (talk) 21:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I have also made them aware that they are coming up on 3RR: [5]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 22:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You're right. We should reach a consensus before adding it back in. (Dubcity4 (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

To address the points they so far have not brought here: 1. The Simpsons is not a children's programme. 2. Paranorman is not a television series, and an LGBT side character is not the same as a relationship, particularly not one built over two seasons of television programme, and particularly not one between the lead character and a major supporting character. And 3. the co-creator and writer said, explicitly, bisexual, talking about these characters. Solarbird (talk) 22:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC) (Dubcity4 (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

I agree with Solarbird. I'm looking at List of LGBT characters in animation and graphic art and while I'm not familiar with everything mentioned there, I don't really see anything that would counter the claim that this is the first major acknowledged LGBT couple in western children's animation.--Vaerith (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Per wikipedia policy, all edits must be verified by a source. The current sources do not support the claim that Korra is the first western cartoon to feature LGBT characters. Wikipedia's lists should never be considered comprehensive and you cannot USE YOURSELF as a source. Unless there is a source that explicitly states this, it simply isn't justified or proven. Also, Paranorman and the Simpsons both feature major LGBT characters, but that isn't the point. (Dubcity4 (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

The folks at http://avatar.wikia.com/wiki/Avatar_Wiki:War_Room/Including_Korrasami_Orientation have discussed this in more depth. I suggest you fully read it. The tumblr doesn't explicitly state if Korra, Asami or both characters are bisexual, only that 'bisexual people' exist and you cannot interpret this the way that you want to. (Dubcity4 (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

And deleted for the fifth time. Can we do something about this now? Solarbird (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring. It currently isn't verified and you can't write just because you, as the fan, think it to be true. Use the talk page. (Dubcity4 (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Let's just cover this: 1. You wade in repeatedly deleting other peoples' work (and, I might note, violating Wikipedia's reversion rules and accusing everyone else of edit warring), stating that 2. our sources don't say what we collectively think they say because you say so and because you decided they aren't good enough, and 3. we can't refer to Wikipedia articles for support for our own position either, but 4. you can refer to the fan avatar wiki as authoritative.

Because that's what's happened. And we have a collection of editors here who have come to what appears to be consensus about the content of these sources; there've been no objections before you came in and started deleting material without even coming to Talk first. The correct thing to do would, of course, to have come in to Talk first and raised your objections here, but we had to drag you in, and so far all you've provided is Because I Said So assertions and a link to a fan wiki which is by policy not recognised as a valid source for Wikipedia entries.

Finally, your removal of context from 'bisexual people exist' in the writer's blog - wherein he's specifically discussing Asami Sato and Korra and how dating Mako earlier doesn't somehow invalidate being attracted to each other - does not alter the actual meaning of the source, or make it any less valid. Mr. Konietzko's intent and meaning have been seen as reasonably clear by everyone here until you. Similarly with the commentary that this is the first western major GBLT pairing in western children's television animation - that was even supported in the Call for Deletion by the administrator who called for deletion of the page. If you want to talk about some form of further clarification in either case, we can talk about that, but this wading in with an axe and deletion-and-reversion campaign is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Stop. Solarbird (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so let's reset this for a second: the article is locked down now and currently set to the version I had as of yesterday sometime. I've saved the additional source links I added elsewhere so I can get to them again if needed. Other than Dubcity4, does anyone think we need to re-evaluate the statement? I don't actually have a horse in the "bisexual" phrase fight; it was added by an anonymous editor, not me. I think it's supported and valid (see above), but am I off base here? @G S Palmer, G. Capo, Vaerith, and Maplestrip: Solarbird (talk) 06:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don't have the time to go back and forth with you. Read the discussion that I linked from the folks at avatar. wikia. They discussed it in much more detail. I don't claim them to be more authoritative, but they discussed it in more depth than anyone here. Your opinions here at wikipedia are not more worthier than those expressed anywhere else by anyone else. With regards to the writers blog on tumblr, where does he explicitly state that Korra and Asami are bisexual? It doesn't matter how you or the other editors claim to interpret the creator's meaning. No, the orientations of these characters weren't discussed by anyone here and so it couldn't have been reasonably clear 'until I came along'. (Dubcity4 (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

The other claim about Korra being the first western cartoon to depict LGBT characters isn't supported by any of the sources referenced. You agree with that, yet you insist on keeping it in? I see why the article was called for deletion. Here lies the problem with having wikipedia pages for fictional characters. (Dubcity4 (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

If you're not willing to discuss potential changes with other editors, then I might suggest you shouldn't be editing the article at all. Three editors above and other editors in the Call for Deletion all agreed that the statement on uniqueness is reasonable. You cannot wade in here and Declare Absolute Truth, despite your repeated attempts. Those attempts got the article locked down and an edit war notice on your personal Talk page. (Yes, I checked.) You can also not insist that we ignore the obvious intent of written material in favour of your interpretation - well, you can insist upon it, but it doesn't carry weight or meaning. And escalating demands about what standard we apparently must meet to satisfy you are not constructive debate.

