Talk:Media portrayal of LGBTQ people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.gomestic.com/Consumer-Information/10-Unique-Facts-Regarding-the-Fast-food-Franchise-with-the-Old-fashioned-Burgers-Wendys.427675

  Triggered by \bgomestic\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

LGBT portrayal in media

A summary of how I will expand and improve sections. There is already a wikipedia page specifically addressing LGBT people in the media.

In the wikipedia article on lgbt and media portrayal, there are 5 components and a overview. Excluding the overview, the other sections are quite short. In the section media portrayal of LGBT in color and media portrayal of LGBT of gender are the shortest. Not only are they short with grammatical errors, but the content in those sections are fairly confusing. My intentions with the two sources listed is to expand the sections with more detail of the poor representation of LGBT people of color and gender in the meda.

What I will do :

Add content explaining the stereotypical figures that are typically used to portray lgbt of color. Explain the consequences that may arise from the inaccurate portrayal of lgbt in color. Analyze why media tend to focus on the gender of gay people of the lgbt community in media , than any other.

Sources

Hannah, Darryl. "Redirect Notice." Redirect Notice. Huffington Post, 1 Apr. 2012. Web. 4 Nov. 2014.

"LGBT in Media." GLAAD Media Reference. 9th ed. Vol. 1. GLAAD, 2014. Print.

Huey, Asher. "Saving Santana's Storyline." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 23 Jan. 2012. Web. 7 Nov. 2014.

Rfrank8 (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC) frank8

Proposed additions to the page:

Media Representations of Non-Binary Gendered Individuals

Recognition of non-binary gender in media is very rare, despite many social media sites allow users to self-identify as non-binary. For example, the new gender options rolled out by Facebook during early 2014 include many different options for non-binary gendered individuals. However, allowing for self-identification does not necessarily equate to representation., as there are very few representations of individuals with non-binary gender in the media today. In fact, a large deal of non-binary gender media representation happens in communities made by and for people with non-binary gender, and contain largely self-made content, often about the content maker.

The only instance of a non-binary identified person that has become significant in the mainstream media is the video Break Free, created by Ruby Rose. As of November 20th, 2014, the video had garnered 1,833,889 views. Additionally, there was a Buzzfeed article written about the video, which received widespread media attention. The original Facebook post on Ruby Rose's official Facebook page has received over 135,000 likes, and 182,000 shares.

There have also been made to create non-binary gendered children's books, made, as well, albeit very few. The most notable of these is the Polkadot Series, created by author, social worker, teacher, and activist Talcott Broadhead. The Polkadot Series features a non-binary gendered child as the main character and focus of the stories.

A possible reason for there being very little representation of non-binary gendered individuals in the media is a lack of repetition. According to Judith Butler's conceptualization of gender as performative, and her theory of gender performativity, we can understand that repeated instances of a concept, in this case, non-binary gender in the media, attribute legibility and coherence to that concept. Since there is a lack of repetition or multiple productions of representation of non-binary gender in the media, non-binary gender is thus rendered incoherent and invisible to mainstream media sources.

However, the future of non-binary gendered representation in the media may be looking up. One promising example of non-binary individuals being included in media is the Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (or MMORPG) called Pumpkin Online. Pumpkin Online is advertised as a "farming/dating sim MMORPG." While still in Alpha Development as of November 2014, the Kickstarter page made to fund this game promises non-binary gender options for players' characters, and pledges to not restrict features or clothing by a character's gender. While still very few representations of non-binary gendered individuals exist in media, we can be very hopeful for the future, as both transgender and non-binary gendered individuals gain visibility and advance politically, further representation in media sources may quickly follow.

