Jump to content

Talk:List of fictional asexual characters/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Possible new entries

Need better sources for these, but here are the ones in this spreadsheet, which have sources:

Protagonist is ace

Secondary character

Also see this list of LGBT webcomics and A-Spec Audio Fiction Character Compendium.

Historyday01 (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There may be some here, but again they do not have sources.

Separate asexual and aromantic sexualities please.

In this list, Asexuals and Aromantics on the same list. Please create a separate list for Aromantics as Aromantism and Asexualism are two different separate sexualities and by combining these two, you’re erasing aromantic representation. Some people (characters in this case) may be Asexuals AND Aromantics, and therefore may be on both of these lists. Thank you for your attention and contribution to aromantic community 😊 ArrowPotato (talk) 07:17, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. @ArrowPotato, that makes sense. I think I only combined them for convenience sake, but as I've said many times on here, Wikipedia is fluid and always changing, so changes can always be made. It looks like there are 16 aromantic entries (Alastor, Peridot, Shouko Tanimoto, Cal, Rivka, Wilbourn Lisa (Tattletale), Hazel, Georgia Warr, Sunil Jha, Ellis, Caduceus Clay, Percival King / Percy, Donut, Emrys, and Occhio "Oki" di Tigre, Ambra), and since there are enough, they should have their own list. I'm thinking that I'll leave those existing aromantic characters on the list, but duplicate them to a new page named List of fictional aromantic characters. That's my thought, at least. I'll probably also take some text from the Aromantic section and put that at the top, then link that page back to this page. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! This is very important! ArrowPotato (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The page has been created. Yay! --Historyday01 (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:ONUS

As a note to the two editors warring here, the onus is on you to add content here, not the other way around. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of fancruft. Unless there is significant in depth coverage (ie. we should have an article) it should not be included. VAXIDICAE💉 16:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Reminder of WP:NLIST: One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. The next step is to agree on the selection guidelines. Given the somewhat obscure nature of the article, I think #2 from WP:CSC is the guideline that makes the most sense: Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
To say that every entry on the list fails the notability criteria is patently absurd. I think that there should be reliable sources to support each entry. I do NOT think an entry has to have an article to be on the list, as that is criteria that assumes that editors have the time and energy to create articles for every entry, something which most do not have. Historyday01 (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Right. I think entries should have sources but I think one reliable source per entry could work (notability requires at least 2 secondary sources) & it shouldn't be a requirement that an entry has a link elsewhere on Wikipedia. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I can agree with that criteria. --Historyday01 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yeah a bunch of fancruft sourced to the writers themselves, who we have no articles about and tumblr do not make for encyclopedic content. VAXIDICAE💉 16:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, this is too high of a bar for articles and it assumes editors have the time to create articles for every single entry they add. I certainly don't have time, but I'm trying to create as many articles as I can. Historyday01 (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. If you can't find sourcing to establish 1.) it's notable and 2.) encyclopedic, it cannot be included anywhere. Including on standalone lists. Primary sources in this case are not acceptable and just 1 source existing is not sufficient. It needs to be independent and reliable, not fanblogs, fansites, the authors own site or things like tumblr. VAXIDICAE💉 16:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, individual entries on a list article don't have to meet the notability bar of multiple secondary sources (WP:NLIST). I think the question on sources to ask is if a entry has received reviews or other secondary coverage but the coverage doesn't highlight or mention the asexuality of a character, is a primary source on asexuality acceptable? For example, if a book has a single NPR review but the only mention of a secondary character's asexuality (outside the book itself) is on the author's Twitter should the book be included? Should we include both sources? I think we should include both sources. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
They don't however they do need to meet the criteria of being independent and covered in reliable sources in this case. Otherwise we'd have List of fanfiction about asexual characters. VAXIDICAE💉 17:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Sariel Xilo on this one. I don't see a problem with linking to the site of the author (or some other official source) as long as another source is added as well. I've read through the rules, especially the ones on self-published sources. And, from my understanding, self-published sources are acceptable as long as they don't constitute the majority of the sources in an article and are used rarely. And I try to follow that, only using self-published sources when absolutely necessary. Historyday01 (talk) 17:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Because then it's just listcruft. If we have no article on the work or the author and the only source discussing it is the author or some non-independent rs, or non-rs it cannot be included. I don't understand how you find this difficult. Two editors agreeing here does not negate our policies or guidelines. Otherwise you're leaving it open for me to create a highly reviewed fanfiction about an asexual character and then add it. VAXIDICAE💉 17:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
And no, unless there is an independent source discussing the characters asexuality (sure, you can use a primary source along with it) it shouldn't be included otherwise what you said above constitutes original research. VAXIDICAE💉 17:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Original research is something that is thrown around and often wielded against LGBTQ pages, from my experience, but in terms of independent sources, I stand with Sariel Xilo on that. In terms of a fan fiction, I don't think you could even create a page for that, or link it, because AO3 itself isn't a reliable source, usually, from my understanding. I know because I asked about it when asking whether I could add in a link to Molly Ostertag's Lord of the Rings fic, which got thousands, upon thousands, of hits, and she even created a Twitter account for it. Historyday01 (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
You're misunderstanding the notability requirements for lists. It's not original research when we include details of characters that are included only in the source material or mentioned by the creator (this is the standard practice for things like plot summaries). There is no one official "common selection criteria" for list articles; there are some suggestions and the guidance is that editors should come to a consensus on what the criteria should be for specific article. One of the suggested guidelines is even Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. I think all of us agree that that's not the right call for this list article. So instead, I'm suggesting that each entry needs at least one review (or some other secondary coverage) that meets the reliable sources bar and that this secondary coverage doesn't need to to mention asexuality as long as there is a primary source that mentions it. Ideally, we would do better (multiple sources that mention asexuality) but given this is a niche topic which is subject to discrimination I don't think requiring every entry to meet standalone article notability requirements makes sense. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC); Fixed typo Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with that, and I'll go through all the entries later today to make sure they follow this suggested guideline.Historyday01 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Entries which need better sourcing and need work