Finally, again, discussion on a fan wiki is not a source, and more, fan wikis are not sources at all by Wikipedia policy. It doesn't matter how much you like it or dislike it, they are explicitly disallowed as sources, and that's all there is to it. Solarbird (talk) 07:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(And I did read the discussion. It is civil, and pleasant, and completely and utterly unsourced. See above.) Solarbird (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also I'd like to throw out the possibility (and I've been thinking about this for a few days) that the phrase "western" should be changed to "English-language," mostly because while I trust the linked sources to have a reasonably good idea about English-language media, I don't really trust them to be as solid as in, say, French, Spanish, or Portuguese, just for example. Thoughts? Solarbird (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I made the edits because 1) They were made based on how you and a few others chose to interpret a text or 2) because there weren't supported at all by any of the referenced material. I was fully justified in making those edits. You don't seem to understand. It has nothing to do with how any of us interpret anything. If it isn't explicitly stated by the source, it can't be added. That's it! I'm not having a personal war with you about how I perceived the ending or how I interpreted the blog. A few wikipedia users can't just declare something to be the absolute truth because they agree with something even though it isn't explicitly stated anywhere else and especially if there are people out there that disagree with it. I never cited the fan wikia to be a source, so you must have misread. I don't need to cite anything for a source because I'm not the one trying to add in text. The onus is on the you to try to justify it being there in the first place. Your opinion, as a wikipedia editor, isn't any more valid or worthy than theirs. Both the arguments of the fan wikia and yourself are completely unsourced. It's entirely fan speculation. (Dubcity4 (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

Finally, you say that fan wikis are not sources at all by wikipedia policy. According to wikipedia policy, neither is the opinion of the editor. You can't cite your own understanding of a text to be the source and then claim it to be the absolute truth (this is what sparked the 'edit war' in the first place). I suggest you look into this further. As I said, I don't have the time to debate this with you. (Dubcity4 (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

And because our "interpretation" doesn't match your "interpretation," therefore that makes all of us wrong and you right, by fiat, apparently. Again, all I can see here is someone moving the bar of proof around until it reaches Until You Agree Because I'm Right, and that's not helpful. If you can bring in some relevant data, great! Until then, we have our footnoted sources (including IGN and TV Guide, which are generally recognised as acceptable - tho' the TV Guide one got yanked in the reversion-to-before-edit-war, I'll put it back in later) and you have Because I Say So and Because You're Wrong.

Again, you seem to not understand basic wikipedia rules. It's not about anyone's interpretations. To put bluntly, show me one single quote from the creators that explicitly labels a characters (whether it be Asami, Korra or both) to be of a specific orientation? I don't have an opinion on this. You act as if everyone on here has reached a general consensus ("that makes all of us wrong") when in fact, you and G S Palmer are the only users on this talk page who claim that Asami and Korra are bisexual. The word doesn't appear in any other discussion. The only thing confirmed is that they are dating. Sure, I could stop the debate now, but that would put the validity of this page and the integrity of yours as a wikipedia editor in question. Does the blog explicitly and without question verify your edit? Do the currents references clearly state that Korra is the first western cartoon to depict LGBT characters? Put your own opinions and bias aside and think about it. I'm confused as to why you insist on including the second statement when there is nothing to back it up and continually cite the opinions of you and another wikipedia editor as legitimate, irrefutable sources. My understanding of editing has always been that if it isn't 100% confirmed and has reached a general consensus world wide then it can't be represented as fact. The opinions of reviewers or anyone else notable would usually go under 'Reactions or Reception'. Thanks for the discussion. (Dubcity4 (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

In future, please do not add material to any wikipedia pages if the only source is that of your own or of a particular community. They do not count as legitimate sources. (Dubcity4 (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

You think this comes out of my headcanon? Seriously? This isn't even my headcanon, and I didn't even add it. (Do you care about my headcanon? Why would you? Why should you? But, for the record, this statement is not my personal take on the characters. My headcanon - which is not a source - is that Asami's a straight-up lesbian and dating Mako is how she figured that out. Korra is probably bi, but might be pan. And I have posts on Tumblr to that effect, so don't lecture me.) But the descriptive word we have from the writer is "bisexual," and I give the writer credence over my headcanon.

