Talk:The Gifted (American TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Joseph Morgan

just because there are still people reporting that Joseph Morgan is part of Gifted, e.g. https://factsherald.com/the-originals-cast-joseph-morgan-joins-foxs-x-men-pilot-series/ Would there be any benefit in adding something like this into ">Production >Casting"?

On 10 March, 2017 Lauren Shuler Donner tweeted a picture of the cast doing a table read of the pilot, this picture included actor Joseph Morgan, who was subsequently reported as being part of the series, it was later clarified that he was just helping out at the table read.

Damiantgordon (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

I think we should leave it for now, since in the grand scheme of the pilot/show, the fact that someone helped out at the table read doesn't seem that significant. But, if it does become notable enough to be mentioned in some way, we have these references here that we can still add in if we want. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Good point, thanks Damiantgordon (talk) 11:54, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Other X-Men film series TV show?

The second line of the page is " It is connected to the X-Men film series, the second television series to be so." My question is which show is the other one?Mudtik (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Legion, as is explained in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I came through this(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_series_based_on_Marvel_Comics) page in which Legion is listed as "Not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe nor the X-Men film Universe." And the source is an interview with the only common producer for all the X-Men films who is also producing the X-Men tv shows including Legion and The Gifted. So at least one wiki page needs some editing. I'm not sure which though.Mudtik (talk) 09:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

All the information here and at Legion is correct and reliably sourced. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

New logo

Following the SDCC trailer release, the series has updated their logo in order to exhibit the X-Men connection, with an 'X' visible in the new logo for the title. Whoever has the abilities and understanding of how to change this - should change it!--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 08:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Have you found a version we can use? I am keeping my eye out for one. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Here is one, but it has the premiere date on it; looks to be a screenshot from the trailer. -- Alex^TW 12:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that one should work, Alex^TW. Even though a release date is on it, it's more current than the one that is on the article page right now.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

When in need of the latest logo for a show, the show's Facebook page usually has it. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think I have uploaded the new version. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Poster

Here is the first poster for the show, in case we need it in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

And this looks to be the main one they are using now. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

correction regarding deal in episode 2

My edit was reverted. Article says "in exchange for the freedom of himself and his family.", which I still say is partially-incorrect. Specifically (included longer quote in edit ... apparently incorrectly) Reed says in episode 2 "We are going to make a deal today, ... I will cooperate with you, but I go down for this alone." (ie. Reed isn't asking for freedom for himself) --EarthFurst (talk) 08:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed - adamstom97 (talk) 08:35, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Why are we always referring to Blink as "Fong"?

In the plot summaries, Jamie Chung's character is repeatedly referred to as "Fong" whereas most other characters are referred to by their first name or their "mutant monikers"/codenames. Has she really not been referred to as Blink or Clarice more often than Fong? —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

She has not been referred to as "Blink" in the series yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:40, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

When/if she's given a snazzy codename, we'll use it. The only reason there is a listing for Blink in the cast section is that the show has revealed that Jamie Chung portray's that comic book character. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Fan Bingbing as Blink

I've removed the addition of this material twice now with the reasoning that a character's different portrayal in other medium is not german to an article on a series within which a character appears. The argument presented for its re-addition was"

"this is something pretty standard to note, especially with the connections between the show and the films"

There are a few problems with this reasoning. First, I see precisely zero cited connections between this series and the movie in which the character was portrayed by another character. If they are part of the same "shared universe", provide a solid, explicit reference froma reliable source noting that.
Secondly, reverting with the argument that WP:OSE is absolutely begging to be reverted. Just bc something exists in another article doesn't mean it applies to this one.
Lastly, I would argue that the addition of Fan Bingbing's portrayal - no matter how hot you happen to think she is - is simply trvial, as she is not appearing in this series. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

First of all, grow up. Secondly, being against WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to remove something either. Just because that cannot be the sole reasoning for keeping something, doesn't mean it shouldn't be said or taken into account. And thirdly, the article pretty clearly states that the series is set in the same shared universe as the films, in a section called "Shared universe connections" that also notes the film in question, by name, as having an effect on the show. There is nothing wrong with having a short line in an article noting a different portrayal of the same character within the same franchise, and in fact that is something I think many readers would find beneficial. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I've reverted you back. And there it stays until discussion is completed. As that is your last revert, I'd suggest you hold off on reveting for a 4th time.

The Bingbing stuff wasn't removed out of a OSE argument - your re-addition of it citing OSE was what was invalid. It was removed because it has fuck-all to do with the article. And as for the supposed 'shared universe connections,' you might want to re-read that section, bud; it provides you zero cover to create the connection yourself.

If readers have a burning, itching desire to know who else portrayed Blink, I think the wikilink to the character article is enough. You are allowed to disagree, as you clearly do. However, that disagreement - when reverted by others, requires you to come here and discuss the matter, not editwar your preferred version in.

And if you are wondering why you picked up some heat over this, I think tha tonce you are reverted, reverting a third time without a full discussion earns you a metaphorical thump on the head/trout-slap/whatever.

Stop reverting. Start discussing. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

You seriously need to check your attitude mate, because it is completely inappropriate. The article stays with the WP:STATUSQUO, as it has been since before it was even moved to the mainspace, while we discuss the bold changes that others believe should be made. My initial revert of your edit was made because what you did appeared like vandalism to me. When the edit was made again, I reverted with some actual reasoning. Since that obviously wasn't enough, I am of course happy to discuss the issue at the talk page, as long as you refrain from attacking me in multiple places at once.

I know exactly what is in the "shared universe connections" section, and it very explicitly states that the series is set in the same general universe as the films, and that it takes place in one of the alternate timelines revealed in the film X-Men: Days of Future Past (which is the film that we are discussing). Additionally, all of the commentary on Chung's casting in the series noted the connection between her version and Bingbing's, and we need to reflect those sorts of real world areas as well. That is two specific reasons for including the information, and the only reasoning you have provided for removing it is your personal belief that it has fuck-all to do with the article, which is fine for you to feel if you wish, but not good enough in terms of what should or should not be in a Wikipedia article. So unless you have some actual reasoning for removing the information, I suggest you take your personal beliefs and abhorrent attitude and go bother somebody else. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi... not wanting to get involved in the ultra-fun conflict, but I don't think a character's portrayal by another actress in another medium is relevant (again, this can be found from the character article that is clearly linked), at least not in the Cast list section. If you want to include it in a "Casting" section on the basis that some sources have mentioned it, maybe a case in that limited way can be made but Fan Bingbing is not at all involved in this project; her mention is inappropriate as the article is about the TV show, not about Blink and who has and/or will portray her. Also, just because sources may have mentioned it doesn't mean we must. The sources are writing from an entertainment news perspective; that is not the same audience/perspective for an encyclopedia. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

I would agree with you if the other medium was completely unrelated and unconnected. But that's not the case here. This X-men show and the X-men movies are connected, so I believe it is a relevant piece of information to include. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Sorry, Adamston.97: I couldn't hear you over the failure to AGF, "mate"; you got attitude after reverting the second time. ::::And the general comment that the films share the "same general universe" is not the same as stating unequivcally that they inhabit the same one. Got cite for that? If so, bring that; this assumption isn't going to fly. In either case, even if the series does in fact share the same exact universe as the film, you haven't presented any information as to why Blink is being portrayed by two different people. Ergo, its you, adding your personal opinion that the fac that the character is portrayed by two different actors is in any way important. If this is what you are aiming at, you are taking two different pieces of information and connecting them, as per WP:SYN; kind of a big no-no.
Now, if that isn't it, and you are just yearning to show that the character has been protrayed by another actor, we have the wikilink for the character, so interested readers can follow it to find out more information. This article is about the series, not the movie, and certainly not about the character.
It doesn't belong here. Maybe, instead of insisting you are right, you should probably ask around. That is, after you've dealt with the edit-warring complaint. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring the abuse, let me try to respond to your guys' points. The medium of the different projects is irrelevant. If an actor takes over a role within the same franchise, then at least a short line noting that is completely within the scope of a cast and characters list. I am not suggesting that we list every appearance of any of these characters before in any medium, just this one instance where the character has already appeared within the same franchise. And this series and the films are very clearly sourced as being connected in the article, whether you like it or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My point was never that the series and films aren't occurring in some kind of a shared universe (although from all the sources I've read, this is a "loosely shared" situation): my point is that Fan Bingbing has nothing to do with this show. She does have to do with the character, that's true, and that's why she's mentioned in the Blink article. Maybe if the TV show were Blink: The Series such a mention would be reasonable (again, I would still argue in a "Casting" section and not the cast list, which should be for people credited in the work in question). But reference to her does not belong here unless she for some reason shows up in this series. And yes, medium does matter. We're not listing people who have voiced Thunderbird before in animated versions of X-Men shows (nor should we). The fact that someone else played Blink not in a previous TV series but in movies is trivia. For instance, do we list Linda Carter or Christopher Reeve in the cast list for Justice League, even though their portrayals of those characters are far more established and arguably more iconic than Gal Gadot's or Henry Cavill's? No. In fact, we don't even mention the previous portrayers in the cast lists of the movies in which Gadot or Cavill first appeared playing those characters... and in the case of the two actors playing Superman, that is in the same medium. Likewise, we don't mention that Grant Gustin played the Flash before Ezra Miller in cast lists about Miller's portrayal of the character. John Wesley Shipp is only glancingly referred to in the article on the current Flash TV series even though in addition to playing the Flash before Gustin, he has also played at least 2 different characters on the current show, including the current (TV) Flash's father. Christian Bale is mentioned as having played Batman previous to Affleck in the article about Batman v Superman... but only in the "Casting" section because there are reliable sources that have people involved in the new or old projects directly mentioning the connection. Your insistence on mentioning Bingbing so prominently here is WP:UNDUE given the subject of the article. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

None of those are examples of two actors playing playing the same character of the same universe. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 06:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Exactly, more appropriate examples would be Cheadle taking over as Rhodey in Iron Man 2, the recasting of Tina Minoru for Runaways, or (for an example within this franchise) the new version of Caliban in Logan. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, yet again. The sources, as JoeyConnick has already pointed out (as have I) do not specify that this takes place within the same, exact universe. Since they don't, we don't mention the connect. As well, who the flying fuck cares that Bingbing played a role before someone else; that isn't the point of this article.

Now, if someone can point out how noting Bingbing's portrayal in another medium, in only a barely similar universe, is absolutely critical to an understanding of THIS series article, I'm all ears. Since no one has done that, even mentioning her outside of Blink's (or the film's) article is trvial and unimportant. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:00, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The show is set in one of the timelines revealed in X-Men: Days of Future Past (fact). A character from that film is also appearing in the show (fact). That deserves at least a mention, if not more (similar examples already provided). The criteria for including content is not for it to be absolutely critical to an understanding of an article (that's just stupid). You will not get far by denying sourced facts and making up stupid regulations. And if you truly don't give a flying fuck, then why are you still here? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:57, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your very first statement, "The show is set in one of the timelines revealed in X-Men: Days of Future Past (fact)" indicates that you are deeply misreading the actual statements offered by the showrunners. What was actually said (and I am quoting the source material used in the article):

“One of the great favors that Days of Future Past did for all of us is establish that there are many streams,” “One answer is that we exist in one of those streams. This is its own universe, we don’t exist in the same timeline as any specific movie or comics. But there are shared characters. We’re doing our own thing, and, as I say, there are many streams.”