Since @User:Praxidicae and @User:discospinster have decided to remove entries, on this page, which I created, I'm moving some entries which need better sourcing here. The Olivia Experiment is NOT included because it has an additional source currently (specifically Bitch (magazine)), with the same is the case for Guardian of the Dead, Banner of the Damned, Every Heart A Doorway Quicksilver which are mentioned in Tor.com reviews. All of these need Wikipedia pages, and I will get to it, eventually, but I'm working on webcomics first, per the edits by discospinster. I would appreciate it if Praxidicae take the time, and work, to create pages for ALL of the above listed, I'd be eternally grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyday01 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC) ; Added strikethrough per WP:REDACTED Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Literature

Characters Work Author Years Description
Sue Bridehead Jude the Obscure Thomas Hardy 1895 The character of Sue in Thomas Hardy's novel Jude the Obscure is portrayed as having an active aversion to sex and is considered by some to be an asexual character.[1]
Alfreda Sorensson Night Calls (series)[a] Katharine Eliska Kimbriel 1996–1997, 2014 Alfreda, the protagonist, is demisexual, with the series starting when she is young, so this is "not apparent yet," according to the author.[b]
Reyna Avila Ramírez-Arellano The Heroes of Olympus Rick Riordan 2011 Reyna was given the prophecy by Aphrodite, "You will not find love where you wish or where you hope. No demigod shall heal your heart." Later, she joins the Hunters of Artemis, a group of hunters who have sworn off romance and sex. Rick Riordan, the book's author, confirmed her to be asexual in a Twitter post.[c]
Neil Josten All for the Game series[d] Nora Sakavic 2013–2014 When asked about his sexuality by a teammate, Neil claims that he "doesn't swing" either way. He never shows any sort of attraction to anyone until later in the series, when he begins to develop feelings for a teammate. Even after beginning an intimate relationship with a male teammate, he continues to affirm that he doesn't swing, but rather only has feelings for his partner. The author confirmed that Neil is on the ace spectrum, saying he is most likely demisexual.[2]
Kelly Part and Parcel Abigail Roux 2015 In a Tumblr Post, Roux described Kelly as a biromantic demisexual and Digger as a "hetero sex positive asexual," saying these identities are important to these characters, herself, and "anyone who desperately needs to be able to relate to those identities."[3]
Digger
Nevian The White Renegade Claudie Arseneault While Arseneault noted that some of her novels had asexual vibes, in this high fantasy fiction, there are four asexual characters: Nevian, a demi-heteroromantic "sex-repulsed ace," Larryn, a "panromantic gray asexual," Jessana, a biromantic asexual, and Cal, who is aromantic and asexual.[4] These characters help out the protagonist on his quests.
Larryn
Jessana
Cal
Supporting character. The Call Peadar Ó Guilín 2016 This book has an asexual character.[5] (I don't even the source for this one is even the right one)
Rivka A Harvest of Ripe Figs[e] Shira Glassman In this book, Rivka, a warrior, is a major aromantic (and asexual) character.[6]
Sophie The Holy Company[f] Laura Bailo 2017 The protagonist of this story, Sophie, is a biromantic demisexual as described by the book's author.[g]
Wilbourn Lisa (Tattletale) Parahumans John C. "Wildbow" McCrae 2011 An asexual aromantic character who comes to terms with herself after blaming it on her powers.[7] Is a major character in both Parahuman works.