And what I object to, and what I have consistently objected to, is you coming in swinging, with an ax, hacking material out, launching a edit war, accusing everyone else of your edit war sins, refusing to come to Talk until essentially forced by the article lock down, repeated dismissals of this whole editorial process by repeatedly declaring you don't have time for it, and outright dismissing every other editor on here out of hand. Your displayed contempt for everyone working on this article (to the point of saying it should've been deleted) and your imperious attempts to dictate content by fiat? That's what I object to. Solarbird (talk) 08:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(That of course leaves aside commentary on other talk pages, where you've provided supposed counterexamples which do not actually counter the material you keep trying to delete - e.g., The Simpsons, and Paranorman.)

Not the point. I shouldn't have provided a counter proof to something that has no proof to begin with. How's this? Provide us with one quote from your chosen sources that explicit confirm that Korra is the first western cartoon to have LGBT characters? Just one clear, concise, unambiguous quote from a credible source? (Dubcity4 (talk) 08:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

It demonstrates a lack of effort and/or good faith. I'm not sure which. As does your constantly changing reading of what the article said. The article does not claim and has never claimed that they are the first LGBT characters int he milieu. The assertion is that they are the first major characters in this general milieu shown to be in a GBLT relationship. That is not the same thing. Solarbird (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, while we can argue about scope, one of the footnoted articles has Eric Goldman, IGN TV Executive Editor, saying this has never happened before, in utterly unambiguous terms. You can argue about whether he's right, but it's there, it's in text, it was linked. One can talk about scope, and that's fine, but you are both misrepresenting what the Wiki article says and ignoring what the references say, and until you stop doing that (and all the other stuff above), I don't see what possible constructive commentary you can add to a discussion. Solarbird (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As for the wiki as source, I can only point to the places where you linked to it multiple times as support for your assertions. That's sourcing, whether you put it in a ref tag or not, and it is not a valid source for Wikipedia. It is not relevant to the discussion.

And neither is your own interpretation of something. The point was it isn't an absolute fact if there exists different interpretations than your own. (Dubcity4 (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC))

And, again, if you don't want to discuss this with other editors - the second time you've said that now - I again suggest you may not wish to edit this article. You can't come in and declare yourself Arbitrator Of All Things and expect anyone to accept that. It is, again, not how Wikipedia works. Solarbird (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey, @G S Palmer, G. Capo, Vaerith, and Maplestrip:, I'd still like to have a talk with you (and of course any other editors who want to talk about this constructively) about English-language media vs. "western" in the article, once things calm down. I was hoping we could have it now, because I think there's a discussion to be had, well, look up from here. But I think the credibility of our sources is a little more limited in scope, as above, and our cites should reflect that. Solarbird (talk) 07:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I might have missed some points made, as you guys managed to create quite a large wall of text while I was gone, but let's see. I'm somewhat neutral about whether to remove the phrase in question or to keep it. About the in-depth discussion held on Avatar wiki: it cannot be used as a source, but at least we can look at the questions raised and wonder whether we have considered them in this article. The phrase "[it's] a gross oversimplification of the determination of sexual orientation vs sexual identity" is something I very much agree with, but it is irrelevant. You could argue all day long about whether a certain character's in-unverse behavior matches up with what the creators claimed to try to encapsulate with the character - in the end, I believe the creator has the last word, while discrepancies between the creators intent and their results can be shown when discussed by reliable sources.

Now to the important note, "it was not mentioned." The creators never literally stated that the characters were LGBT. It was heavily implied to the point that it was obvious, and many reliable sources have interpreted it as such, but technically, the creators never literally said "Korra and/or Asami are bisexual." It makes sense here that we don't assume anything about the characters, but honestly, we can definitely reliably say that Asami is bisexual, just from "Korra and Asami in a relationship" and "bisexual people exist" alone. We'd be beating around the bush by saying "Asami is in a homosexual relationship with Korra and it has been heavily implied by the creators that one or both characters are bisexual." I really don't think we want that.

There is indeed no source for them being the "first major LGBT relationship in western children's animation." We can confidently say that they are, at least as far as lead characters are concerned, but it might be too much of an assumption... Actually, now I think about it, there are a lot of issues with this statement. I could make a quick gif animation with a same-sex couple holding hands and say it is for children. We can't know if other same-sex relationships exist with children's television because, for all we know, the creators intend two characters in a relationship, but has never told anyone. "One of the first major..." might be the best way to put this sentence. We need to put this aspect in the lead section either way, because it is the bulk of the reason why this character is vital. How to put it is difficult...