StephanieSkora (talk) 07:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Race and Queer Media Representation

Media representations of LGBT characters are unproportionally white. In GLAAD’s annual “We are on TV” report, it was found that out of the 813 broadcast network’s series regular characters, only 13% are black, 8% Latino/Latina, 4% Asian, and 2% multi-racial. Out of the 74 LGBT-identified characters on mainstream broadcast networks, only 11% are black, 11% Latina/Latino, and 5% Asian. People of color, therefore, make up 27% of characters and 34% of LGBT characters. What people see on television are white stories and experiences. "Media is indeed a powerful way to construct, modify, and spread cultural beliefs. Television drama is a form of media, which gets into our households, almost without us realizing it and informs us, the viewers, of a series of representations and values that are ingrained in Western society and, at the same time, are either reinforced or undermined within that cultural representation, in this case, television drama." Television often tells stories that represent the time in which we live and transpose the zeitgeist. Therefore, television should represent all types of people and tell all different kinds of stories and experiences.

“Popular television shows including Will & Grace, Sex and the City, Brothers and Sisters, and Modern Family routinely depict gay men. Yet the common characteristic among most televisual representations of gay men is that they are usually white.” Having both a queer and black or non-white character is creating multi-faceted “otherness,” which is not normally represented on television. Additionally, while many shows depict LGBT people of color, they are often used as a plot device or in some type of trope. Santana Lopez, for example, from the teenage dramedy Glee, is a queer woman of color, however, she is often characterized as a Latina fetish and over-sexualized. In conjunction, Callie Torres, who was one of the first bi-sexual Latina characters on mainstream television, was first depicted as a “slut,” and this Latina stereotype was used as much of her single plot-device.

Moreover, non-white LGBT characters are often depicted as “race neutral.” For example, on the ABC Family show, GRΣΣK, Calvin Owens is openly gay and many of his storylines, struggles, and plots revolve around his self-identification as LGBT. However, while being physically African-American, it is never mentioned in the show, and he is never seen as “explicitly black.”

As queer politics continue to become a defining part of the decade, television continues to reflect that. Starting with hits like Modern Family, gay homonormativity is becoming a mainstay on broadcast television. There has been a cultural shift from white, gay men being depicted as non-monogamous sex-seekers, stemming from the AIDs epidemic to being “just like everyone else” in their quest to be fathers. This Hollywood trend, while expanding LGBT representations on TV, is really only giving a single-story to the LGBT community and completely neglecting other LGBT stories.

A recent exception to the lack of LGBT people of color on television represented in a realistic, non-fetish or race-neutral way, is the ABC Family show, The Fosters. The Fosters depicts a blended family of one biological child, two adopted children, and two foster children being raised by a lesbian, multi-racial couple. Two of the children are Latino and have struggles and storylines relating to that. The couple, whom the show is based around, also struggles with race as source of conflict on top of their LGBT storyline.

Kenugen2 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Asexuality in Television

Asexuality receives sparse attention in the media. It is often viewed as a “lack” of something, which is difficult to actively portray on screen. Additionally, asexuality has yet to be fully recognized as a legitimate sexual orientation. Therefore, when when it does get representation in the media, asexual characters are often not the main characters or the focus of story lines, and/or tend to be framed around a mindset of needing to be fixed or changed. An example of this type of portrayal occurs in an episode of the popular tv show “House M.D.” In the 2011-2012 season episode titled “Better Half,” a couple (whose story is additionally not the focal one) start out as declaring themselves to be proudly and happily asexual. However, House’s immediate reaction to their statement is “there must be some medical cause.” He then sets out to prove that there is no way they can be asexual by choice. House does indeed discover a brain tumor in the husband that it turns out has been suppressing his sexuality. When this is revealed, his wife then sheepishly admits that she became asexual purely to be with her husband, and that before they met she had enjoyed sexual encounters.

Another frequent trope of asexual representation in media is the tendency for it to be temporary and something that changes over time. It is not shown to be consistent trait or facet of the characters in question. It is merely a phase that someone goes through. In multiple popular tv shows, including “Dexter” and the “The Big Bang Theory,” the main characters (Dexter and Sheldon respectively) start out in each series as staunchly asexual. Neither character has any interest in sex or physical relations. However, in both series, these characters slowly begin to change, giving physicality in relationships a chance. In Season 1 Episode 1 of Dexter, he describes the relationship he has with a woman named Rita. He says that sex never enters relationships for him, and that he doesn't understand the actual act of sex. However, in Season 2 episode 4, he form a sexual relationship with another woman, and upon his return to Rita, he begins developing a more intimate relationship with her as well. However, as their relationship progresses, Sheldon becomes more open to being more physical.