Webcomics

Characters Title Years Notes Country
Occhio "Oki" di Tigre Undefiled Wings 2018-Present This supernatural and fantasy webcomic, set in "mad side of heaven," and a comic for "very open minded people," has multiple LGBTQ characters.[8] A fire angel named Occhio "Oki" di Tigre is a cisgender aromantic and asexual woman[9] while Ambra, another fire angel, is a cisgender woman who is asexual and aromantic.[10] Additionally, Ametista is an iced angel, along with being an asexual trans woman.[11]
Ambra
Ametista
Donut StarChild 2018-Present This webcomic features various LGBTQ characters. Specifically, Donut is asexual and aromantic.[12] Donut is later revealed to be his given name.[13]
Chloe Samael "Sam" Heavenwood 180 Angel 2019-Present This comic centers around a demisexual girl named Chloe Samuel "Sam" Heavenwood, who wants to be a delivery angel, and grows to like the princess of hell, Lilith Aster Wrath Morning, a pansexual woman who wants to become the queen of hell.[14] These identities were alluded to at the end of two issues of the comic which showed Sam wearing a dress having the colors of the demisexual flag and Lilith with a dress with the colors of the pansexual flag.[15][16]
Gage Marchant Lies Within 2017-Present This supernatural webcomic features various LGBTQ characters. Gage is confirmed to be biromantic asexual.[17] Canada
Irene Manalo Love, Lila 2020–Present In this romantic drama, Irene is an 18-year-old Filipina girl who likes food, art, and friendship, has a growing relationship with Lila,[18] a 17-year-old Italian student and artist, at her school, who likes dancing, art, and music. She was confirmed as demisexual in the comic itself.[19] United States
Miss Sunshine My Sweet Archenemy Sunshine and Mad are defined in the comic as "asexual lesbians," with Mad out with her identity and Sunshine closeted.[20] This identity is possible, although not as that term, because although asexuality is a sexual orientation, but can be romantically attracted to no one (aromantic, a person of the opposite gender (heteroromantic) or someone of the same gender (homoromantic), among other orientations.[21][22][23][24][25] In the case of Sunshine and Mad, they would be asexual and homoromantic. Mad is romantically attracted to Sunshine, who slowly begins returning the affection,[h] with Mad saying at one point that "guys are gross."[26]
Mad Amber Space
Making underhanded comments demanding other editors work on a project for you, rather than reading the relevant policies and guidelines is doing no one any favors. I'm not interested in expanding this, I'm interested in abiding by our existing policies, consensus and guidelines. If you wish to add many of these, you need to do the leg work with other interested editors. You cannot use tumblr, blogs and non-independent RS to do this. The items should be covered in-depth by independent reliable sources if we do not have an existing article about the work or character. VAXIDICAE💉 16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Yikes. I was just trying to be nice here and have a compromise between their edits and the original. I guess that isn't possible. And to be clear, I am NOT demanding others work on the project, but I'm hoping they do so. I would hope you help improve this page in the future. Historyday01 (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Krieger, Elliot. "Sue Bridhead's asexuality in Jude the Obscure". Elliot's Reading. Archived from the original on June 23, 2020. Retrieved June 23, 2020. Elliot is a former reporter-editor at the Providence Journal.
  2. ^ Sakavic, Nora (December 20, 2020). "Would neil ever slightly crush on someone on his pro team? By crush I mean simply finding them attractive and take a few glances. And would Andrew notice?". we'll be back later, lovies. Archived from the original on June 23, 2020.
  3. ^ Roux, Abigail (December 19, 2015). "A note about sexualities in Part & Parcel". Tumblr. Archived from the original on April 27, 2016. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  4. ^ Arseneault, Christie (July 9, 2015). "Asexuals In Writing: Claudie Arseneault". Art Over Chaos publishing. WordPress. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  5. ^ I, Katherine [@chesneycat] (August 10, 2017). "Marieke's new book (missed the title) features an asexual protag. Peadar's current book The Call also has an asexual character" (Tweet). Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved June 21, 2020 – via Twitter.
  6. ^ Glassman, Shira (February 11, 2015). "Escaping from aliens and rescuing dragons: just another day for Aviva and Rivka!". Welcome to the Mangoverse by Shira Glassman. WordPress. Archived from the original on June 21, 2020. Retrieved June 21, 2020.
  7. ^ "Interlude 10.x". Parahumans. John C. "Wildbow" McCrae. November 24, 2018.
  8. ^ "Undefiled Wings". Webtoon. 2020. Archived from the original on May 15, 2020. Retrieved December 27, 2020.
  9. ^ Spigarose (w, a). "Extra: Character Sheets [3rd part"] Undefiled Wings, no. 17 (February 3, 2018). Internet (webcomic): Webtoon.
  10. ^ Spigarose (w, a). "Extra: Character Sheets [part 5"] Undefiled Wings, no. 81 (July 18, 2020). Internet (webcomic): Webtoon.
  11. ^ Spigarose (w, a). "Extra: character sheets [ 2nd part "] Undefiled Wings, no. 5 (July 14, 2018). Internet (webcomic): Webtoon.
  12. ^ SageFlannery (w, a). "QnA part 1!" StarChild, no. 39 (April 24, 2020). Internet (webcomic): Webtoon.
  13. ^ SageFlannery (w, a). "QnA part 3 + SHORT STORY ANNOUNCEMENT" Starchild, no. 41 (May 15, 2020). Internet (webcomic): Webtoon.
  14. ^ Queen Katbird (w, a). "Magic Girls" 180 Angel, vol. 1, no. 46 (July 20, 2020). Webtoon.
  15. ^ Queen Katbird (w, a). "Confession pt. 3" 180 Angel, vol. 1, no. 44 (June 19, 2020). Webtoon.
  16. ^ Queen Katbird (w, a). "Q&A" 180 Angel, no. 49 (June 26, 2020). Webtoon.
  17. ^ "Lies Within – Cast". www.lieswithincomic.com. Retrieved March 10, 2021.
  18. ^ Yrezu (2020). "Love, Lila". Webtoon. Archived from the original on July 14, 2020. Retrieved December 9, 2020.
  19. ^ Yrezu (w, a). "QnA + Announcement" Lova, Lila, no. 15 (August 23, 2020). Webtoon.
  20. ^ RosannaDuong (w, a). "Nasty Ideas" My Sweet Archenemy, no. 24 (July 18, 2020). Internet (webcomic): Webtoon.
  21. ^ "Asexual & Aromantic". LGBTQIA+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender/Transsexual, Queer/Questioning, Intersex, Asexual/Allies, Nonbinary/Genderqueer +) Resources and Research. Rider University. December 2, 2020. Archived from the original on September 1, 2019. Retrieved December 30, 2020.
  22. ^ "Debunking 5 Common Myths About Asexuality". Everyday Feminism. October 19, 2014. Archived from the original on November 1, 2020. Retrieved December 30, 2020.
  23. ^ "Romantic Orientations". Asexual Visibility and Education Network. 2020. Archived from the original on October 31, 2020. Retrieved December 30, 2020.
  24. ^ Michelson, Noah (July 7, 2017). "Here's What This Asexual Homoromantic Couple Wants You To Know About Their Lives". HuffPost. Archived from the original on August 16, 2019. Retrieved December 30, 2020.
  25. ^ "Asexual". The Trevor Project. 2020. Archived from the original on April 19, 2020. Retrieved December 30, 2020.
  26. ^ RosannaDuong (w, a). "Not Like Other Girls" My Sweet Archenemy, no. 9 (June 19, 2020). Internet (webcomic): Webtoon.