"English-language" is fine, though if we keep narrowing down what exactly Asami is the first of, we are missing the point perhaps drop "first" altogether and rather focus on how being them being a major LGBT relationship in western animation is important instead, perhaps saying that it is "rare," or perhaps even "unheard of" (because the sources say stuff like that as well) ~Mable (chat) 08:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, everybody. I think that the assertion that "she is half of the first major acknowledged LGBT couple in western [sic] children's animation" is likely true, based on my understanding of what has been written about the series. However, on Wikipedia, truth is less important than verifiability - that's just the way we work. So, for this bold and prominent an assertion we would really need a reliable source that directly supports it. And the cited IGN source does not do this - nowhere does it mention LGBT couples in Western children's animation, or this being the first thereof. So, while I find the edit-warring, particularly by Dubcity4, deplorable, I think that they were right to initially remove the assertion. We cannot rely on our own knowledge about LGBT people in other series to come to this conclusion (that would be original research, which is forbidden), and we can't rely on analysis by users on other wikis, because user-generated content is not a reliable source. So I propose that we come up with an alternative wording that reflects the importance of Korra and Asami for the portrayal of LGBT people in entertainment, but which is directly supported by a reliable source.  Sandstein  08:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I hate how the discussion made it seem like I was engaged in a personal war with Solarbird, when all I did was 1)initially removed something that I did not think was verified in any of the references, 2)continually ask for Solarbird to provide a reference which would verify what I removed and justify the user's reverting of my edit. That's all I asked for. I never thought my actions were 'edit-warring' as wikipedia calls for all material not supported by references to be removed immediately. Great that more people were able to contribute to the discussion. (Dubcity4 (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

I would certainly accept the phrase first confirmed to describe it. See, one of the big differences between this and, say, Adventure Time, is that it was 1. confirmed and 2. lead character and 3. shown - as far as the writers were concerned - developing on screen, and 4. done with network permission. Yeah, they had to softpedal it to hell and back, but they actually had the go-ahead from Nick, and that's puts it in a separate class. Also let me check the IGN commentary again, because now I'm wondering if the wrong thing got footnoted, but I read a strict statement from an editor there just calling it the first outright. Let me see if I can find that. Solarbird (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(I'd also like to note for the record that I'm not even defending my own here; I didn't add any of this language, despite accusations from Mr. Headcanon. I did try to bolster it with sources, but I generally try to do that with existing language, rather than just yoinking it out. At least, when it seems reasonable.) Solarbird (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not wrong. "I can only imagine what it’s like for gay and bisexual kids/teenagers watching Korra to have this kind of thing happen and to see themselves reflected in this way in a show of this sort when it just never had occurred up until now." -- Eric Goldman, IGN TV Executive Editor (emphasis added). The whole point of this is that it hadn't happened before, and it's not a random, it's their executive television editor. That's pretty good. I'm totally up for talking about scope - I was planning on raising that discussion myself, as per above - but this strikes me as a sound source for the "first" claim. The only discussion I really see is over how big a field. Solarbird (talk) 09:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"It just never occurred up until now". Unless he specifically said that "it had never occurred up until now in western cartoons", it still does not support the current wording on the page. Saying that "it just never occurred up until now" is extremely vague and would be incorrect if he were referring to animation in general. Also, can anyone tell me if 'Eric Goldman's personal review' of the series counts as a credible source? To me, it was something said at the top of his head with zero research involved. (Dubcity4 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

I would prefer "is important as a major LGBT relationship on children's animation" rather than "first confirmed LGBT relationship between lead characters that was shown on-screen and was done by network permission in English-speaking children's animation." That sentence is 1. WP:Synth and 2. incredibly awkward. So yeah, might be best to change it. ~Mable (chat) 09:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps "Eric Goldman from IGN stated that this "just never had occurred up until now"" in the lead? ~Mable (chat) 09:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that would be a terrible sentence. But it is, according to the source, a thing which has not been done before. And the "first" part is important, not in a YouTube comment FIRST!!1! way ( XD ), but in what it meant and means to LGBT viewers in particular. Personal perspective note: I know, because I felt it, and there are thousands of reactions just like mine out there on the web, and isn't really contested - people have been writing about it since the "fan reactions" videos started going around. Obviously, that's not a source and not to be included in the article itself. But I do think it speaks to the importance of not softpedaling this "first" statement. Assuming we don't find a contradicting fact, of course. I'm happy to scope it, but it's a part of the moment - millions (based on last taken ratings) of people had never seen this happen before. That's a big part of why it's notable. Solarbird (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

See me previous comment. The quote itself is extremely vague; it doesn't verify that it was the first in Western animation and it certainly doesn't verify that the Legend of Korra is the first in all of animation. The quote itself doesn't mention the words 'Western animation' or even the word 'animation'. I also do not think that using a comment made by an 'ign editor' made of the top of his head as a reputable source. Where he got his information from should also be checkable. See WP:Reliable (Dubcity4 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

So how about replace the entire phrase to this?

Along with lead-character and "avatar" Korra, she is half of a major LGBT couple which, according to Eric Goldman from IGN, "just never had occurred up until now" in western children's animation.