There is one show currently on television called "Sirens (US Version," that most agree portray asexuality in a positive light. One of the main female characters, nicknamed Voo Doo, is openly asexual, something that is recognized and talked about throughout the series. The encounter that she has with a coworker in Season 1 Episode 6 goes remarkably well, as he affirms and accepts her and her identity for what they are, and does not try to change her or convince her otherwise.

Szorich922 (talk) 06:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC) Szorich922

References

Untitled

the EBSCO databases use this subject term for your topic: SEXUAL minority youth in mass media This gives a brief, but possibly useful list of articles and a book. -SBS

I think you have a really solid foundation to work with on your Wikipedia article! I found a report that was published by GLAAD that might be helpful for your paper! They look at the increased role of LGBT characters in the media and have a lot of substantial data that can make your article even better! I would re-read the article again for some biases and add more citations in for things that you say but overall I think you have a solid foundation with a lot of great details!

http://www.glaad.org/files/GLAAD-2014-WWAT.pdf

KLK1130 (talk) 23:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Media portrayal of LGBT people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303190539/http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/540/5860/2008/8/4/594333_353231713890GayPride.html to http://www.irishnews.com/appnews/540/5860/2008/8/4/594333_353231713890GayPride.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160323212403/http://gawker.com/heres-a-brief-history-of-queer-cartoon-characters-1590469916 to http://gawker.com/heres-a-brief-history-of-queer-cartoon-characters-1590469916

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Media portrayal of LGBT people adjustment

Some sources are not cited, need to fix that. Some citations needed, however, are simply examples of LGBT representation, but the owners of the content are LGBT themselves, so I'm questioning if it's necessary since they're LGBT. The history posted is very nice, but it stops after the AIDS epidemic when nowadays, LGBT representation is prevalent now more than ever in media. I think it should be required to acknowledge the modern depiction of LGBT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.41.197.222 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Bury your gays" section from LGBT stereotypes

In television scripts and other fiction, for years, gay and lesbian characters "die or meet another unhappy ending, such as becoming insane". The content below has been present at LGBT stereotypes (e.g, here) but was not a good fit there, and has been removed (see discussion). But it has been suggested that it would make a good addition here, and I agree. I've added the content of this section below, as a convenience for editors of this article, who may wish to discuss adding all or part of it to Media portrayal of LGBTQ people/Archive 1.

copy of section content from rev. 973593786 of LGBT stereotypes

In fiction: "Bury your gays" "Bury your gays" or more specifically "dead lesbian syndrome" is a trope in fiction that requires that gay or lesbian characters die or meet another unhappy ending, such as becoming insane. According to Autostraddle, which examined 1,779 scripted U.S. television series from 1976 to 2016, 193 (11%) of them featured lesbian or bisexual female characters, and among these, 35% saw lesbian or bisexual characters dead, but only 16% provided a happy ending for them. Similarly, among all lesbian or bisexual characters in no-longer-airing series, 31% ended up dead, and only 10% received a happy ending. In a study of 242 character deaths in the 2015-2016 television season, Vox reported that "A full 10 percent of deaths [were] queer women." Such statistics led Variety to conclude in 2016 that "the trope is alive and well on TV, and fictional lesbian and bisexual women in particular have a very small chance of leading long and productive lives". The trope also appears in other fiction, such as video games, where LGBT characters are, according to Kotaku, "largely defined by a pain that their straight counterparts do not share". Facing challenges that "serve as an in-world analogy for anti-LGBTQ bigotry", these characters are defined by tragedy that denies them a chance at happiness. Increasing awareness and criticism of the trope has made creators attempt to avoid it, which also limits the range of stories that are told about queer characters. On May 15, 2020, on the day the final season of She-Ra and the Princesses of Power premiered, showrunner Noelle Stevenson told the Los Angeles Times that she couldn't "see another gay character die on TV for the moment. Maybe one day we can have a tragic gay romance again, but that has been, like, the only norm for so long." References