Gargoyles source, re: Edit summary

@Historyday01, that’s not how burden works. That article has a bunch of unrelated inaccurate info and doesn’t say where the Gargoyles info came from, so I don’t think it’s a reliable source or worthy of inclusion here. The Tumblr link is much more relevant, but it doesn’t say Owen is asexual. CaribouFanfare (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

CaribouFanfare, I don't have the time or energy to update and correct every single entry even the "wrong" ones, that's why I hope that other people do it. If you feel that strongly about the subject, then remove the entry, I won't stop you. Historyday01 (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
It's not a matter of feeling strongly but of verifiability. I think the fact that I haven't touched the page since June shows I'm not especially invested in the outcome of that entry. And I didn't expect you to look at or correct it--since no one "owns" Wikipedia pages, tags asking for verification aren't specific demands on your time. I put in a verification failed tag figuring either someone knew of a better source (or had both time and interest to search for one) or if it sat for a while someone would delete the entry. Since this page seems not to have gotten much traffic since then, I'll leave the tag there. If someone else wants to add a better source, wipe the entry entirely, whatever, go for it. CaribouFanfare (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Well, I just fixed up the entry when doing some updating of entries today. I think its much better. --Historyday01 (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Dang, good work! CaribouFanfare (talk) 02:23, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I know I said I wasn't going to do work on it, but I decided I might as well, since I'm trying to update all sorts of entries on those LGBTQ animation pages... which is a long process, but I already finished going through the 1960-1980s one, then the two for the 1990s. Next up is the ones for the 2000s, then the 2010s, then 2020.

Entries which need better sources

Just creating this because I know that other editor will try to pick apart the entries, so I'm moving them here for the time being, where they will be safe for now... This is another compromise in the endless series of compromises I've made to preserve these pages. Sigh. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I moved it to my sandbox for now. You can move it to your own sandbox or a draft if you would like. Talk pages aren't for drafting those and is not the right place for it. As for the content itself, anyone can write a book, create a web series or web comic. We simply cannot include characters from every single one in existence in this article or it would get unmanageable. Either the work of fiction or the creator having to be notable to have a Wikipedia is a simple and clear guideline to have. I can't think of any situation where we would really need to make an exception. If a character has received significant media attention, then by extension, the work of fiction must have received significant media attention, and we should be making an article for the work of fiction. I'm sure some of the removed entries should have an article about the work of fiction, but that should be fixed before adding them to the list. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Uh huh. I'm aware that not every comic in existence can be added to the page but, I thought it would be easier to access if it was on this talk page rather than in some sandbox or draft. Putting on the talk page is a reminder to me to come back to those later, as no one else seems to care enough to actually update the entries most of the time, except for tiny edits here and there, and possibly to encourage others to use those entries to do the same. After some thought, I decided to move them to one of my sandboxes, at the very end, where they will probably, predictably languish for a pretty long time. Just a guess on my part. Historyday01 (talk) 23:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Tori Spring

Tori Spring is confirmed asexual by creator Alice Oseman, but she appears in both comic series Heartstopper and its TV adaptation, as well as the book Soilatire. Which section should she been in? Nadavhirshfeld (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. Maybe she could have an entry in one section, with references to the other places she appears, so there isn't duplication, if that makes sense. Historyday01 (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@Historyday01 Cool. I'll add her to the literature section since that's where she made her first appearance. Nadavhirshfeld (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes

For characters in literature, the list is titled as characters in modern literature, but Sherlock Holmes was portrayed as asexual and aromantic, despite the terms not being in (common) usage while it was being written. Should he be listed as an ace character? 109.249.184.145 (talk) 11:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Iren Adler. IKhitron (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Gwenpool's history

Having read all of the pre-'love unlimited' gwenpool stuff referenced on this page currently, I am fairly certain it is irrelevant to her current identification as ace. Maybe it gave space to reading her as ace, hence that development, but there was no textual reason to believe it was canon before. Also, she straight-up just does not appear in marvel pride 2021? Mek-laa-ni (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