So, while the series uses the "multiple time streams" method to justify its storyline, it is as connected to the movie as the different versions of Quicksilver existing in botyh the Avengers and X-Men film franchises - possibly even less so. Nix himself states that the series exists in its own universe. Furthermore, Kofi Outlaw from Comicbook.com notes Donner's statement at Comic-Con 2017:

"Donner was asked by a fan if Gifted and Legion could be part of one shared universe, but also doused that hope: 'I’m sorry to break your heart. No, but thank you for wanting it'...This revelation is a MASSIVE step back from the entire initial selling point of The Gifted, which was that it would be the extension of the X-Men cinematic universe that Legion wasn't."

Therefore, no connection between past portrayals and current portrayals (outside of the article for the portrayed character). So your "fact" that they exist in a specific timeline outlined in the film or is even connected in any way (outside of a MacGuffin) is utterly shattered.

Tons of characrers from the comics are going to appear in the series in one form or another, very much like what occurs/occurred in Smallville, Arrow and Gotham. None of those series note prior portrayals of characters from comics or films in film, and for good reason. They aren't important. Noting it is the very definition of trivial.

And as for your last contention that its "stupid" to insist that articles are better off avoiding trivial bits and should be written with an eye towards GA or FA status, I think that is the crux of our disagreement. I do not think that slinging trivial shit at an article to see what sticks is productive. You are supposed to add bits that make the article stronger, not bulkier. Your adding trvia about a prior portrayal of a character fattens the article, not strengthens it.

Lastly, I would point out that my choice of language shouldn't be interpreted as me attacking you, unless you do something exceptionally trout-slap-worthy. Take offense if you really need to, but it ain't directed at you, unless you provoke it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I definitely understand now that your foul language is simply an unfortunate part of your personality. And I am writing with an eye towards GA or FA status (I am reasonably experienced in that department). Your "proof" that there is no connection is simply the producers trying to explain to the common fanboy that this isn't going to be Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., where everything is connected. That doesn't change the fact that the creator has drawn a connection between the series and the film. Regardless, this isn't really worth my time anymore. Though I do think the line should stay, it isn't going to break the article if it isn't there, so I won't make a fuss if you were to have it removed again. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

You say "unfortunate" but I usually get "refreshing". Anyhiow, while you think the creators' use of a MacGuffin to pigeonhole the series is a connection, the other showrunners have definitively said that it isn't. In any case, the statement doesn't help the article about the series. If Fan Bingbong should pop in as a n alternatve version of Blink in the series, that would definitely be worth a mention. Until then, its dead weight. Have a good one. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a note to the editors involved with this discussion that the Bingbing info has been readded to the article given the two versions of the character are discussed together in a new interview with the showrunner. I am happy to discuss this further if you disagree with this decision. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Same objection as before: irrelevant to this article, available at the far more appropriate article on the character, and certainly not notable enough to be included in the cast list info. —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But why do you think it is irrelevant? The showrunner went out of his way to make the connection, unprompted, so he thinks it is relevant. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it's irrelevant because not everything a showrunner says about a series belongs in an encyclopedia article on the series. At most it should be mentioned in the "Production/Development" section. Or, you know, you could mention there was a previous iteration of the character (again, in the films, which—however connected they may or may not be—are not this series) and still not need to mention who played that previous iteration, because in the context of what you're quoting, what matters is that there was a previous iteration, not that said previous iteration was played by X, Y, or Z. The mention of Fan Bing Bing is clearly WP:UNDUE. The cast list should talk about the cast for this series, not the cast for film properties which are not this series. —Joeyconnick (talk) 06:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But if we are talking about both iterations and don't mention that the film one was played by someone else, then readers could get confused and think that Chung was in both, which would be misleading readers who don't know a whole lot about this stuff when there is a simple way to avoid that—just say that someone else played her in the film. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I think thats the most racist thing I've ever heard someone say on here. What, you think the casual reader can't tell Asians apart? That's absolute fucking nonsense. This movie is not a follow-up to the X-Men movies. We have the show-runners saying this, in no uncertain terms. Put down the stick. Bing doesn't belong in the article. If you feel differently, escalate the matter. My mind is pretty much settled on the matter; your comment didn't help matters at all. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

That said, your rampant synthesis in trying to marry three different sources into including your crush can be fixed, and I've made an attempt to remove the artificial connections that Adamstom 9 made, bc we'd get crucified for that in GA review. You're welcome. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You need to calm down. First you accused me of racism for no good reason, and now synthesis for no good reason as well. In the sourced interview, Chung clearly states, while talking about representation for Asian Americans, "If it wasn’t for Fan Bingbing, who played Clarice first, and they turned [her] into Clarice Fong instead of Clarice Ferguson; the flexibility that 20th Century Fox had with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective." That is where my statement in the article comes from. I didn't just make it up to spite you. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I tend to get a bit bent out of shape when someone says that the reader might get confused and think Chung was in both, like readers cannot tell Asians apart. I am prepared to AGF and let that go, but continuing to argue that point gets zero traction with me.

You wanted Bingbing in (for whatever reason), and cherrypicked sources to shoehorn it in. The quote you use as your sole defense missed the immediate sentence above it:

"Thank god for shows like Fresh Off the Boat, [upcoming film] Crazy Rich Asians. People that are really making an effort to show what it is to be an Asian American."

She didn't get cast bc Bingbing was Asian in the film (which again, has no bearing whatsoever on this series, in any way, shape or form), she was cast because of the (slightly) widening diversity of Hollywood and other shows and movies that portray Asians in a positive, non-stereotypical role. That is what needed to be said. Both Fan and Chung benefited from that widening diversity. To suggest that Chung got the role because Fan did before is not what the source says. The synthesis arose from you drawing a straight line from Fan's casting to Chung's. That isn't there, and we don't get to make that connection.
Of course, you are entitled to disagree. In that case, open an RfC to bring more eyes to the matter, and we'll go from there. Until then, we should leave the article alone until more opinions than yours an mine can build a consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I said that readers of this article might think that Chung played the character in the film as well, not that people watching the film and show will confuse the two because they are both Asian. That is obviously ridiculous. What is also ridiculous is this idea that I am doing everything I can to shoehorn my "favorite actress" into an unrelated article. I don't know where you got that idea from, but it is stupid.

The reason that the film version is first mentioned in the paragraph is because the showrunner has specifically said that he wanted to expand on that version. Bingbing is then mentioned, as I explain above, to make sure the reader doesn't mistakenly think that Chung is reprising her role from the film.

As for the latest interview added, Chung does not say that she was cast thanks to Fresh Off the Boat, that line is just her praising some recent and notable examples of diversity. What she says after that, is acknowledging that she probably wouldn't have been looked at for the role if the character's race had not been changed when Binbing was cast, since the character is white in the comics. So of those two points, what is more suitable for this brief paragraph? The general comment on representation in the industry or an acknowledgement of a major factor that allowed her to be cast? - adamstom97 (talk) 01:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You state: 'The reason that the film version is first mentioned in the paragraph is because the showrunner has specifically said that he wanted to expand on that version.'

This is pointedly incorrect:

"Donner was asked by a fan if Gifted and Legion could be part of one shared universe, but also doused that hope: 'I’m sorry to break your heart. No, but thank you for wanting it'...This revelation is a MASSIVE step back from the entire initial selling point of The Gifted, which was that it would be the extension of the X-Men cinematic universe that Legion wasn't."

So, please let that argument go, as they are as unrelated as the Smallville series' Green Arrow is to the comic book version of the same character. The Gifted is about Mutants, and its in the Marvel universe, but not the same universe as any of the X-Men films.

You state: "...since the character is white in the comics"

This is also fabulously incorrect. The character is fucking mauve. Or lilac. Point is, she ain't white. She ain't Asian. Throughout the entire character history (until very recently), she's been pinkish-purple.

Additionally, I submit that you are offering undue weight as to Chung's impression she was cast becasue Fan was. She clearly notes that the way was paved by others and that opportunities were created that both Fan and Chung were able to use. Chung wasn't cast because Fan was Asian - or at least you have no source that explicitly says that, and that is precisely what you need. Otherwise, its your assumption that one leads to the other, as it is your assumption that readers would "confuse" Chung with Fan. Its a ridonkulous supposition, and opens you to being thought of as racist. There are very, very few series wherein the person cast in the movie also stars in the follow-up series. And this isn't even a follow-up series. It isn't a continuation, or a sequel. Its a series making use of a multiverse loophole that most series use anyway without calling it such.

So, your argument is invalid in both substance and infrastructure. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You are once again completely ignoring what the sources actually say. I said, "The reason that the film version is first mentioned in the paragraph is because the showrunner has specifically said that he wanted to expand on that version." This comes from when Nix says, "In the X-Men movie, “Days of Future Past,” she’s sort of the girl who makes portals, but doesn’t say much." He then goes on to explain how the series is going to expand on the character much more than that. This is something he has repeated in other interviews as well. And I don't know what colour the character is in the comics, I'm not a fanboy. I am just going off of what I read in the interview, and Chung feels that she wouldn't have been considered for the role if the films had not cast an Asian actress in the role first. She does say that, and that is very noteworthy. A single, brief line about it is hardly undue weight. And stop calling me racist, it is unfounded and, given your history of abusive behaviour, comes across as just another way for you to attack fellow editors that are doing something you disagree with. I have very clearly explained what I meant with my statement, and I stand by it: if you are discussing a character appearing in a film and a TV series in a single paragraph, and only mention one actress, it is likely that readers who don't know of the content could mistakenly think that the actress was in both. There is nothing racist about wanting to prevent that confusion. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You keep noting Nix, over and over again. Your point was made. However, you are drawing an inference that Nix wante dto cast an Asian in the role, and every fucking edit made with a bent to that idea is intellectually dishonest, so maybe you could stop doing that.

Yes, Nix wanted to develop out the Blink character. THAT IS ALL HE SAID. You tried to use Nix to tie this to the movie as well, but that argument is equally flawed. Nix isn't the sole showrunner on this; he works with Donner. Donner has said - explicitly - that they aren't related. I point this out again, because you seem to have it in your head that the two are related. This broken synthesis on your part is what is likely driving your intent to include Fan at all costs. It is an invalid argument.

Read the source again. She didn't get the Blink gig bc Fan had the role before. Both her and Fan were given the opportunity to do so because of other Asians forgina path for non-stereotypical roles for Asians. She actually says this. Anything that places undue weight suggesting a causal relationship between Fan's casting and Chung's casting is, in short, stupid and nonreflective of the actual sources. If necessary, I can bring at least a half dozen sources where Chung talks about the trailblazers for Asian roles in Hollywood. You could, too, if you weren't seemingly bonering to put this Chung and Fan connection in. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You obviously don't know what you are talking about (Nix is the sole showrunner by the way). I don't see any point in arguing with you any more, so I think it'll be best if we look for some more opinions on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I disagree with you, so I must be wrong. Shya. Anyway, good call on bringing in more eyes to the subject. Wow, if only someone had suggested that before...oops.