I think this sounds reasonable. ~Mable (chat) 09:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Where in the article does it mention 'Western Children's animation'? It sounds reasonable, but it isn't supported at all. (Dubcity4 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

In the lead, we should be as concise as possible, because it should be a standalone summary of the article, see WP:LEAD. I'd prefer something like "The series's final scene indicates the beginning of a romantic relationship between Asami and the female lead character, Korra. This degree of representation of LGBT characters was unprecedented in American children's entertainment.", I think something like that can reasonably be sourced to the articles cited in the main article, The Legend of Korra#Reception. The details - who noted this, that they were discussed by the creators and critics as bisexual rather than homosexual, what it meant to LGBT viewers, etc., should then be discussed in more detail in the appropriate parts of the article body.  Sandstein  12:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not mentioning whether they're bisexual or lesbian is the right way to go in the summary/introduction. You have my support so long as you include references to a source that explicitly verifies that the Legend of Korra's representation is unprecedented in American children's entertainment.(Dubcity4 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

That's a very decent way of putting it as well - you have my support. ~Mable (chat) 12:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That sound reasonable. However, per MOS:LEAD, the subject should be coved in greater depth in the article body as well, not just in the lead. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Striking this bit since it only seems to be causing confusion. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 15:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you misread, Palmer. The lead shouldn't go into detail at all: the body of the article goes into detail while the lead gives a concise overview. ~Mable (chat) 14:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: no, that's how I understood it. I was trying to say that we need to cover it in the body if we're going to cover it in the lead. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That's what's happening: the body will cover the topic in more detail than the lead does. It is already that way, after all. ~Mable (chat) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That's pretty good. My only quibble is: American as in production company or American as in viewer coverage? I had realised overnight that the word "Anglosphere" might belong here, because there are more anglophones in North America than USAians, and the webstream is available in Canada. (Or at least, is available on Canadian geoIP-located machines, which from a DRM standpoint... well, actually, it's not quite the same thing, as my experience most certainly shows, insert OR tag here. But nonetheless.) To me, it seems clear that IGN is talking about Nick's audience, which - online - appears to include Canada. And might include the UK and Australasia as well.

I'm not saying it has to be included, but it should be considered. Solarbird (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the only thing that we can say without becoming verbose or speculative is "American" in the sense of "written by Americans and produced by an American channel", which is the meaning we normally use to identify a TV series as, e.g., "American". Considering that the series is available in multiple territories worldwide, including outside the Anglosphere in dubbed versions, it is otherwise pretty difficult to pin down geographically. "American" also appears appropriate because most of our sources are of U.S. origin, and their impression of having seen something novel is likely to reflect their experience of consuming primarily American-made entertainment. (I assume that Japanese media would be considerably less excited, what with their tradition of yuri and yaoi anime and manga.)  Sandstein  17:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Insert noises about Canada here, and immediately apologise for them. XD But "production and writers" sense... if that's an accepted shorthand, then okay, I'll take it. (And I certainly would not accept anything that implied Japan or even HK and Taiwan sources, because no.)

I wonder if a section on the history of LGBT-relationships-in-fiction-must-end-in-tragedy tropes is relevant in "Reception." Solarbird (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, you guys have made a major wall of text since I was gone. And it's been only a few hours. My thoughts on the issue are that we can't say "first LGTB relationship in Western Animation blah blah" because of WP:OR, since we don't have anybody *explicitly* saying that. (I suspect this is what Dubcity4 (talk · contribs)'s issue was originally). However, Dubcity4's allegation that this isn't even LGTB is completely refuted by the sources we already have in the article, including the creators explicitly stating "Korrasami is Canon" and really didn't merit this large of a brouhaha. I think Sandstein (talk · contribs)'s suggested wording is the best compromise. And @Dubcity4:, just for future reference, if you find yourself reverting twice on any page, I recommend bringing it up on the talk page to avoid 3RR and such a large mess. This one sentence didn't really merit locking down the entire page until we started approaching the three revert rule.

I never said that Korra and Asami's relationship ISN'T canon! In fact, no where in this entire discussion do I attempt to disprove the relationship. As you can see from my discussion with G W Palmer (On the user's talk page), I acknowledged the their relationship, as I said that it was clearly supported by the creator's tumblr blog, but that I disagreed with the claim that they were bisexual and that LoK was the first in western animation to depict LGBT character as they were not, and are still not, supported by the current references. I thought I made it clear from the beginning of the discussion when I continually referred to wikipedia's edit policy that my only complaint was that none of the claims were explicitly supported by the referenced sources and that most of it was based on a user's own opinions. (Dubcity4 (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