@Sariel Xilo I am new to wikipedia etiquette, so I don't know if this is appropriate, but based on my having read the sources cited, I don't think this info should be kept on the wikipedia page. Mek-laa-ni (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
You'll see in some of the other entries that character development and/or analysis is included. I've trimmed a bit of the plot details & added two secondary sources (re: Pride 2021 - CBR states The content representing the asexual and aromantic communities in the 2021 Pride issue came in two forms: pride flags in a pride parade scene as well as a scene in which Gwen Poole / Gwenpool cameos wearing the colour scheme of the asexual pride flag). Sariel Xilo (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. I just re-read the pride issue to confirm, but Gwenpool has no such cameo in it, that seems to be a journalistic mistake. I have not recently re-read the Kelly Thompson West Coast Avengers, but I am tempted to ask why personal interpretations that are not supported textually or metatextually are being cited as fact. Mek-laa-ni (talk) 22:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
It'll be few days until I can get Marvel Voices out of the library but I'm inclined to believe CBR is correct on the cameo. The ScreenRant article ("10 Asexual Icons In Comic Books", August 2022) states: While the solo series shows Gwen has no interest in physical relationships, her first appearance depicted her as graysexual and entering a relationship with Quentin Quire. However, Gwen later admits in the metafictional narrative of West Coast Avengers that she wanted to be less of a supporting character and thought a romantic relationship with Kid Omega would mean she'd be less likely to be killed off. That's a secondary source doing the analysis and not an editor's interpretation of the source material.
If I hadn't found a secondary source and we only had the primary to go on, I would have trimmed it to just the straight plot detail (rough ex: During writer Kelly Thompson's run on West Coast Avengers (2018), Gwen entered into a romantic relationship with Quentin Quire, however, Gwen later admits that she only did so because she felt that a romantic plot would make her less of a supporting character in the metafictional narrative of the series and thus less likely to die. ... In 2023, it was then confirmed that Gwenpool was ...). Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it usually makes more sense to cite a secondary source than a primary one, but I don't know where the information that she is grey-asexual in this series is coming from. This article was published after Gwenpool reportedly appeared in the pride issue in asexual colours, (which I believe would not really be a confirmation of asexuality if it happened), so I feel that the author of this article may have gone back to these comics with the reading of her as ace in mind but been confused by her being in a relationship with Quire. There is nothing on page, in my opinion, that supports that reading. There had been no evidence at this point to suggest she was supposed to be read as any flavour of asexual. I suspect the word 'grey-asexual' was used because of her relationship with Quire, but there is also no confirmation on page that Gwenpool is experiencing (a rare) sexual attraction, although I would say it seems to be a bit implied she is attracted to him. The Love Unlimited: Gwenpool series also confirms that Gwenpool has never felt 'butterflies' for anyone before, leaving me to believe she is not grey-sexual either. Maybe at least a clarification that despite her relationship with and possible attraction to Quire in the West Coast Avengers series, it was later confirmed that she has never felt attraction? Mek-laa-ni (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I think this article makes it pretty clear it was not canon until a couple of weeks ago that gwenpool is asexual. I think I will re-delete everything outside of the love unlimited stuff, with that in mind. Mek-laa-ni (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Again, I still think character development & retcons are important context so I partially reverted that edit. I left out the cameo because it is a blink or you'll miss it (Gwen is at a table in the ace colors but not in her costume). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Stop removing Saiki Kusuo please.

I am an actual asexual who has added this entry multiple times only to have it removed under the claim that it is unsourced. The “source” is THE SHOW. The dialogue of THE SHOW discusses his asexuality, unless the citation you are expecting is each time marker when this is stated. It is repulsive that the characters from House get an entry for their deliberate falsification and demonization of the ace community but more proof than hard dialogue is required for one of the firmest ace representations in animation. @Historyday01 you may stop trying to silence ace people now. If you have not seen the show that is not my problem. Verify my entry by doing your research rather than attempting to gatekeep canon. Kusuo is canonically asexual, HIS LACK OF ATTRACTION IS EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE SERIES. Add a citation for the link to stream it on Netflix so people can go check if it burns you up so much. 2603:6080:F540:10:8896:F22A:BFF3:2423 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Whew, your comment is a LOT. Not trying to "silence" anyone here. To be perfectly clear, I'm only a stickler for having reliable sources on here because LGBTQ+ pages on Wikipedia have a problem with people adding in reliable sources. Only characters who are verified as asexual, with reliable sources to back it up, on the page.
The only source I'm finding as of yet about Saiki Kusuo being asexual is a listcle (I have added this sources before to entries, but have learned that these aren't the best sources), and a bunch of unreliable sources (mostly blogs on Tumblr and postings on social media, which are self-published, unreliable sources) when searching "Saiki Kusuo" on a "Saiki Kusuo asexual" and "Saiki K asexual" Google search. I was mistaken when I said there was an Anime News Network (ANN) review, as the review of the anime by Rebecca Silverman (she's a pretty great anime reviewer) doesn't mention it. I'd LOVE to have an entry for Saiki Kusuo (the more asexual characters on this page, the better!), but having a reliable source is important for anyone who wants information on asexual representation in the media (which is admittedly abysmal and almost non-existent, sadly). Preventing misinformation or headcanons from going on the page is important.
In terms of having an entry on House, that entry on the page relies on two reliable sources: Lauren Jankowski's article on asexual characters in pop culture and Tracy Clark-Flory's article criticizing House for getting asexuality wrong. Both sources are undoubtedly critical of the representation. On Wikipedia, pages MUST be neutral, so there can't be a preference for "good"/"great" representation over "terrible"/"awful"/"bad" representation. I will admit that not every entry is the best, but your comment is giving me a bit inspiration to go through the existing entries and making sure they are up to snuff. I try and make sure I go through this page as much as I can, but sometimes I fall down on the job a bit.
Adding to this, and doing some searching on ANN and found some other asexual characters which I will add to the main page (unless something changes) if I have time:
However, Doughnuts Under a Crescent Moon isn't part of this, despite the comment in one review about reading "three separate titles where one or both of the protagonists exhibit signs of being on the asexual/demisexual spectrum" (but this seems to be a headcanon, I think), is O Maidens in Your Savage Season as the reviewer notes, and I Hear the Sunspot: Limit as far as I can tell from reviewers of those titles. Yako may be asexual in She Loves to Cook, and She Loves to Eat as she has waving lesbian and asexual flags in one illustration by the manga author, so I may try to dig into that more, to see if I can find additional information, if possible. The same goes for possible asexuality in Whisper Me a Love Song and Kiss and White Lily for My Dearest Girl. I also found another article about asexuality in Bloom Into You (I've read a couple articles on that aspect in the past) Historyday01 (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Demisexual Characters?