Perhaps you forgot about Lauren Shuler Donner, the Executive Producer of the show and (greater than equal) member of the creative team. Perhaps you are unaware of how when an exec. producer wants a particular view of the series given, that is the way it plays out, irregardless of what the other showrunners want. She said it wasn't part of the universe (severing any logical need to mention Fan in this article at all), so that's that. As Nix used the MacGuffin approach to tie it tenuously to the X-Men franchise, he didn't connect it either. So file the RfC, because the only way I see we can connect Fan and Chung is on the Blink article page. It doesn't belong here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:06, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I never said that you didn't suggest it before. And no, Donner is not a showrunner; executive producer =/= showrunner. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC

This RfC is about a debate regarding two different versions of a paragraph. Firstly, here is my version:

Jamie Chung as Clarice Fong / Blink: A "sarcastic, lively" mutant with teleportation powers. An "independently minded" member of the mutant underground, Blink begins the series using her abilities as "a way out of situations she doesn't want to be in", but her abilities and relationship to them evolve throughout the series. Nix wanted to use the series as a chance to develop the character further than her appearance in the film X-Men: Days of Future Past, where she was portrayed by Fan Bingbing. Chung noted that the character is not Asian-American in the comics, and that she got the opportunity to take on the role because of that change being made for Bingbing's portrayal.

And that of Jack Sebastian:

Jamie Chung as Clarice Fong / Blink: A "sarcastic, lively" mutant with teleportation powers. An "independently minded" member of the mutant underground, Blink begins the series using her abilities as "a way out of situations she doesn't want to be in", but her abilities and relationship to them evolve throughout the series. Nix wanted to use the series as a chance to develop the character further than her appearance in the film X-Men: Days of Future Past, Chung credits her casting as Blink to the increased diversity of Asians in films and television.

I believe that since we discuss the version of the character from the films as well as this television version, we need to note that a different actress played the character in the film so we aren't implying to readers who haven't watched the films that Chung was in them. Jack Sebastian believes that since the connections between the show and films are not clearly defined (there has been a lot of back-and-forth regarding this as can be seen in the article, though the consensus from the series' showrunner seems to be that the show is connected to the films via an alternate timeline plot device) there should be no mention of the film actress at all. I also have interpreted this interview as Chung praising some notable examples of Asian American representation, and then noting that she was likely only considered for the role because an Asian actress was cast for the film (given that the character is not Asian in the comics). Jack Sebastian interprets the same interview as Chung feeling that she was only cast in the role because of a growing trend in Asian American representation. There doesn't appear to be any compromise between the two coming, so we are hoping for some outside opinions here. Thanks in advance to anyone who comments, adamstom97 (talk) 21:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem for me is that three of the four different creative team responsible for the show say it flat-out isn't part of any X-Men story. The fourth, Nix, muses in a passing interview at a convention that it might be some zany alternate timeline 'thing'. There is zero need to mention it in this article, as the movie and series are so drastically different that connecting them (beyond the subject matter and a completely different version of a character) is laughable and fanboyish. Why Fan was cast as Blink is anyone's guess; I couldn't find any source discussing that. What was available was Chung acknowledging that the increased diversity of Asians in film and TV media (she offered two examples) opened the door for her to step into the role. Fan got the role for reasons uncitable at this time. Chung says in an interview that she got it because of increased diversity. Any other suggestion is synthesis:

Fan Bingbing, an Asian, portrayed Blink, a non-Asian. Jamie Chung is Asian. Therefore, she got the role because Fan Bingbing and Jamie Chung are both Asian.

There are some rather ugly, racist underpinnings to that synthesis. I'd prefer we avoid it completely.

That Fan also portrayed the same role as Chung is a fact that belongs in the article about Blink. Not in an article about a series completely unrelated to the films. It's distracting. This is my view of the situation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see the harm in including the mention of Fan Bingbing. I for one just found that immensely informative just coming to this RfC section. Reading through Jack's version, I took it that Nix also portrayed Blink in DoFP, which was obviously not the case. The connection or lack of connection between the two properties doesn't seem to be that relevant in this part of the article, beyond the fact that both used X-Men characters and the same character at that, portrayed by different actresses both times. As for the part about the representation, why not just mash the two together? I felt both Adam and Jack's thoughts were correct in reading the source article. So why not make it Chung credited her casting for Blink, who is not Asian-American in the comics, to the increased diversity of Asian actors in films and television, and because of Bingbing previous portrayal. or something of the like? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not against compromising, though I do think the fact about the character is more important than the fact about the general industry in terms of this article. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that the fact about the different portrayals of the character belong in the article about that character, not an article about the series. The less we synthetically connect the series to the movie, the better off the article is. Its been clearly stated in sources that they aren't related or sequential. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

You keep saying that, but it is pretty clear from the sources that are in this article that they are related. Just because the in-universe continuity isn't all nicely tied together like other franchises doesn't mean that they aren't "related" in some way. And if the showrunner mentions how a film has influenced his take on a character in the series, then that should be mentioned in that character's paragraph. That's just common sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I keep saying it,A., because its simply true. Yes, Nix did indeed tried to piggyback the series off the movie, but admitted that it was just a possible time stream, or whatever. Donner, in no uncertain terms specifically said that the series has zilch to do with the movie:

"Donner was asked by a fan if Gifted and Legion could be part of one shared universe, but also doused that hope: 'I’m sorry to break your heart. No, but thank you for wanting it'...This revelation is a MASSIVE step back from the entire initial selling point of The Gifted, which was that it would be the extension of the X-Men cinematic universe that Legion wasn't."(1).

So, take Nix' comment out of context all you want, but Donner is part of the creative team and executive producer for the series. Her word is fucking law, as far as Gifted is concerned. There is no confusing continuity, unless you're a fanboy. Its a series that uses elements of the franchise; it isn't a continuity. Your very words:

"Just because the in-universe continuity isn't all nicely tied together like other franchises doesn't mean that they aren't "related" in some way." (bold mine).

You readily admit that you don't know how they are related, so your insistence that they are is your personal opinion, not borne out by fact.

So, in effect, we shouldn't argue that they are connected until the series - or the show runners explicitly connect the two. Until then, we're Sherlocking the shit out an offhand comment by Nix, and that doesn't work here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Saying that the series isn't going to have anything to do with the films does not mean that it isn't connected in some way. Donner is making sure people don't get their hopes about about any crossovers or anything, because that just isn't going to happen and they want to tell an independent story. But Nix has stated that though they have separated the story, the franchise is still connected through this alternate timeline device. You don't just get to choose which executive producers you want to listen to, which is why I have included all of the discussion on the shared universe connections and not just a single quote that supports some sort of agenda. Again, whether everything is tied up nicely with a bow is irrelevant; it may be messy, but the showrunner considers them to be tangentially related, and you are in no position to say that he is wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are interpreting the referenced comments. We don't do that here. Since the RfC was created to bring in other comments, maybe stifle your urge to comment and let others do so. Your position is pretty clear, as is mine. Let's get some other input, okey-doke? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I also took Jack's version to mean the same actress played Blink in the film and in the television series. Naming the other actress isn't neccesary, but it's certainly the easiest way to make it clear. Jack's version doesn't work as-is because it fails to mention Blink isn't asian in the comics, so the diversity line has no context.

After reviewing the source, I don't think Nix wanted to use the series as a chance to develop the character further than her appearance in the film works. In the source, he's specifically saying he was to explore her powers more, and that's already clear from the previous sentence. I suggest a third option:

Jamie Chung as Clarice Fong / Blink: A "sarcastic, lively" mutant with teleportation powers.[1] An "independently minded" member of the mutant underground, Blink begins the series using her abilities as "a way out of situations she doesn't want to be in", but her abilities and relationship to them evolve throughout the series.[2] The character, who is caucasian in the comics, was played by Chinese actress Fan Bingbing in X-Men: Days of Future Past.[3] Chung, who is Korean, noted she got the opportunity to take on the role because of Bingbing's portrayal.[4]

Argento Surfer (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Either Adamstom97 or Argento Surfer's version would work for me, though I think Adamstom97's version is a bit clearer about the link to Bingbing's portrayal, and I don't think he's overstepping the source when he says Nix wanted to develop Blink's character further than in the film. Nix's remark "In the X-Men movie, Days of Future Past, she’s sort of the girl who makes portals, but doesn’t say much" makes it pretty clear that he's talking about more than just Blink's powers.

As Favre already said, whether or not the TV show and the films are related is irrelevant. If we're going to allude to Blink's appearance in X-Men: Days of Future Past in the same breath that we discuss Chung's casting in the role (and even Jack Sebastian's version does that), it only makes sense to mention that a different actress played Blink in that film. Otherwise we needlessly create the potential for confusion.--NukeofEarl (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I misread him. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that we don't draw an incorrect inference that Chung was cast in the role bc Fan was. There were larger reasons (ie. the expanded opportunities for Asians in film/tv roles due to forerunners). There is a far clearer path from that than suggesting Chung was cast because she's Asian just like Fan. That has some inherent racial overtones we simply don't need. I am not saying you need to be Asian to get what I am saying, but I'm married to one, so I know the shit that gets said without being said, if you catch my drift. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

To try and put it another way, the character is not obviously Asian in the comics, so they went out of their way when making the film to go in that direction, and Chung feels that they wouldn't have done that for the TV show is they hadn't done it for the film first. And thus, she feels that she would not have even been considered for the part. If you have a better way of phrasing that in the article, then we can try add that along with a blip about greater Asian representation in general TV. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"so they went out of their way when making the film to go in that direction" They abso-fucking-lutely did not cast her for that reason, but I double dog dare you to try and support that with a RS'd reference. I challenge you bc you aren't going to find it. Its an assumption that you are making; why are you unable to see that? Please take the time to get some perspective.

I get what you're saying Jack, but it's important to note that we're not synthesizing the connection between Bingbing's casting and Chong's casting - Chung did in the source ("If it wasn’t for Fan Bingbing..."), and the article clearly identifies it as her opinion. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The same source pointedly points out that Chung credits the trailblazers of other Asian programs that afforded her and Fanthe chance. It is an assumption (and not by Chung) that she was cast because Fan was, and the heart of OR. Chung did not get the role bc Fan was Asian, and never suggests such.

I see this entire example, from its origins to current discussion as an effort by one contributor to shoehorn Fan Bingbing into the article, where there is no reason to do so. The argument has morphed into how the movie and serie are somehow continuations or whatever into what it is now.

There's an easy way to resolve this: find a source that says that Chung was cast because she was Asian, just like Fan was. Get that, and my objections evaporate. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm just going to repeat my point here, and I hope that you can give a sensical reply this time: Blink is not Asian in the comics; an Asian actress was cast as Blink in the film; Chung feels that the series would not have done that if the film didn't; she therefore would not have been considered for the role. That is not my opinion, it is hers. No one is saying she got cast because she was Asian, only that she, as an Asian actress, got the chance to be considered because of the film's choice to do so as well. She also praises other recent examples of Asian representation in TV, which we can also mention here if you really want. And I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I HAVE NO INTEREST IN SHOEHORNING BINGBING INTO THIS ARTICLE, THAT IS ALL IN YOUR HEAD. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Both Adam's version and yours mention the character appeared in DoFP. FarveFan1 and I both agree that it's misleading to omit Bingbing's name, because it left both of us with the impression the character was being played by the same person in the film and show. Unless Farvefan misspoke in his comment above, your omission of Bingbing's name even led him to believe the character was played by Nix, not Chung, in both instances. This isn't one editor shoehorning a namedrop. It's consensus that you don't like. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with consensus; I have a problem with sources being misrepresented. As I have noted before, my sole concern is the interpretation that Chung thinks she got the role because Fan did, and there appears to be not even a single source for that assertion. Chung explicitly credits her and Fan for getting the role because of the expanded availability of roles for Asians. My sole problem is the misassertion that Chung said she got the role because Fan did. I certainly hope that's clear enough. If not, we're out of luck, because hand-puppets or semaphore flags don't translate well over Wikipedia. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:06, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

If you don't think Chung said that she got the role because Fan did, then what do you think she meant by "If it wasn’t for Fan Bingbing, who played Clarice first, and they turned [her] into Clarice Fong instead of Clarice Ferguson"?--NukeofEarl (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"If it wasn’t for Fan Bingbing, who played Clarice first, and they turned [her] into Clarice Fong instead of Clarice Ferguson; the flexibility that 20th Century Fox had with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective." - To me that corresponds with and supports the statement "that she got the opportunity to take on the role because of that change being made for Bingbing's portrayal.". I also agree with the other editors that omitting Bingbing's name out can lead to misinterpretation. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the only reason why confusion might arise is due to the shoehorned assumption that the series and the movie are related somehow. We have clear, citable quotations from one of the show runners (and exec producer) that they aren't. At all. Remove any reference to the movie, and the confusion abut casting evaporates. And the whole casting an Asian is pretty heavy-handed; just touching on it solves the problem.