Oh, and @Solarbird:, if you can find something about the LGTB-tragedy trope that's been written in relationship to Korrasami, I think that'd be a fabulous addition. Luthien22 (talk) 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hell, I've written about it. But I can't quote myself, I mean, conflict much? And I've seen other commentary about it but it's all at blog-comment level, which is Yeah Okay No. I'll poke around later and see if I can find something better - I suspect GayGeeks or somebody like that will have gone into that. Solarbird (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think I know which trope you refer to, and it would be interesting to mention its avoidance, if there are sources about it in relation to the series, but that's probably best suited for coverage in the main article, because it's not specific to Asami but rather to the writing of both Korra's and Asami's character arcs. Also, yes, you can't quote your own Tumblr, not so much because of conflict of interest but because of WP:SPS.  Sandstein  18:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, again for the record, it wasn't a tumblr. Although I did echo it there after it went up on the official site. But there's no editorial board involved, so still not a source and I'm not pretending it is. But even were there one... yeah, I'm not comfortable with that. (Basically, I've been thinking of seeing if I couldn't get Daily Dot or or someone to let me write a longer treatise on it - I know some people there, I used to write professionally, some of my tech stuff is still online [6] [7] [8] - but I'd still not be okay with quoting myself, regardless of market, editorial board, etc. Is there actual Wikipedia policy on that? It must've come up and it strikes me as a fairly awful conflict-of-interest scenario. Solarbird (talk) 22:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, particularly the section WP:SELFCITE, and it does allow citations to self-written reliable sources "within reason". Though I agree that writing something for the purpose of including it in an article would strike me as ... very weird, at the least.  Sandstein  18:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, technically, Luthien, there are ways where Korra and Asami would be in a romantic relationship without being defined as lesbian or bisexual, though the term LGBT would still be fitting... Anyway, back on topic, what kind of trope are you guys talking about? ~Mable (chat) 19:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This one, I assume, although TV Tropes notes that it's increasingly outdated.  Sandstein  21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the one - GBLT people may be shown, but only if condemned and ending in tragedy and/or death. In English, it comes out of ... well, a few places, but in notable part the indecency laws of Great Britain and the US in the late 19th through the early and mid 20th centuries, and related efforts like the Hayes Code. For example: it was illegal to mail "obscene" material in the US and Canada, so queer book publishers constantly ran afoul of that, since any queer topic was classified as at least indecent and most likely obscene. In Canada, for cross-border purposes, this is an ongoing problem - one involving one of my favourite bookstores. One defence against that was to have a "proper moral lesson" - to reference the Hayes code version - so you'd have all these mid-century LGBT novels where there would be tragedy and the heroine or hero would end up discovering they just needed to find The Right Man or Woman, as heterosexually appropriate. It's a poisonous trope, and a big part of why this is notable. (Similarly: why Melinda Lo's Ash was so important for a lot of people, again including me.) Solarbird (talk) 22:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but I don't think it has much use here. Some reliable source may have mentioned something along the lines of "it is uncommon for LGBT relationships to have a happy ending," which would definitely be worth adding. However, talking about it as "The trope of not giving LGBT characters a happy ending is notably subverted" just seems silly on Wikipedia. Either way, we should just follow the sources anyway, so what the sources point out, we should mention (keeping weight in mind). ~Mable (chat) 08:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's what IGN was talking about (for example) when they said this had never happened before - all the emotional impact around that is due in no small part to this. They aren't mentioning the trope by name, but violating this trope is the thematic (as opposed to mechanical) part of why this is first is important. (Representation isn't just in absence.) I mean, sure, to include it in text, we need a reference so it's not OR, but it very definitely has use here. Solarbird (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Solarbird, unless you find a source which explicitly verifies that Legend of Korra is the first LGBT relationship depicted in western cartoons, which is an extremely questionable claim to make, I'm afraid that your claim isn't supported and shouldn't be added, as per wikipedia's editing policies! Unless it is clear to all who read it, and not dependent on your own interpretation of an article, you can't use it to support your claim and then declare it to be fact! For why it doesn't verify that Korra's the first Western cartoon to do it, see my above responses (no where it the referenced IGN article does it even say the word 'western'). As I said earlier, I also disagree with using IGN's opinions as a reliable source. 1) It uses the opinion of an editor and hence, any claims made using it as a reference must include "(Author) says...." and 2) the source of the editor's own opinions are not verifiable. See WP:Reliable. Also, I want to reiterate that I am not disputing the status of their relationship. It was explicitly confirmed in the creator's tumblr! I also responded to some of the previous comments above. (Dubcity4 (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC))

And once again, you change what the article says and said. Please stop extracting parts of the claim that make it bigger than it is; the word "major" and the lead-character portion is important. Also, please stop ignoring that we have been trying to discuss an appropriate scale of context for the note. I'm glad you are finally not ignoring the comment in its entirely, but you are now interpreting the statement as being "off the top of his head" when there is no text support for that - it appears to be Because You Say So.