Are Demisexual characters invluded as per the point of being part of the asexuality-spectrum or grouping?

See, I noted that Colonel Henry Wong, main protagonist of Glynn Stewart's "Peacekeepers of Sol: Raven's Peace" (ISBN-13: 978-1988035970) isn't listed, while being a character who self-identifies as demisexual, and whose demisexuality plays a notable part of the book series. 158.174.22.239 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source which shows that to be the case, then it should be included. Historyday01 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Light Yagami

Light Yagami from Death Note should be here, he too is asexual. He's clearly stated to have no interest in women... nor does he appear to be gay. 93.144.189.243 (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source which shows that to be the case, then it should be included. Historyday01 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Word of god?

There are many characters here that have been 'confirmed' to be asexual metatextually, and while this page does a good job of making that clear, I wonder if there is really any merit to these characters being listed at all? Mek-laa-ni (talk) 15:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Which characters are you thinking of? Historyday01 (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
From Animation and Anime: Lilith Clawthorne, Perry the Platypus, Peridot, From Film: Alan Garner, Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias, From Comics, Webcomics, and Graphic Novels: Nadia van Dyne/Wasp, and Yelena Belova Mek-laa-ni (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I would say the Lilith Clawthorne entry is well-sourced enough, and arguably the same for Peridot. The Perry the Platypus entry is a flippant comment by Dan Povenmire, so I'd be fine with removing that. It appears that the Alan Garner one is pretty straightforward. As for Nadia van Dyne / Wasp entry, the sources seem shaky. The entries on Adrian Veidt/Ozymandias entries and Yelena Belova entry seem fine to me. Historyday01 (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I was not particularly concerned that there are good sources stating that so and so said that a character is ace, if it is not shown textually. If the character is not shown in text to be ace, what is the point in including them? Especially regarding Yelena Belova, the source given literally says "I have absolutely no control over Marvel’s decisions for her in the future. I like the idea of her being ACE and hope they go with that, but despite my 20+ years writing comics, there isn’t even anyone there I can mention that to. That’s not how comics work. Even if I said she’s X or Y or X and Y, Marvel might be a day away from releasing something that takes her in a totally different direction. Ultimately, my ideas about how Yelena identifies are no more right or wrong than yours." (https://web.archive.org/web/20230319211040/http://www.devingrayson.net/devingraysonblogish/yelenas-sexuality) Having had more time to think about it, I can appreciate why they are on the list, but I do find it frustrating that so many characters listed here are not actually shown textually to be ace.
I also wondered what was wrong with the source provided for Kerewin Holmes in The Bone People? I thought it was pretty reliable, but I am still new to editing here, so I would appreciate any insight. I also wonder if the book itself could be a source? I think this quote is pretty indicative:
"I spent a considerable amount of time when I was, o, adolescent, wondering why I was different, whether there were other people like me. Why, when everyone else was fascinated by their developing sexual nature, I couldn't give a damn. I've never been attracted to men. Or women. Or anything else. It's difficult to explain, and nobody has ever believed it when I have tried to explain, but while I have an apparently normal female body, I don't have any sexual urge or appetite. I think I am a neuter." Mek-laa-ni (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
I think there should be a balance. If a creator, actor, etc. makes a flippant comment that a character like Dan Povenmire (as he did with Perry the Platypus), then surely it should NOT be included. In terms of Yelena, I'd be fine with removing that. As for Kerewin Holmes in The Bone People, I primarily removed in part because it cites the book, but doesn't even cite a specific page! Considering that quote, I'd guess there would be a good secondary, and reliable, source to add to that entry as well. I can admit that there are probably MORE ace characters which SHOULD be added to the page. The problem I had before was that the citations were lacking. I added eight new entries to the "Comics, manga, and graphic novels" sub-section recently, which are all textual ace characters. Considering the long discussions on Talk:List of fictional non-binary characters about the inclusion criteria, on that page, I don't have a desire to repeat that any other page or create similar edit notices, unless absolutely necessary.
As I mentioned in my below comment in response to someone who claimed that Saiki Kusuo is textually ace (I couldn't find any evidence of that, apart from one listicle), some people see ace characters in O Maidens in Your Savage Season, I Hear the Sunspot: Limit, She Loves to Cook, and She Loves to Eat, Whisper Me a Love Song, and Kiss and White Lily for My Dearest Girl, but those appear to be headcanons, from what I can tell. Historyday01 (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for re-adding the Kerewin Holmes and O from 'Sex Education' entries, and a new entry for Jay from 'State of the Union'. These days, there probably are more ace characters which are confirmed textually than those 'confirmed' as asexual metatextually. But, perhaps those that are confirmed metatextually should be examined on a case-by-case basis? Historyday01 (talk) 12:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Personally, I think that Yelena should be removed (I tried when I was adding the other things, but I kept creating formatting issues with the table :( ) and spongebob as well. I am also kinda on the side of removing Alan Garner and Ozymandias.