Here's a version of the cast entry that avoids that:

Jamie Chung as Clarice Fong / Blink:

A "sarcastic, lively" mutant with teleportation powers.[15] Described by Nix as member of the mutant underground who isn't really a joiner. "What I love about Blink," he notes, "is her powers are sort of like, 'I’m out of here. Screw you guys.'" Chung credits her casting in the series (as the comic book character is not Asian) to "the flexibility that 20th Century Fox had with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective." Chung wears heavy-duty contact lenses to portray Blink's mutant eyes.[18]

- Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It needs some tweaks - 1. Remove the contraction ("isn't") 2. rewrite to avoid the parenthetical 3.be positve instead of negative ("comic character is caucasion", not "comic character is not Asian"). 4. Specify Chung's ethnicity so the reader knows why we're talking about Asians. Otherwise, I'm ok with that.

As an aside, is the character Asian, or Asian-American? And is there a reason to be vague (Asian) instead of specific (Korean)? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The tweaks you suggest are excellent; they would be incorporated int he final version before implementation in the article.

Chung is Asian American, iirc. Most people don't differentiate; it isn't as if it matters in a portrayal. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Arbitrary break

• Compromise - I was alerted from the RfC at WP:COMICS. I think that what universe they are set in is irrelevant. If the same character was played by a different actress in Days of Future Past, it should be mentioned so that the readers don't think that she was portrayed by Chung in that film. As for the differences in interpretation, there is an easy solution - If two editors are interpreting the same quote differently, just use the direct quote in the text... Or simply make it more ambiguous until we get more elaboration from Chung and the show's crew. If there are two different interpretations of the same quote, using one over the other conflicts with WP:OR. DarkKnight2149 16:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

As you might have read, my revision of the cast entry for Chung sidesteps the movie completely. I am not sure why people would confuse the two actors portraying the same role in different mediums, and when we aren't addressing something in an unrelated, unconnected movie. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: In regards to the edit, the above 'quote' labeled "That of Jack Sebastian" mentioned the film. Since you are who it's attributed to, I should ask you directly, as a means of helping clear things up - Is that quote of your revision accurate? From what I can gather (there's a bit too much back-and-forth to read everything at once), adamstom's reasoning for mentioning the film is because it was mentioned in the interview. I'm also gathering that you and adam are both interpreting the same quote differently and that's where much of the debate is coming from. That's why I suggested using the direct quote from the interview itself (rather than trying to summarise it), as a means of solving some of the argument. When two determined editors are locked in a heated debate, it's very probable that neither of you may get 100% of what you both want. I believe that the most reasonable solution would be to make an effort to find some sort of middle ground. DarkKnight2149 23:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149, the reason I paraphrased the quote to begin with is that the wording used isn't all that straight-forward to follow, though I did think that its meaning was clear. Obviously that was an incorrect assumption, so I think the best thing to do in terms of that is just establish consensus on how to interpret the original quote. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Because that's been done to death, without resolution. As DK stated, the problem is that you and I are interpreting a non "straight-forward" quote. Since it is creating two polarizing interpretations, its seems prudent to avoid the thing until more references eventually appear and revisit the discussion. If you want to debate the merits/flaws of my suggested substitute phrase, which sidesteps the movie (until come future connection is established, if at all), I'm all ears. Trying to reinvent the wheel and interpret a vague, one-source only statement about racial casting is less productive. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:27, 10:23, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

So, here is the version of the cast entry (with the suggested edits):

Jamie Chung as Clarice Fong / Blink:

A "sarcastic, lively" mutant with teleportation powers.[15] Described by Nix as a loner within the mutant underground. "What I love about Blink," he notes, "is her powers are sort of like, 'I’m out of here. Screw you guys.'" Ethnically-Korean Chung credits her casting in the series (as the comic book character is Caucasian) to "the flexibility that 20th Century Fox had with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective." Chung wears heavy-duty contact lenses to portray Blink's mutant eyes.[18], and as the series progresses, her character gains new facial tattoos.new ref

This seems, imo, the best way to resolve the issue. No mention of the character for about 10 seconds in a movie that has zero connection to the series. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

But the "flexibility" from 20th Fox was for DoFP casting Fan Bingbing, not Chung. So you still have to mention that, otherwise you are misrepresenting the statement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Since the movie and the series are not directly-related (as per the showrunners and producers), there is not need to talk about the film at all. No casual reader would assume that a film actor deigned to appear on the small screen in the same role; it hasn't happened ever before, so why would any reasonable reader make that asumption? Since the Blink character is wikilinked to their own article, readers can follow their bliss and read about all the other portrayals. And the statement is not being misrepresented. Chung thanks Fan for her portrayal, but explciitly notes how other programs have paved the road for Asians. Not Fan.

However, feel totally free to show me an explicit reference wherein Chung says she got the role because Fan was Asian. Without it, its a dead-end road. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The star of Agents of Shield is from the Avengers franchise. The actress who plays Sif in the Thor franchise has made multiple appearances in Agents of Shield. So has Sam Jackson.

Four editors here agree that the referenced interview is an explicit instance of Chung crediting Fan. One suggested compromise without commenting on the actual content. You're the only one saying it's unclear. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, since there seems to be all this confusion, let's bring the relevant quote in:

This also a cool role because there are still not a lot of Asian Americans on TV, and in general, it seems like it’s up to genre shows, which frequently make more of an effort towards representation.

""""It’s a show about diversity, and about a group of minorities that are being shunned by society. So they better have [minority representation] on the show. It’s a constant struggle, and it’s not to par — it’s not where we want it to be, but I think it’s going to be an ongoing battle. Thank god for shows like Fresh Off the Boat, [upcoming film] Crazy Rich Asians. People that are really making an effort to show what it is to be an Asian American. It’s nice that they’re featuring those stories.'

"If it wasn’t for Fan Bingbing, who played Clarice first, and they turned [her] into Clarice Fong instead of Clarice Ferguson; the flexibility that 20th Century Fox had with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective. It’s nice that they’re doing that, but it’s nowhere near equal.'(1)

Now, take a good, long hard look at what is being said. Nowhere in that reference do I see Chung saying she was cast because Fan was. I am clearly seeing that Fan AND her were cast because of a "flexibility that 20th Century Fox had with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective."
Suggesting that Chung was cast simply because she was Asian like Fan is both outrageously racist and utterly unfounded.
And, if we are being entirely honest here, Fan was cast to imnprove marketshare in overseas markets, specifically China (2) Tossing an Asian into an American series for the same reason is stupid (most series from here never get seen overseas).
Additionally, the history of whistewashing traditionally Asian roles is notorious and well-documented (3), which makes the casting of both Fan and Chung refreshingly alternative. The realiation and backlash for whitewashing has opened doors for Asians that - very simply - weren't there before.
Enough of the soapboxing. To suggest that Chung was cast just because she was Asian like Fan is insulting, not just to the reader but to the subject matter and likely, to Chung herself (4, 5, 6). She even pointedly says, "Originally Blink was Clarice Ferguson in comic books, but she’s a mutant so she can be whatever she wants to be. It can be to my advantage sometimes, but it’s so frustrating. I can talk on and on.". Suggesting that Chung only got the role because she's Asian like Fan is denigrating to her; she was chosen because of her other roles. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No one here has put forth that Chung got the role because she's Asian like Bingbing. That's a strawman. What I (and others, I believe) take the quote to say is that Chung got the role because Bingbing broke the barrier first. Accusations of racism are going to shut this discussion down pretty quick. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

That's the crux of the problem; you think Fan broke the barrier, and yet have zero references that say that. I've supplied sources a-plenty that indicate that the barriers dropped for both of them - Chung's casting didn't domino from Fan's, at least not according to sources.

Since Fan's casting had no citable input/impact on casting for the series, we go with the answer we can cite: she got it through the dropping of racial barriers in Hollywood. You need look no further than the other casting decisions: Sean Teale, a person of Hispanic heritage is cast as someone of similar ethnicity, as is Blair Redford, a person of (faint) Native American ethnicity portraying a person of the same ethnicity. There is a clear openness of the series to people of non-white descent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you have some personal issues that may be clouding your judgement, but multiple editors are interpreting this differently to you. We are specifically looking at this passage: "If it wasn’t for Fan Bingbing, who played Clarice first, and they turned [her] into Clarice Fong instead of Clarice Ferguson; the flexibility that 20th Century Fox had with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective." Everyone else is reading this quote as Chung feeling that she wouldn't have got the chance if it wasn't for "the flexibility that 20th Century Fox had" in changing the character from Clarice Ferguson to Clarice Fong (i.e. making the character Asian) when Bingbing was cast. This has nothing to do with why Bingbing was cast (irrelevant to this article) or why Chung was cast (we do not know that), and everything to do with Chung crediting the opportunity for her to play the character with this prior change. There is no racism here, despite what you have been saying since the beginning. Try to step and look at this situation from an un-biased perspective—is everyone but you really completely off-base? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to trout-slap yu for suggesting I have "personal issues clouding my judgment" (but you should note there was a pretty strong initial inkling to do so). Chung is crediting Fan being cast with an increased opening of the field to Asians. She notably benefits from it as well, you are suggesting that she thinks she was cast because Fan was. And she says nothing of the sort. She implicitly points out that both she AND Fan benefitted from this "flexibility." That Fan was cast has no bearing whatsoever to her being cast. You admit as much. Since there is no causation with her being cast because Fan is, and because there is no connection of this series to the movie, there is no need to mention either Fan or the movie. The article about Blink is enough. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am stating that strong claims require equally strong references. You are parsing Chung's words to say something she does not say. Find a reference that says 'Chung got the role because Fan did, and they are both Asians.' Find that, and you're golden. Without it, you are making an unsupported claim. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming that, and the fact that you keep saying so feels like you are using it as a distraction so we won't discuss the actual issue, which you do not have a good argument against. Everybody except you is claiming that Chung got the opportunity because the character's race was changed for the film. That is how we are all interpreting Chung's quote. Nothing about that interpretation has anything to do with why Chung was cast, so there is no point arguing about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting that my argument is but a distraction means you aren't paying attention. I know that you are claiming that Chung got the opportunity to play the part because the race of the character was changed for Fan. I disagree. There is no existing quote that supports that statement. Chung does not say that. No citation you have yet presented supports that. What IS clear is that the opening of Hollywood to more ethnicities is what gave BOTH of them the chance; that is what is supported by the statement. You are suggesting a relationship that says Chung was cast because Fan was cast. Its a shallow view that misses the breadth of the quote.