Also, you are moving the bar again. Before you wanted any source, now that you've had to acknowledge that there was always a source for the core of the claim (and again, please stop ignoring that we've been negotiating scope here), you're declaring the source's comment as inadequately researched (something on which you have absolutely no information, other than your assertion that it's both false an inadequately researched), and further declaring IGN's executive television editor to be illegitimate as a source.

I simply have no idea what to do with you. You make demands, they are met, you make new, more stringent demands. You consistently misrepresent the article in meaningful ways and you have repeatedly ignored, and then disqualified for your own reasons, sources which have been generally recognised as acceptable. I have no idea where to go with that. Solarbird (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Guys, this is looking increasingly uncivil. I guess I should remind the both of you that out goal is to figure out how to deal with the article - any anger or lack of listening to eachother limits the use of this conversation altogether. It isn't really hard to see how Korra/Asami is seen as significant, though. If this relationship wasn't deemed "significant" in any way, most of these wouldn't exist: https://www.google.com/search?q=asami+korra&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ei=YDqyVM26JaWi7Aam7YEI&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAw&biw=1396&bih=665 . Oh, hey, I just found this title: "Most Progressive Mainstream Cartoon Ever". It isn't that hard to see that people deem this as significant, and even if that statement would technically fall under WP:SYNTH, I personally do think that that would be fair to put in the lead of the article. Hell, I wouldn't even be against changing this entire article to "The relationship between Korra and Asami", as that is really the only reason why this character is so notable. ~Mable (chat) 09:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Dubcity, I'm getting highly confused by your many edits, so let me just asks the main question: what do you suggest the line to be changed to exactly? We're trying to establish the reason why this character/relationship is important in a very concise manner in the lead, without going to much into WP:SYNTH and WP:OR territory. I've made a decent suggestion and one other person (which I now have trouble finding here) made a decent suggestion. We just need to figure out what we should use, so that the reader will get the best idea of what this character "is all about." ~Mable (chat) 15:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@Maplestrip: I believe they think the fact that it is significant isn't supported by the sources, and want the mention of it as significant removed from the article. (Correct me if I'm wrong, @Dubcity4:.) G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 17:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, this. Unless it is supported of course. Maybe make a new section? (Dubcity4 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC))

Oh, I was completely misunderstanding this. I'll look through some of the sources to see if such statements are made. Though it's a bit odd: the fact that so many sources exist to cover the sexuality of these characters would imply on its own that this is significant, though together with fan reactions, I guess that still falls under WP:OR...

We could also look at it in another way, comparing "It is significant that Asami and Korra are LGBT" to "The sky is blue," being a statement we can make. I'm not saying that's the case, though, just suggesting as a possibly solution. ~Mable (chat) 18:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Solarbird, as you can see from my initial conversation with G S Palmer (see the user's talk page), I always acknowledged that Korra and Asami are a couple. At first, I wanted any source to verify the claims that the Legend of Korra was the first western animation to depict LGBT characters and that both characters are bi. As of right now, they still aren't verified. As editors, you shouldn't let your own bias and opinions get in the way of your own editing. The quote that you are using to support the claim that LoK is the first in Western animation was made in an article expressing the opinions of someone, which by wikipedia rules, would require any edits using this quote to be in the form of "(Author) says.....". The IGN editor's source for his own opinions are unverifiable, which would make his claims unverifiable as well. See WP:Reliable. (Dubcity4 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC))

The IGN article says ....."show of this sort when it just never had occurred up until now." This could be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Was it the first cartoon to show this kind of relationship on Nickolodean? Did it never occur until now in all of Western-made cartoons? Or maybe the IGN editor was referring to all animation? It isn't specific enough or explicit enough to form a fact. (Dubcity4 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC))

Personally, I really don't care for this particular issue (at all), but as a fan of the series, I knew as soon as I watched the final episode that unsupported or unverified edits were going to be made by fans on anything related to the Avatar franchise due to the controversial nature of the ending. Just wanted to make sure that any edits were absolutely supported. Imo, the introduction should just say that Asami is confirmed to be in a relationship with Korra. I only skimmed through the comments so I may not have read everything. (Dubcity4 (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC))

@user:Dubcity4, can you please not add short messages in the middle of a conversation? It makes the whole conversation a lot more confusing, as people assume a chronological order in conversations. I generally only look at the bottom of a conversation myself and have been having a lot of trouble following the discussion because of this.