Thank you, by the way, for removing Billups from here a while ago. I did not know why he was listed.
I definitely think there is a problem with listing head-canons here. In fact I wonder if Gwenpoole being confirmed asexual was not citogenesis (as coined by xkcd), so I appreciate your diligence. For what it is worth, I do not think you are trying to 'silence ace voices'. Mek-laa-ni (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Looking at it now, the Yelena entry does seem too speculative (saying that she is probably asexual or would keep her sexual orientation to herself), while Spongebob was only stated as asexual in response to right-wing criticism saying he was gay. As far as I know, his asexuality hasn't actually been shown in the show itself. I can agree with Alan Garner too, as it seems like an off comment "Alan’s asexual. If he doesn’t know that by now, he’s in trouble" (this wasn't even shown in the movie). The same goes for the Ozymandias entry, as Matthew Goode called him "possibly homosexual" and "more asexual than anything else" which gives some wiggle room that he ISN'T asexual. I think Billups was listed as some people seemed to thin there were ace vibes coming from Billups, but he is never stated as asexual in the show, nor has anyone who has worked on the show said he is ace either.
Thanks! I try to be diligent on this page, as a major contributor to it over the years. I think the person who said I was trying to 'silence ace voices' was annoyed that I removed an entry for Saiki Kusuo more than anything else. But, yes, there is undoubtedly an issue with headcanons being listed on here. It's a problem for many LGBTQ pages, to be honest, which requires diligence, to ensure there aren't such entries.Historyday01 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I've restored Gwenpool as primary & secondary sources list her as ace (she has a whole story arc in Love Unlimited discovering what it means to be ace so it is quite literally in the text). Sariel Xilo (talk) 23:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, sorry, I undid all of that previous edit without realizing it was possible to only partially revert an edit, and was going to fix that manually. I do have a concern about one of the sources, since it was only officially confirmed that she is ace this year, but it was a popular headcanon before that, and the first screenrant article cited is from 2022. Mek-laa-ni (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
As discussed above (#Gwenpool's history), that ScreentRant article is used as a secondary source for the character's development (specifically, the West Coast Avengers run) and the entry in this article does not mention the headcanon reported on in 2022. Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it is tricky when it comes to pages like this, as it is far too easy for headcanons to slip in. So, the best sources which are added to verify the content, the better. Historyday01 (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we could have a separate section on the creators saying what characters were (meant to be) asexual, but the text itself not necessarily explicitly saying so? And media interpretations, like Norman Reedus responding to fan perspectives on Daryl Dixon potentially being so? 91.102.162.100 (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually think there's room for development on canon versus headcanon versus the nebulous bit where creators state things that aren't in the text; there must be academic sources on the murkiness of the portrayal of asexuality in fiction. But I think it should go in Media portrayal of asexuality instead of this list article. Sariel Xilo (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. As I see it, we need to ONLY have canon characters on this page, not ones with headcanons. And there are undoubtedly some sources, academic and otherwise, on the murkiness of the portrayal of asexuality in fiction as you put it, which could be noted on the Media portrayal of asexuality page. Historyday01 (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Remaining removed Marvel entries

Characters Title Years Notes
Gaveedra-Seven / Shatterstar Marvel Comics 1991–2007 Shatterstar's co-creators Rob Liefeld and Fabian Nicieza created and wrote the character as being asexual from 1991 to 2007, expressing disapproval of later writers ignoring this aspect of his character, Liefeld saying that Shatterstar was meant to be "asexual, and struggling to understand human behavior",[1] and Nicieza stating that "I pretty clearly stated that Shatterstar had no real understanding of sexuality – homo or hetero – and needed to learn about general human nature before he could define his own sexual identity."[2][2] Following the duo's departure, Shatterstar's and Rictor's relationship was written as romantic from 2007 onward, against their wishes, with Marvel Editor-in-Chief Joe Quesada stating that if Liefeld wanted the character's asexuality restored, he would have to "take it up with the next editor-in-chief",[3] to which Liefeld stated that he "can't wait to someday" do.[1] Following Quesada's deparature from Marvel in May 2022, whether the character's asexuality will be restored is unconfirmed.[4]
Yelena Belova / Black Widow 1995–Present In an interview Yelena's creator, writer Devin K. Grayson confirmed her asexuality when stating "Yelena is... probably more likely to identify as asexual than to follow Nat's romantic path".[5] Additionally in her solo series titled Black Widow: Pale Little Spider Yelena is asked by another character whether or not she identifies as a lesbian and Yelena responds by stating "No I'm not a lesbian, I'm not anything". In December 2021, Grayson further confirmed Yelena's asexuality and aromanticism; addressing the lack of explicit mention of the terms in the character's storylines, Grayon stated that as a Russian, Yelena "may not have been exposed to terms like "ACE" and "ARO." [and] If she has thought to question her sexuality at all, I feel pretty confident that she'd keep her conclusions to herself."[6][7] In a Tumblr post in July 2023, White Widow writer Sarah Gailey confirmed that Yelena would be depicted as asexual in the text of her then-upcoming miniseries about the character in November 2023.[8]