The trouting comment is ludicrous. You tell us you have an Asian wife and are sensitive to this issue, then call foul when someone says that might cloud your judgment after you say our interpretation of a quote is "outrageously racist." Perhaps you should take a break from this conversation and clear your head. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

False equivocate much? Just because I have an uncommon insight into an issue - an insight that I presume you do not share, as you had to pore through my previous posts to learn I have an Asian wife so as to use it in an argument. You consider that insight to be one that clouds my judgment, simply because you do not share it. And then you suggest I "take a break". Be thankful that I am not less polite, or I'd suggest that you'd know where you can jam that passive-aggressive bullshit, right?

Your viewpoint IS racist, as it suggests that Chung was cast only because Fan was. Its an awful opinion, based on a shit interpretation of a quote parsed out of context. Instead attacking me, maybe take a moment to consider what I am saying, and make sure you do it before attacking me again. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

By "pore through my previous posts", do you mean read this whole discussion? You said it in your first reply to me.

And no, my viewpoint isn't racist. The strawman you keep throwing up is. Perhaps you should WP:LISTEN better.

Finally, you're arguing a minority viewpoint and calling me a racist. I stand by my comment that you should take a break. Saying that straight isn't passive aggressive. Telling me exactly what you'd say if you weren't polite is. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's deconstruct this. Since the referenced interview does not in any way state that Chung got the role because Fan did, why do you think it is vital to the understanding of the article that we include Fan in an article about the series? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

It has been pointed out to me that the racism that I am seeing might be of an accidental nature on the part of the other contributors to the article, and calling people on it isn't the most tactful use of the discussion page. I get that calling you on something you aren't even aware that you are doing is neither fair nor productive.
So, recriminations aside, let me try to point out my problems with this in (hopefully) a clearer way.
The quote that we are both using is located here, and is part of an interview with Jamie Chung (cast in the role of Blink). Note that the question is specifically asking about the lack of presence of Asians on TV. When answering, Chung credits the casting of Fan Bingbing as the same character that she is portraying to the very same forces that allowed her the same opportunity to portray the same role.
So, my takeaway from this is that Chung was not cast in the role as a result of Fan being cast in the role; she was cast because tv producers in Hollywood are trying to counteract the larger practice of Whitewashing.
To me, suggesting that Chung was cast based off of Fan's casting is a racial insensitivity that most Asians (not to mention other folk) would pick on immediately, and one that white folk would probably miss. In retrospect, I realize that most (non-Asian) editors would totally miss the deprecating implication that casting one Asian is a valid assumption to make, seeing as an Asian was cast before, esp. if the fictional character being cast was presumably white (in the comic book, Blink is actually lavender, but with Caucasoid factial features). I took offense at a racial attitiude you probably didn't even know you were displaying, and for that, i am sorry for smacking y'all around for it. If you'd read other stuff about Chung, you would know that she is seriously pissed off about precisely this sort of behavior.
This discussion evolved from one editor's desire to make a connection between the series and the last X-Men movie. It evolved into a drive to mention a the same character being portrayed by other actors. I think it best to leave prior characterizations in the article about the character, not a series with no actual connections to the movie. I (perhaps incorrectly) felt that this bit about Chung's casting was a back-door attempt to shoehorn some odd connection between the movie and the series. To be clear, this series has zero connection to the movie; any argument presuming it needs a helluva lot more referencing than has appeared thus far.
So, this is my view, as transparent as I can make it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have already put a lot of effort into rebutting your claims, so I am not going to say much more, other than reiterate that I have no agenda here, and am not trying to push anything that does not belong in the article. I am only trying to add relevant information to the article. I also disagree that anyone has been racist at all, even if that is the way you have taken it. The fact is, it seems unlikely that Chung would have been considered for the role if the character (who is not Asian in the comics) was not portrayed as Asian in the film first. And that is what Chung herself says in the article, while talking about diversity and representation. Everyone else is not interpreting the interview wrong because we are all racists, we are just interpreting it differently to you. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

You said: "it seems unlikely that Chung would have been considered for the role if the character (who is not Asian in the comics) was not portrayed as Asian in the film first. And that is what Chung herself says in the article..."

I am sorry, but that is factually incorrect. She is speaking of diversity and THEN notes that Fan was cast, and then her. BECAUSE of the diversity. Not the other way around. I must insist that if you are going to use the source, you use it correctly. Lastly, I just made an enormous apology for calling you out on subtle racism you are probably not even aware you are displaying. Perhaps the wrong thing to do is to turn around and call me a racist. Kind of a bonehead move, really. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Now you are just imagining things. I never called you racist. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your new tone and effort at clarity. That said, I am still not persuaded to your point of view. I'm also not inclined to believe I will be able to persuade you to mine, so I'm not sure there's anything more I can contribute to this discussion. I do want to reiterate one last time that whatever the final decision is here, it should be copied to the relevant section of Blink (comics), which is currently constructed very poorly. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I would agree, Argento Surfer; the Blink article is something of a flaming dumpster fire. Perhaps better efforts should be expended on fixing that article than trying to add info that is (at best) incorrect and misleading here in this article. You are correct that my position is unchanged; I was holding out hopes that you'd be more aware of the subtle racism, but that's the problem with racism. Most don't even realize they are exhibiting it, and even get defensive when its pointed out. The Conversation 101. Facts is facts, tho; the chain of sourced events (as well as the actor's own words elsewhere) run counter to the interpretation that you are making. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

"as well as the actor's own words elsewhere" - Perhaps you should point out which source that is. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 04:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, where hasn't she railed on about whitewashing and racial discrimination of Asians in tv and cinema? How about this, this, this, or maybe this. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not that I added references not to make anyone look bad, but instead to hopefully show that a person can have a derogatory viewpoint without either believing or intending such. As such, a lot of people don't think its racist to assume that, because a person of color was chosen for a role, that all subsequent castings must follow that racial profiling. That certainly wasn't the intent of the quote, and yet its emphasis in this article accomplishes precisely that. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No it does not. I don't know why you have decided that you are the only person who knows what racism is, but you are wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I have never suggested that I am the only person who understands what racism is, but I have suggested that, as someone who sees the subtle racism when applied to his own wife and kids, that maybe I have a somewhat keener insight than some. I'm tempted to suggest that your comment is like a roomful of white folks yelling at the black guy for being racislly sensitive, but that would simply (defensively) entrench your personal view that you could not possibly be exhibiting a racial bias.

The real question that you should be distilling from this entire discussion is that if one person might infer a racial assumption, then other readers might as well. I am suggesting that you consider this possibility and restructure a sentence to completely avoid the implication of your interpretation. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

You misinterpreted something, that doesn't make everyone else racist, even "subtly" so. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I am honestly getting sick of this ridiculous argument, and am going to propose some new wording that is hopefully considered to be a fair compromise. How about this: "While discussing Asian representation in film and television, Chung noted the earlier casting of Bingbing as Blink (a character who was not portrayed as Asian in the comics) alongside such series as Fresh Off the Boat."? Also happy to discuss similar alternatives. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

How about this variation:

Jamie Chung as Clarice Fong / Blink:

A "sarcastic, lively" mutant with teleportation powers.[15] Described by Nix as a loner within the mutant underground. "What I love about Blink," he notes, "is her powers are sort of like, 'I’m out of here. Screw you guys.'"

Noting Asian representation in film and television, the ethnically-Korean Chung notes various series and films that feature Asians, including the earlier portrayal of her character (a character not drawn as Asian in the comics) in film by Fan Bingbing, and credits "the flexibility that 20th Century Fox (has) had with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective."

Chung wears heavy-duty contact lenses to portray Blink's mutant eyes.[18], and as the series progresses, her character gains new facial tattoos.

A combined version: While discussing Asian representation in film and television on series such as Fresh Off the Boat, Chung, who is Korean, credited the earlier casting of Bingbing as Blink (a character who was not portrayed as Asian in the comics) to "the flexibility that 20th Century Fox has with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

A few problems: first, Chung is ZKorean-American, sn importsnt distinction. Secondly, the "earlier casting of (Fan) Bingbing" suggests that she was initially cast in the series - one of my initial issue with mentioning her at all, as the unspoken assumption is that the series and film are related (they are not).

How about this:

While discussing Asian representation in film and television on series such as Fresh Off the Boat, Chung, who is Korean-American, credits both her and the earlier film casting of Fan Bingbing as Blink (a character portrayed as Caucasian in the comics) to "the flexibility that 20th Century Fox has with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective." - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Add a "casting" here credits both her casting and the earlier film casting and this is fine with me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

So, this is the version we can all agree on:

While discussing Asian representation in film and television on series such as Fresh Off the Boat, Chung, who is Korean-American, credits both her casting and the earlier film casting of Fan Bingbing as Blink (a character portrayed as Caucasian in the comics) to "the flexibility that 20th Century Fox has with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective." - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That's right, though we only need to say "Bingbing" since she is already introduced in the paragraph. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

She actually isn't listed previously; we're removing any prior reference to her, replacing it with the cast entry as below:

Jamie Chung as Clarice Fong / Blink:

A "sarcastic, lively" mutant with teleportation powers.[15] Described by Nix as a loner within the mutant underground. "What I love about Blink," he notes, "is her powers are sort of like, 'I’m out of here. Screw you guys.'"

While discussing Asian representation in film and television on series such as Fresh Off the Boat, Chung, who is Korean-American, credits both her casting and the earlier film casting of Fan Bingbing as Blink (a character portrayed as Caucasian in the comics) to "the flexibility that 20th Century Fox has with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective."

Chung wears heavy-duty contact lenses to portray Blink's mutant eyes.[18], and as the series progresses, her character gains new facial tattoos. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Uhhh, why? There has been no discussion on that. What reason do you have for removing the other line about Nix wanting to develop the character more than her film appearance? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Because the film and the series are not connected so, apart from Nix noting he wanted to develop out the character from the film, there is nothing connecting the series to the film. That single quote, with no other quotes to support it, make it trivial. I fell like we've discussed this repeatedly. - 22:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Well we haven't. Regardless of your personal thoughts on the connection between the film and series, Nix clearly stated that he wanted to develop the character more than her appearance in the film. That is something we would mention for any other series. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain we've talked about this before. One passing comment againat the wealth of other sources that clearly separate the series from the film renders it undue weight. If you want, I would hav eno issue with adding it to the Blink article. It has no place here, as this is solely about the series. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well we have talked about your personal objection to the connections between the series and the films, but this has nothing to do with that. This is about Nix making a statement about his intention behind the character's portrayal in this show. If he had mentioned a completely unrelated film and said that he wanted to further develop the sort of character in that film, we would note that, and we would not be implying a connection between the two. This is no different, and in fact is on the same level as an actor being inspired by a famous character from some other film when developing their performance. No in-universe connection implied, simply some notable information about the development of this specific portrayal. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The objections aren't personal, they're factual. And substantive. Intent isn't enough to note unless you have references to expand on that. Which you don't. Its that simple. We have no idea how, if, when or what (if ever) he plans on with regards to Blink. Until we do, we don't add trivia.