Back on topic, the lead sentence has already been discussed and agreed upon below. If you have any suggestions, feel free to make them there. Right now, we seem to have concensus, and unless someone makes a good point about why the currently used sentence isn't valid, it seems like it will stay that way. ~Mable (chat) 15:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It okay with me, other than the fact that the article now has no mention of Asami's sexuality...G. Capo (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Unprotection

@CambridgeBayWeather: It seems that discussion above has reached agreement about how to address the content that was being edit-warred over. Could you lift the protection so that normal editing can continue?  Sandstein  21:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Should we wait until we see how Dubcity4 reacts, or if they do? Because they haven't really been contributing towards consensus yet, and we could give them 'till end of day or something. Solarbird (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, might be helpful.  Sandstein  22:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, there we go. The source is inadequate because the writer's statement was inadequately researched because Dubcity4 says so, apparently. And besides, IGN's executive television editor is not a valid source because opinions. Apparently. It's a good thing we held off, at least. @Sandstein: Solarbird (talk) 03:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence proposal

All right, let's see whether we can hammer out a sentence for the lead that we can all agree on is solidly supported by reliable sources. Based on the proposal above supported by most:

"The series's final scene, indicating the beginning of a romantic relationship between Asami and the female lead character, Korra, was unprecedented in its representation of LGBT persons in American children's television."

This is based on the following sources, underlining the elements that support the assertions made in the underlined second part of the proposed sentence (I assume the first part is uncontested):

• Robinson, Vanity Fair: "But American kids’ shows have a long way to go before L.G.B.T. story lines are considered a matter of course. And none of those examples above quite match Korra and Asami’s climactic spirit portal moment."
• Bui, USA Today: "For this to happen on a kid’s show on a well-known network like Nickelodeon is a big deal. More kids get exposed to positive LGBTQ representation, which is still for some reason lacking in a lot of mainstream television."
• Goldman, IGN: "TV history, folks. (...) But it actually, overtly happening? There was no way. Because no show of this type had ever done it. (...) I can only imagine what it’s like for gay and bisexual kids/teenagers watching Korra to have this kind of thing happen and to see themselves reflected (...) This is an incredibly notable step forward in this kind of representation on TV of this sort (...) Have you ever seen an American, animated series, aimed at all audiences -- featuring a superhero-type character, no less -- who’s openly portrayed as LGBT? Well, now you can name one. "
• Yehl, IGN: "It was a long time coming, but we finally saw a popular network cartoon take the first step towards showing a genuine queer relationship."

@Dubcity4, Solarbird, Maplestrip, and G S Palmer: as the editors commenting above, what is your take on this?  Sandstein  09:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I very much approve and don't quickly know a way to improve on it. ~Mable (chat) 10:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Seems like an accurate representation of the sources. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think there are more than enough sources to support that sentence. --Vaerith (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done  Sandstein  20:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm late - album release, release concert planning, things are srs bsns ramping up - but count me retroactively as agreeing to consensus. Solarbird (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, look at all this craziness that happened while I was moving back into my dorm. I retroactively approve this new sentence. (Whew! Glad that's over.) Luthien22 (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No mention of Asami's Sexuality???

I have been pretty busy lately, so I have not been able to participate in this discussion. Folks, I'm VERY certain that the creators hinted that Korra and Asami are both bi and many have taken the creators' Tumblr posts to mean just that. Do we actually need an official statement for this? Konietzko's entire post was a discussion about Korra and Asami's relationship. He specifically said within the context of his discussion of the relationship that "bisexuals exist". He didn't specifically say "lesbians exists" because he was discussing Korra and Asami's relationship. Also, it seems extremely odd that we announce that the character is the among the first MAJOR LGBT characters depicted on a western children animated show but then don't specify her sexuality. I feel that we need to state that Asami is bisexual. FWIW, I'm hetero, but I do understand why stating this would be important to bisexuals in particular.G. Capo (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... somehow this got missed in all the bouncing around going on. In order to say definitively "Asami is bi" (as in, infobox official) we pretty much need a statement from the creators, which isn't explicitly in either of Bryke's Tumblr posts. BUT we do have a reliable reviewer stating that they're bi. We already have a ref for it in the main article; I'm just going to plop that in there. Thanks for the catch! Luthien22 (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think the lead certainly talks about Asami's sexuality. It doesn't nail it down to bisexual, but it does talk about it, and a specific label was such a huge fight, and I was just spending all my time trying to preserve the importance of it happening at all. The bi part got lost in the wash. While I would not oppose including describing both her and Korra as bisexual (I think that was the explicit intent of Bryan's text and you have to work to avoid that), I think Luthien22's version works and has the advantage of being pretty bulletproof source-wise. Solarbird (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Solarbird I certainly don't object to calling Korra or Asami bi in the lead, but there's going to be a few editors who will make the exact claim I pointed out above: Bryke hasn't officially said the words "Asami and Korra are bi". It's probably supposed to be inferred (after all, they both clearly were attracted to Mako in seasons 1/2), but some would argue this is dipping our toes into OR, and I'm sympathetic to that. That being said, we could probably still use the word bi-sexual in the lead since we do have the one reviewer. Maybe we could plop it in the lead and see what people think? Luthien22 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)