Taking a closer look, it appears that Shatterstar was an asexual character from 1991 to 2007. Beyond word of god (ie. the creators), the character's wikipedia article cites X-Force #43 (although it doesn't give a year so I'm not sure what run that is). It also has the full quote from Fabian Nicieza: "In my final issue, I pretty clearly stated that Shatterstar had no real understanding of sexuality – homo or hetero – and needed to learn about general human nature before he could define his own sexual identity." So it seems the creators did say something in the text but I don't have the time to try to track down back issues via my library. Similarly, Sarah Gailey stated she would include a textual depiction in her White Widow run which started in November 2023 but that's not something I'm going to be able to verify (while my library carries a bunch of TPBs, it'll be ages until a new comic run becomes part of their circulation). So I think for now, Shatterstar should be restored (like Gwenpool, it wasn't discussed above as a character to remove but was removed anyway) while Yelena can wait until it is published. Thoughts? Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree with Shatterstar being restored, it is complicated because it is not currently true, but comics are a bit of a strange medium where one can pick and choose what to read and what one thinks is 'canon', and anyway the history is important to the character. I can also commit to keeping up with this new ongoing white widow series, although it does not look great :/. Mek-laa-ni (talk) 00:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ a b Melrose, Kevin (July 3, 2009). "Liefeld 'can't wait to someday undo' Shatterstar development". CBR. Archived from the original on April 27, 2016. Retrieved June 13, 2022.
  2. ^ a b Wheeler, Andrew. "Fabian Nicieza: Working for the Man". PopImage. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved December 5, 2013.
  3. ^ Quesada, Joe; Phegley, Keil (July 14, 2009). "Cup O' Joe". CBR.
  4. ^ Burlingame, Russ (May 31, 2022). "Joe Quesada, Executive and Former Editor In Chief, Leaves Marvel Comics". ComicBook.com. Retrieved June 1, 2022.
  5. ^ Morse, Ben. "Writer Devin Grayson on Natasha Romanoff, Yelena Belova, and the History of 'Black Widow'". Marvel Entertainment. Archived from the original on January 28, 2021. Retrieved May 21, 2021.
  6. ^ Devin Grayson [@Gothamette] (December 14, 2021). "Many of you have been asking me about #YelenaBelova's sexuality recently. Here are my thoughts on the matter: https://buff.ly/3dNHIP2" (Tweet) – via Twitter.
  7. ^ Grayson, Devin. "Yelena Belova's Sexuality". DevinGrayson.net. Retrieved December 13, 2021.
  8. ^ Gailey, Sarah (July 1, 2023). The assassin's out of the bag: I'm writing Yelena Belova, the White Widow, in her own series at Marvel!!. gaileyfrey. Retrieved July 1, 2023 – via Tumblr. I love Yelena so much and I'm beyond excited to share her story with all of you. It's a wild honor to be trusted with the work of bringing the White Widow into her own world on her own terms. I can't wait to share what's in store - it's gonna be killer. -gailey #yelena belova #white widow #black widow #Sarah Gailey #comics #Alessandro Miracolo #David Marquez #marvel #the avengers #hawkeye #asexual #HERO is a strong word okay #i promise you she will have a blast tho #murdering whoever needs to get murdered{{cite AV media}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)

Reacher

Hi. How about adding Frances Neagley by Maria Sten from Reacher (TV series) to the list? Timestamp 28:10 in 2x01, "But you found her attractive." – "Who wouldn't?" – "Me. I don't find anyone attractive.". IKhitron (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I think if we have some more sources about that, then we could add it. I mean for readers or anyone interested in diving deeper into this topic, it would be helpful to have secondary sources. Historyday01 (talk) 15:48, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, I hope some sources will pay attention to this, but there is a chance it can take years. IKhitron (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

List ordering

The ordering of the different sections is extremely inconsistent. Some sections are ordered by the characters' names, while others are ordered by the characters' debut dates. The top of the page claims that "The names are organized by the year of the character's debut", but when you attempt to edit the source there is a message at the top of each section saying to "List in alphabetical order by surname (i.e. last name) or by singular name if there is none". I would just correct this myself, but I'm fairly new to Wikipedia editing and not sure which of these conflicting messages is the correct way to order the list. Could a more experienced editor please clear this up? BossBabyIsAMasterpiece (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your message! I think at one time it WAS organized by year of the character's debut (I was the one that originally proposed that), but the number of new entries threw it off... I did some light editing this morning and fixed it so that ALL the categories are organized "in alphabetical order by surname (i.e. last name) or by singular name if there is none". I'm glad I did these edits as well as the source for Loveless didn't even mention the book! So, I fixed that as well and removed I think one or two entries which didn't have reliable sources. I'm tempted to remove the entry for Perry the Platypus too (it was weakly confirmed on a Tik Tok comment, but I'm not sure that's enough to justify an entry to be perfectly honest). Historyday01 (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_fictional_asexual_characters/Archive_1&oldid=1253588907"