Again, the best place for that little odd bit of trivia is in the Blink article. I cannot figure out why you are so dead-set about listing the information here instead of in the article about the acharacter. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

We have no idea how, if, when or what (if ever) he plans on with regards to Blink. I'm not sure what that means, but this is hardly trivia, and it is hardly inappropriate for this article. The showrunner of this series has told us something that influenced this version of the character. Why would we not add it? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Precisely what has influenced this version of the character? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Nix felt that in Days of Future Past the character was just "the girl who makes portals, but doesn’t say much", and wanted this version to be developed more, to have attitude and show her abilities grow. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, everything outside of quotation marks is your interpretation, and without any references to support that. You are guessing, Adamstom97, and that isn't something we do here, as per OR and SYN. Maybe at some future date, Nix will comment about his master plan for Blink. Until then, its too vague to include. As I noted before, it might find a home in the Blink article (where you have failed to contribute this tidbit to), which encompasses all things Blinky, but this is an article about the series. We write about that. Nothing else. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Just because I have tried to make his comments more understandable and coherent for the purposes of this discussion does not mean that I am "guessing" or violating OR (and SYN is completely irrelevant here). Honestly, you are one of the most unreasonable editors I have ever come across; any other time a paraphrase like this would accepted as a reasonable representation of what was said in the interview, and everyone would just move on. This has nothing to do with "master plan"s or anything that will make or break the page, it is just a small note about Nix feeling that the character was not explored much in the film and talking about all the ways that he wanted to improve on that here. That is something that is perfectly standard to include here. Again, if you take issue with my particular "interpretation" then we can rephrase it, perhaps to something like this:

When discussing this evolution and the focus on her "attitude [of having] her own mind about things", Nix noted that in the character's previous appearance—in the film X-Men: Days of Future Past, where the character was portrayed by Fan Bingbing—she was just "the girl who makes portals, but doesn’t say much."

I think that still represents what Nix said in the article, which was definitely significant enough to be mentioned here, without "interpret"ing anything too much. Finaly, I have no interest in contributing to the Blink article and have no obligation to do so. I am only focused on the character's portrayal in this series and what is relevant to that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:56, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Again, until we know how he plans to expand on the character, we have nothing to say. Connecting the series to the movie is something I am - if you'll pardon the pun - I am adamntly against. It creates a false expectation that the character from the film originates here. As there is nothing connecting the film to the series, I have a problem with any synthetic connection doing so. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

We don't need to know his exact plans, that's just silly. If he said that he planned to expand on a storyline from the comics then we would add that without any further details to the writing section, no question. And we don't remove information just because you have a personal objection to it; the showrunner said it, and it is absolutely noteworthy, so we put in. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

WE don't note stuff just because its cited; it has to have value. What value is there in a sratement that says nothing? And your comment, "(i)f he said that he planned to expand on a storyline from the comics then we would add that without any further details to the writing section, no question" is just plain, fucking wrong. Saying he was going to do something is not noteworthy; him doing something is. It's that simple. Disagree? Bring in more opinion about it via RfC.- Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

This is just ridiculous. How is the showrunner of a series telling us his intentions for a character not notable? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let's break this down; What, precisely, are Nix' "intentions" for the character? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

He wanted to use the series to explore the character more than she was explored in the film, where she was a pretty minor character. I don't see why we shouldn't say that. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

So, he wanted to "explore" the character more. Okay: how? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:10, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? - adamstom97 (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Because if you don't know how he's exploring the character, what is the value (beyond that of trivia) to even mention it? Its best to wait until he notes - either in passing or on purpose - as to what developments he wants to initiate with the character. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Just because we don't know the full extent of his plans, does not mean we should pretend that he has none. Are you really saying that if we don't have all the information, we shouldn't have any at all? I would have thought it pretty standard practice to add the information we have and just update it when we know more, not wait until we know everything before adding what we do know now. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"Are you really saying that if we don't have all the information, we shouldn't have any at all?"

Yes, that is precisely what I am saying, except that we don't have any information to begin with, so any statement is fluffery.

And I think you might be confused with what "pretty standard practice" is in this regard. We don't add information just because we can cite it; we cite information that adds value to the article - there's nothing of value to add here. If and/or when Nix actually expands on the character in a way that doesn't require an (at best) oblique comparison to another portrayal for about 10 seconds in an unrelated film, then we have something to add. Not before then. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we add every random piece of citeable information, I do believe this is valuable. And I'm not sure how much further this conversation can go given that you obviously still have an extremely inappropriate vendetta against the mentioning of this film, regardless of the mention's purpose. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you feel that this is valuable. As it doesn't really tell us anything of value, I disagree that it belongs here yet. Note I didn't say 'ever' - I just said that we need something concrete to attach to Nix' unspecified want. And I find it amusing that you equate my desire to keep out unconnected material when you've spent weeks trying to drum in your fanboy crush of Fan Bingbing. I've stopped mentioning that, in the interest of 'Getting Shit Done™'; maybe you should follow that example. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have updated the article to add what we have agreed on so far, plus a c/e of the stuff around it. Tell me here is you take issue with what I have done. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we won't be playing it like that, Adamstom97. We solve the problems here first and then implement them as a consensus edit. Towards that end, I've reverted your pet version out and implemented the version that had reached a consensus. The chance we are now discussing is your desire to include Nix's undefined desire to develop out Blink's character. When last we tuned into the Lamest Soap Opera Evar, you wanted to note Nix' interest in the aforementioned, but opposition to this idea came in the form of the single question of what sort of development was being made. As we had no answer to what Nix wanted to do, we could not mention it for fear of adding fancruft.

You are welcome to continue discussing the matter, but I feel that, without proper sources to define precisely and explicitly how Nix wanted to develop out the character (and not just Sherlocking or using some fancypants divining rod of opinion), I feel that your version will not gain any real ground. Please feel free to initiate and RfC about this issue, but I think others might find the phrasing as lame as I do. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• sigh* you are unbelievable. I move on from this discussion about Nix's statement because you have worn me down on that—leave it out if you want. I then went aheas and implemented the change that we had all agreed upon, and you reverted me. I honestly don't understand any of this nonsense. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I thought I'd check back and see if there were any new contributions to this, and a few things are clear:

• no one here has agreed with Jack Sebastian.
• Several people support the original format, with some tweaks
• Jack Sebastian continues to move the goal posts when a compromise is suggested or his points are refuted, and also continues his passive aggressive comments ("I've moved on from repeating that you are a poo-poo head." is a childish way of getting around saying that someone is a poo-poo head.)
• I am only sharing these thoughts because Adam is getting "worn down", and I hope to encourage him to just wait for the closer to side with him, which is the clear consensus here. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wtf are you talking about, AS? This is called discussion, and your comment strikes me as incredibly uncivil. Furthermore, I don't think I've ever called you a "poo-poo head" and, if I have, I suspect you have - yet again - failed to actually read the post for the actual context. Please feel completely free to present a DIFF; I double-dog dare you to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit, paraphrasing to emphasize the childishness. If you think I'm the one being uncivil, then I encourage you to take your complaint to ANI. I'm sure the comments on the behavior here would be enlightening. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd point out that "Getting Shit Done™" isn't the same thing as calling someone a "poo-poo head". Whether you feel my use of language is colorful/childish/profane/whatever is entirely your problem. The post you Diff'd indicated that I was willing to compromise. If that is in fact childish, maybe you should spend more time with babies. They are the worst editors evar. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

And just so we are all clear, based on the points that Argento stated (which I agree on), this is the FULL text that consensus has to include for Chung's listing:

A "sarcastic, lively" mutant with teleportation powers. An "independently minded" member of the mutant underground, Blink begins the series using her abilities as "a way out of situations she doesn't want to be in", but her abilities and relationship to them evolve throughout the series. Nix wanted to use the series as a chance to develop Blink further than her appearance in the film X-Men: Days of Future Past, where the character was portrayed by Fan Bingbing. While discussing Asian representation in film and television on series such as Fresh Off the Boat, Chung, who is Korean-American, credits both her casting and the earlier casting of Bingbing as Blink (a character portrayed as Caucasian in the comics) to "the flexibility that 20th Century Fox has with turning these comic book characters into something a bit more reflective." Chung wears heavy-duty contact lenses to portray Blink's mutant green eyes, and also has pink markings on her face; as the character's abilities grow, more markings are added, making the character look more like her comic appearance.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I realize that you have to wade through a wall of text to get to it, but there was a fair amount of discussion about the remaining point of contention:

"Nix wanted to use the series as a chance to develop Blink further than her appearance in the film..."

As a statement, its actually a lie; it implies that Nix built the series around Blink. Nix never said or suggested anything of the sort. Ever. This is just an OR interpretation of the sources and further, a championing and mangling of a single statement without substance:

1. We have no idea what Nix has planned for the character, and his single sourced statement explain more.

2. We have no other, referenced statements that suggest what that statement meant.

3. We have a source that does not suggest that the series was, in fact, built around Blink

3. Therefore, the statement is useless, as it contains no information and clearly has led to misinterpretation.

Additionally, I've clearly outlined several times how the movie and the series are only connected by the subject matter. There is no line of cause and effect from the movie to the series, and the challenge for anyone to connect the two with a source saying that has gone unanswered for the entire duration of this discussion.

While I think that Bingbing's mention should be on the character page only, I relented in order to find a workable consensus, which I thought we had. However, Adamstom's addition of a version containing a contentious point is improper. We agree to discussion to tave off potential edit-wars. I'm a little surprised that he did that.

There is absolutely no way I'm going along with adding fancruft about mentioning what someone might want to do - not without any subsequent reference noting that what they wanted to do is actually defined (whether or not is is accomplished would determine its value over time. Imo, it isn't notable at this time.) As per DEADLINE, we aren't in a hurry. Until we know exactly how Nix plans on developing out Blink's character, any mention of the statement fits tidily under WP:CBALL and WP:UNDUE - we don't know how this devlopment will occur, so mentioning it is undue focus on an empty statement.

Disagree? Lets do an RfC; It helped us hash out the rest of the wording before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Jack that this particular line misrepresents the source. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Empty additions

I've now reverted out the bold addition of a (perhaps) recurring character:

* Skyler Samuels as Esme: A telepathic mutant with a "mysterious past".

The referenced material was barely existent, explained away as:

"and Skyler Samuels was revealed to have joined the series as Esme in November,soon said to be another "key recurring role" for the series."

What the heck is this nonsense? This is an encyclopedia, not a cruft magnet for fanboy nonsense. We add material of encyclopedic value. When we are are sure that the person is an actual recurring character (as per cited reference) and we know (again, through cited reference) what their value to the series is, then we add it. We don't add it like some knee-jerk response to the Fox Television marketing team's targeted teasers. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The reliable source I added says that she will be recurring. End of story. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I am going to suggest that you read the sources more carefully, please. Neither one of the two (1, 2) list the character as recurring. Indeed, the second source notes her as a guest appearance only. While the caption blurb on the first source lists her as recurring, it's value is canceled out by the second source noting her as a guest appearance - and the first source says exactly nada about any "mysterious" quality to the character.

You absolutely need to start divorcing yourself from the idea that you get to interpret these sources. Every time you do so, you run the risk of either Sherlocking or Synthesis, and they are going to get challenged, and slow down the process. Media articles are no different than news, BLP or hard science articles in this regard. Your opinion or interpretation of these sources have no value, and I say that not to be mean to you, but to stress how very important it is that you finally learn this. Because if you can't learn this, the AGF that comes from assuming that you know how to handle sources is going to melt away. Please learn. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's break this down, using the sources 1 and 2 you noted above. I added that "Skyler Samuels was revealed to have joined the series as Esme in November", attributed to source 2 because in it it says "Skyler Samuels as Esme", and we got that source in November. I added that she was "soon said to be another 'key recurring role' for the series", attributed to source 1 because in it it says "Skyler Samuels is set for a key recurring role in Fox’s Marvel drama series The Gifted." I added the description "A telepathic mutant with a 'mysterious past'" because in source 1 it says "Samuels will play a refugee mutant with telepathic abilities and a mysterious past." Could you please actually read the sources before accusing me of coming up with my own personal interpretation of them? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

1. 1. Source #1 has an image caption blurb noting her as a recurring cast member, whereas source #2 notes her as a guest.
2. 2. Source #2 is more recent than #1. If anything, source #2 carries more weight than source #1 in terms of weight when there is a disagreement between sources.
3. 3. Source #1 list her as having "a mysterious past" without any details. This is the same empty statement problem as the Nix issue from the earlier discussion (above). 'Mysterious' pasts are unencyclopedic and undefined; we add content, not marketing releases. There is nothing contained within that statement from source one except that she is a telepath. If her being a telepath was all that you wanted to add in the Guest cast section, we would be fine.

Any mention of 'mysterious' is undue weight - since we don't know what is mysterious about her. Any weight given to the quality of being mysterious is undue, since there's little citable background to the mystery. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Source 1 is about the series, and says she will recur throughout it, while 2 is about a single episode so noting recurring appearances would not make sense.
2. Source 2 was first accessed on November 1, which is well before Source 1 which appeared on November 17 (which is why this is just happening now).
3. Source 1 describes her as "a refugee mutant with telepathic abilities and a mysterious past", so I paraphrased that. If that is your concern, then you should have said that rather than reverting the entire edit with a stupid excuse. I am happy to discuss alternate wording, but I would generally not stray far from the source given I have not seen her character (none of us have yet) and so cannot possibly know better than the reliable source.

Again, it would be nice if you actually read the sources before throwing accusations at others. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Let me step in since, for once with you two, this isn't about Blink. I have had some very heated disagreements with Adamstom.97 in the past (including about his initial attempts to continue to include mention of Fan Bingbing in this very article in relation to Blink since originally there was no inclusion of the source where Fong explicitly mentioned her and it was obvious fan service at that point) but he is 200% in the right here. The "image caption blurb" in Source #1 is not a caption... it's the lead sentence of the article that you have misinterpreted as a caption because it is separated from the rest of the article by another visual element (a box with "Related" in it). This is easy to discern if you could get past your obvious personal animosity for him given the next sentence starts with "The series from..." without reference to which series "the series" refers to... because in the first sentence, the antecedent is established: Scream Queens alum Skyler Samuels is set for a key recurring role in Fox's Marvel drama series The Gifted. You are clearly looking at Adam's additions with a non-objective eye at this point, and the weeks' worth of public conflict between the two of you makes it clear why that may be.

I've stayed out of both of your ridiculously long-lived garbage over the Bingbing stuff (which one of you should have had the good sense to be an adult about and just let go of, if only for the sake of sparing the rest of us the constant pointless bickering) but, as I've said, this is new and is markedly more clear cut than the Blink stuff. Samuels has been clearly and reliably sourced as a new recurring character and Adam is clearly and appropriately paraphrasing and/or quoting what we know about her character so far, as is done daily by dozens of TV article editors. There is no interpretation going on here, unless you honestly believe reading a reliable source and adding that information is somehow "interpretation". So Jack...? Leave this one be. —Joeyconnick (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hear me CFB: I am here for the article, and nothing else, and if it took an RfC to clear up interperetive nonsense, then that's what needed to happen. It isn't a soap opera, and it isn't about Adamstom.97 (or me), much as he's tried to muddy the discussion. I have even thanked Adamstom for some of his contributions, when he gets out of his own way

My only goal is this: if it improves the Wikipedia article, good. If not, then out it goes. It is absolutely that simple. This is my only concern, and anyone who feels differently either doesn't know me well, isn't paying attention or isn't editing correctly, Period.

That said, I've looked at the refs again; the second one is utter shit, and should be scrapped. The first source is enough to warrant inclusion. I don't think another ref is going to be necessary to substantiate her role as recurring.

However, I am not in favor of allowing any of this "mysterious past" nonsense; its clearly marketing bullshit designed to get the viewer to 'tune in next week', and we don't do that here, as per WP:NOTPROMOTION. She's a telepath, so we note her as a telepath (as per the ref). Anything beyond that, background-wise is something we wait for, because - and this is important - we are not in a hurry. This isn't a breaking news story, or a BLP. The longer the series runs, the more information that is going to accumulate, which will fill in the blanks. Pointing to a hole in the article is dumb, and we shouldn't do it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Jack, the second source is there to reference the character's name, because the Deadline one doesn't give it. And how can you accuse me of interpreting a source after I took the wording directly from that source, and then turn around and start making decisions about the purpose of the source's wording? You are applying personal bias to the article, and are making decisions about a character that you have not seen yet. Like you said, we are in no hurry, so there is nothing wrong with using the information that we have now, and waiting to update it once we actually no more rather than guessing.

Joey, I thank you for getting involved and I completely understand your frustration with the previous discussions (I did in fact try to move on, as can be seen above, by giving up on the latest discussion and just implementing what had been agreed upon, but even that was reverted because apparently I cannot do anything right). I would like for all this nonsense to stop as well, and hope that we can just readd my obviously completely valid edit and then discuss the wording of the character description if that is still an issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I see that some progress has been made, but I disagree with you making executive decisions about what exactly lines up with the source's intent while we are still in the middle of a discussion. And why did you decide that the reference work I did and the line in the casting section (where all the recurring actors are also mentioned) were not worthy of inclusion? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Attention Adamstom.97: find your happy place and return to it. If you have a personal issue, express it on your page (or mine). Stay on target. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Huh? What are you talking about? Since when was asking an editor to explain an edit "a personal issue"? I just want you to explain this, and why you didn't re-add the rest of the information. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sentinel Services

I think Joeyconnick brought up a fairly good point, that of Sentinel Services being referred to acronymically as "SS", and wanting to avoid calling it the SS, to avoid confusion with the Nazi Secret Police, the SS. It's an important enough distinction to avoid calling one the other.
That said, I think it was something of a calculated move to do this. Until more sources appear, we should make sure to not confuse SS with the SS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it is intentional, given what the Sentinel Services are meant to represent in the show. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree, and found sources to support that not-so-subtle connection before adding a subsection in the article about it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't doubt that they may be trying to draw a parallel with the actual SS, but my point was unless on the show they are being referred to as "the SS", when we abbreviate it here, we shouldn't be using a definite article in front of it. I've only ever heard people on the show refer to it as Sentinel Services, not the Sentinel Services. I assume an analogy would be how, in the US and Canada at least, we refer to "Child Protective/Protection Services", not "the Child Protective Services". —Joeyconnick (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I understood your point, Joey; if my response seemed to not reflect that, then I'm sorry. You will note that I added a subsection on the comparison between Sentinal Services and the SS. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

"Amy Acker as Caitlin Strucker"

In the first sentence of this Cast entry, it is stated that the character is trying to deal with "her split from Reed" and other things.

However, NEITHER inline citation reference/source mentions anything about a "split" from her character's husband and I do not remember anything about a "split" or separation being said, mentioned, or referred to in any episode.

Therefore, I think that any mention of a "split" should be removed. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done - adamstom97 (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

As an aside, this ref actually does mention a "split" from her character's husband, but I agree with the IP user that this has never been referred to in the actual series. Perhaps it was a part of the original script and was removed. Natg 19 (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Potentially was changed, the pilot did undergo some reshoots and made a few major changes before it aired. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that, or it was a poor way of describing how they were (physically) separated when Reed was captured by SS in the pilot. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sentinel Services subsection

I've noted a few alterations to the subsection that don't seem to make sense and shift the point of the subsection from the cited to the suggested. Additionally, the title of the section was changed to 'Analysis'; I think this isn't as helpful, as we are addressing only a specific element of the production that was critically noticed at length. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

All I did was tidy up the section and give it a more general title because the info you added actually covers more than just the one topic, and this is clearly a series with scope for much more analysis so a broader title will hopefully encourage others to add more. It was also not really a bold edit, which is a term that you seem to apply to any edit that you disagree with. Anyway, your version obviously should not be kept. The referencing is a mess, the style and tense is all over the place, there is unsourced content, and there is no good reason to have multiple paragraphs for that amount of text. I suggest you just take the improved version and give it a c/e if you feel the wording needs to be adjusted. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

It was reverted back because:

1. you weren't instituting the consensus view on the inclusion of Nix' comments with regards to mentioning an unrelated movie;
2. you replaced the present infinitive tense of 'credits' with 'credited' (there is a strong tendency within Wikipedia to avoid using th epast tense when possible);
3. you are interpreting that Nix is "bringing the character" closer to the comics (we've talked repeatedly about your interpretive tendencies);
4. you are mis-interpreting that the comments about the comparisons between Sentinel Services and the nazi SS to be of far larger scope than the sources have clearly stated. The mere fact that you moved around the comments to place undue emphasis on those minor elements of the sources that you felt were more important is problematic, and;
5. you have offered edits that were clearly disagreed with (as noted by the first edit) and, instead of using WP:BRD correctly, you reverted yet again. I am sorry that you dislike discussion, but the idea of consensus editing rests at the core of Wikipedia.

So, bring your concerns here first, please. We'll talk them out and find the correct consensus. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

When multiple editors think that one version of the article is obviously better ... perhaps it is? That doesn't mean it is perfect, but blanket reverting an entire revert because you take issue with small parts of it is not helpful (though I am inclined to think that you just reverted since you clearly dislike me). My point-by-point rebuttal:

1. I copied the consensus wording directly from the end of the discussion above, where it is clearly and handily laid out by Favre for us. I just removed the one line that everyone is clearly taking issue with, since there is no point continuing to edit war over that.
2. We cannot possibly know what Chung currently thinks. However, we do know what she told us she thought at one point in the past. That is why 'credited' is preferable to 'credits'; who she credited is sourced, who she credits now we do not know.
3. That final line has nothing to do with Nix. It is an explanation that adding more markings to her is "making the character look more like her comic appearance", but that just sounds awkward. "bringing the character closer to her comic appearance" says exactly the same thing in a less awkward way. Making small changes like this for readability is pretty standard practice on Wikipedia.
4. I didn't even read the articles that are sourcing the new section, as it was not my intention to tackle that section yet. All I did was tidy up the horrendous mess that you created, which is something I am very used to doing here, cleaning up after new and IP editors who don't know what they are doing. I fixed the citations and English, combined the two paragraphs that did not need to be separate, and after reading what you added (and again, I haven't read the actual articles yet so I am not providing an interpretation of them or anything) I saw that you had added commentary on multiple areas, not just the SS, so the very specific title was really weird. I am not surprised that there is more to discuss than just the SS, as this is clearly a series with plenty of political and social commentary, so I broadened the title to better suit what you had added and to encourage others to add more analysis content. I then gave the section a copy-edit, again just to clean up the mess.

Consensus is not what you want it to be, and defying your will is not against the rules here. I made a very standard edit, improving several areas of the article, implementing the consensus wording from a talk page discussion, and cleaning up a mess that a user had made. All in a days work for me. But because you don't like me, you decided that I had been "bold" and that the article must be returned to your version. Once again, your actions have not been helpful at all, and reek of an ulterior motive. I know that we keep on falling into silly personal arguments and edit wars here, but in the end we need the best for the article itself, not our egos, and that means taking a deep breath (which this new protection level will force upon us) and trying to look at things with an objective eye. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets dissect your adorable thought process:

When multiple editors think that one version of the article is obviously better...

Are you suggesting that canvassing to tag-team revert a single user is consensus, you might have to reexamine what you think consensus actually is.

though I am inclined to think that you just reverted since you clearly dislike me

I don't personally dislike you; I just think you are an overconfident editor without the necessary skills or understanding to back up your viewpoints. You confuse your personal interpretion with actual sourced information too fucking much. That slows the process down. If you want to make it all about you, that is a problem addressed between you and your support group.

I copied the consensus wording directly from the end of the discussion above

You actually weren't copying consensus, as there is no mention of the film title in the consensus version. As you might have figured out, I am opposed to Sherlocking any connection between the film and the tv series, which remain unconnected.

We cannot possibly know what Chung currently thinks. However, we do know what she told us she thought at one point in the past. That is why 'credited' is preferable to 'credits'; who she credited is sourced, who she credits now we do not know.

You are misunderstanding Wikipedia's writing policy, which is okay, since you are a fairly new writer. We write in the present tense for the most part. I know that feels weird to you; I also know that what you find 'weird' is immaterial. Its proper grammar, and it should remain.

...t is an explanation that adding more markings to her is "making the character look more like her comic appearance", but that just sounds awkward. "bringing the character closer to her comic appearance" says exactly the same thing in a less awkward way. Making small changes like this for readability is pretty standard practice on Wikipedia.

Again, your personal interpretation of 'awkward' is immaterial. as well, your interpretation that the showrunners are seeking to bring Blink closer to her comic book identity via face markings is unsourced. Full stop. Its pretty standard practice to avoid original research here in Wikipedia. Maybe you missed the memo?

...I fixed the citations and English, combined the two paragraphs that did not need to be separate...

As they express two viewpoints of the same subject by two different sources, its better for them to be separate, so as to not imply that they share precisely the same view. That's just basic writing.

...this is clearly a series with plenty of political and social commentary, so I broadened the title to better suit what you had added and to encourage others to add more analysis content.

Unless you have picked up a time machine somewhere, your idea is nonsense. When we have a lot more press analyzing the series' social issues, we can expand and rename the subsection title. As the section only discusses the SS and Sentinel Services comparison, anything else is...well, something that a new user would manufacture. Saying that something has "plenty of political and social commentary" is not the same as there being referenced material to back that up.

...I then gave the section a copy-edit, again just to clean up the mess.

Well, since you dispensed with civility, let me say that I would put my writing skill upagainst yours, every single day, and still beat you like a rented mule. But you do you, snowflake.

Consensus is not what you want it to be, and defying your will is not against the rules here.

Sorry but no. the statement you added is a few shades different tha consensus we worked pretty hard to put together. Stay on target and try avoid your own bruised ego. It isn't about me or you (and I haven't a fucking clue why your tender ego insiste on making it such, but its pretty boring and lacks basic AGF); its about making the article better in accordance with consensus. You added a non-consensus version. When reverted, that is your first clue that you don't have a consensus. It doesn't mean that you revert, or canvass your pals to get them to help you to do so. It means you use the talk page and find out what the problem is. And sort it out. Edit-warring doesn't work.

I made a very standard edit (snip)

You actually didn't. You slipped in an inaccurate version of the consensus edit (which doesn't mention the film). You cheanged tense in a statemnt that doesn't need changing. You altered the intent and meaning of a subsection written by someone you don't like, and you call it "all in a days' work". Suprise, the way that you grudge-edit is different than 90% of the other editors here. Grow the fuck up, and work with editors. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

As an unassociated third party to this edit war, I personally find the Adamstom.97's version more readable. Like Adamstom.97, I did not specifically go into the sources, but I feel that he summarized Jack Sebastian's content neatly. I would personally separate the USA Today review into its own paragraph, but it is also okay the way that it is. I don't know what is going on with the warring about the Blink section, but from looking at Jack Sebastian's version and Adamstom.97's version, I prefer Adamstom.97's style more. Natg 19 (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Natg, I was sure I couldn't be that bad at this after all this time! Jack, I think you should have a look at what WP:Canvassing actually is, because it doesn't apply here (Alex acted on his own accord). The article still mentions Days of Future Past because we removed the line that introduced the previous appearance of Blink, so we needed to add an explanation to readers about what previous appearance we were talking about so they can understand the sentence. I stand by what I said about the tense: you cannot possibly know what Chung currently thinks at every single moment that the 'credits' wording exists in the article. Yes, we generally want to write in present tense, but not when we are talking about something in the past. Chung's comments happened in the past. For Blink's markings, that information comes from the source in the article, not my imagination. There is literally a quote from Chung about it. Critical response and analysis sections are not split on individual critics, that is just silly, and I don't need a time machine to see that there are many articles analysing and commenting on the series' themes out there right now.

It's also cute that you have suddenly decided that you are so much more experienced than me at editing, especially since you only started editing (as an anonymous editor) a year before I became a registered user. That must have been such an enlightening year! The reason I keep bringing up the personal issue is that many of the things that you do don't make any sense, unless you were doing them for some ulterior personal reason. Perhaps I have been giving you too much credit. You have a disgusting attitude towards other editors, always insist that your version must remain during discussions regardless of whether it is the WP:STATUSQUO or not, and you claim that your work is superior to others while adding content that refers to past events in the present text, uses informal language and unconventional formatting, and is poorly cited. I am not a perfect editor, and have never claimed to be, but I do know that I am not as bad at this as you are trying to make out. Having to deal with you putting me down and treating me like crap while I try my best to improve this article (at a level that is good enough for so many other editors who are happy and willing to include me in their community) is almost enough to abandon it. All that is keeping me here is the belief that if I leave, there isn't going to be anyone here that is committed enough to protect this article from you. In the end, the most important thing here is the quality of the article, an article that is viewed almost 17,000 times a day on average. You think you can bully me away by swearing at me, lying about my actions, falsifying my intentions, accusing me of racism, and in general just being a cruel person, but you are wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate Natg weighing in; its good to get more eyes on the article and the discussion, which is why I find it odd that you are so desperate to avoid an RfC to get insight into content wording. I am all in favor of more views as opposed to les views; it makes the article usually better and definitely more durable in terms of consensus stability.

I am going to do you a huge favor ands sidestep all your simpering stuff about how you feel bullied and how I'm a monster out to ruin the article. It would be laughable if it werent't so WP:OWNy and pathetic. My views on article construction have nothing to do with you, except where you get int he way of improving the article. I've thanked you for improvements to the article before; do better than you have and you will see more thanks. Do worse, and you will continue to find me opposing your views. In short, stop making it personal; you simply aren't that important to me. Let it go.

You are going to find me unmoved about your use of tense on the part of Chung's comments; your argument is flawed. Additionally, while I can relent on the inclusion of the film (for - and only for noting of Blink's prior casting, and not because of any connection to said film), I think you are taking more inference from the inclusion of Clarice's growing markings to be "growing closer" to that of the comic book Blink. The source doesn't say that, and no amount of bending can make the source say that. We aren't in a hurry, so as the series progresses, more articles/interviews/critiques of the series will bring us more info. We wait.

Lastly, I vehemently disagree with your retitling of the section about Sentinel Services and the SS. While the article might expand to include more real world analysis, to doesn't yet, and changing the title is too wide a net to cast at this time. Also, I prefer the two paragraphs as opposed to the awkward melding that you've created. And feel free to check my sources; I never misinterpret them. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with an RfC being held. Whether you think my argument is "flawed" or not is irrelevant, we do not talk about past events in present tense. The literal quote from the source about her markings is this: "as her powers continue to grow, she gets more markings on the face. So it will be more similar to the comic book Blink." I disagree that it is more valuable to have an extremely specific title than to have a broader one that encourages further additions. I am still bewildered by this idea that different critics get different paragraphs; that has never been the case. And I never said that you misinterpreted anything, just that I didn't either. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

@Jack Sebastian: this comment is specifically about the tense issue in the Blink paragraph. You claim that we must refer to her statement in the present tense due to MOS:TENSE, but if you look at what it says, we "do not use past tense except for dead subjects, past events, and subjects that no longer meaningfully exist as such." Chung's comments are a past event. She said something at one point in the past, and so we should refer to it as such. By claiming that she is currently claiming something at any point that somebody reads our statement, we are making that up. We cannot know what she currently claims. It's not like people make statements and then never contradict them or change their mind ever again. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: In the absence of contradicting (reliably sourced) information on Chung's part, we presume that her viewpoints at the time she made the comment remain her viewpoints. If she changes her mind, and it gets reported somewhere, we can note the change. Until then, her viewpoint on a topic is just that, hers, until otherwise noted. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

What you are saying is that we have a reliable source to support the fact that she still thinks that way, and so we should keep that until a new source gives us an update, but the current source does not support that fact. It only says what she stated at the time. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Again, you are misinterpreting both the source and our fairly clear guidelines on the matter. Sources note she said it. Until you have a reliable source that contradicts/retracts/reverses that statement, it remains her prevailing view. Her prevailing current view. Not sure how to make it clearer than that. Maybe you might want to seek input from an experienced admin to gain additional insight. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You have just proven my point: the source notes that she said it. That is all we have to go on. So we can say that she said it, but we don't get to infer from that that she believes it, much less that she still believes it now. All we can say is that she said it then, and leave it up to our readers to infer what they wish from that. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I actually have proven my own, Adamstom.97. You might want to re-read my post, to glean a deeper understanding of how Wikipedia treats tense; its a bit different than your average Kiwi kid's classroom. We maintain a present tense (and often an infinitve tense) with out text. When someone says something in a source, it remains in the present tense until contradicted by subsequent/opposing information. And we sure as heck can draw an inference of someone's thoughts from their actual words explicitly noting those thoughts. Your argument - that we cannot know what a person says despite having an explicit, direct quote - is malformed and unimportant. The point is that, unless or until that quote is changed, it is the current thought. Disagree? Ask around. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

So now I don't understand basic English because I am from New Zealand? I guess you forgot how important fighting racism is to you when it stopped supporting your argument. All I am going to say now is this: if you think we should refer to past events in the present tense, then you can take that up at MOS:TENSE. But until there is consensus for us to do that over there, I will revert any attempt you make to do that here as vandalism. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies. Were you upset that someone cast doubt on your ability to edit? "Physician, heal thyself."As far as tense usage goes, you might want to bone up a bit more on WP:TENSE as well. I think you are deeply, deeply misunderstanding how it actually works - you know, being guidelines instead of a suicide pact.

And, if you are openly suggesting your intent to edit war over basic English grammar, I am going to urge you to check with an administrator over how that will play out. Reverting good faith edits under the pretense of reverting vandalism will get you blocked. Full stop.

Now, if you want to discuss the matter either here via RfC, or on the referring page, initiate discussion. I will contribute. If you edit-war, I will also contribute...to a complaint on the relevant noticeboard. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)