Pinging top-10 editors by text, edits, or attribution with > 4% of total, and having any contributions in the last three months: @CeeIV, Me, Myself, and I are Here, Bearcat, and OnBeyondZebrax:. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

For the record, just noting the fact that Sandstein (talk · contribs) appears to have added that section to the article in this edit. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

LGBT Representations in children's media

This section is off to a good start. I wonder if you can provide additional context for the first statement of this section, perhaps providing a time period over which this increase in representations of LGBT individuals in children's media have been observed? I think this section would benefit from additional examples. Some examples of TV shows that come to mind are Adventure Time, Steven Universe, and the Disney show Good Luck Charlie. At this time, the section seems to focus exclusively on TV shows. Adding in additional forms of media, such as film/movies, books, etc. might beef up this section as well. Ah728213 (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

This looks good so far. I agree with the previous reviewer that providing additional context for the first statement would be great. Presenting the overview of the topic as something ongoing that is dependent on the time and production of specific media is necessary. I added some internal links to the specific people and organizations that have Wiki pages to link to. Sadiemeade (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I propose adding The Dragon Prince as an additional example for a TV shows as it is current and shows LGBT relationships. It may also be worth mentioning that it exhibits the "bury your gays" trope discussed in this article. Ragatoni22 (talk) 23:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to do so provided it's covered in a reputable source. Sxologist (talk) 02:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving content to LGBT children's television programming page?

It's not really a merger, but I think it would be best that the "LGBT representation in children's media" section in the main article be moved to the LGBT children's television programming page. We don't want duplication of information and that page is much better sourced, and organized, than this one. Please indicate whether you support or oppose this. Thanks and I look forward to your comments. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Why does LGBT children's television programming have so many citations to Twitter? That's not good sourcing in any sense. We are supposed to be based on WP:Secondary sources to avoid original research; people who are involved with a show playing along with fan interpretations is not encyclopedic material. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Because a lot of the characters were confirmed by creators in tweets or worked on the show. Considering who these tweets came from they seemed to fulfill the existing standards when it comes to self-published sources. Some of these tweets could be removed and replaced with other sources, but I think others should be kept as I doubt they are in articles directly, and they serve as a source for existing information. But, I'll go through them and see what I can do. The number of tweets has now been dramatically reduced to only a couple. --Historyday01 (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, don't you think that moving content from the main page to the LGBT children's television programming page would be better? I mean, I don't want duplication, but I can also understand the content being in two places. I would also say that discussion about improving the LGBT children's television programming page should be on that talk page rather than here, but that's only my suggestion on the topic. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:37, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey everyone! I notice that there's a page called Gay Media but it covers LGBTQ+ media at large. Someone mentioned this on that talk page, and I thought I'd bring it up here - should we merge that page with this one? It would help combine resources.Amethystloucks (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I agreed with you over at the Talk:Gay media, so yes, I'd accept a merger. I forgot to answer you there, and I'm sorry about that. You can post the merger on Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers and write up something based on the guidelines outlined WP:MERGEINIT. If you want some examples, here's one I put together at Talk:LGBT themes in anime and manga#Merger proposal (even though I haven't implemented it...yet). --Historyday01 (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll put it up for discussion.Amethystloucks (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, just slightly moved where the mergers are from the talk page to the main page. Otherwise, no change. Historyday01 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article title

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Media_portrayal(s),_singular_or_plural. -sche (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Winter 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Tgreen15.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2016. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jon Stansell, TroxelR. Peer reviewers: Sadiemeade, Ah728213.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2017. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zcrow16. Peer reviewers: Sejone13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FreedomRing13.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ragatoni22. Peer reviewers: Csuf.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 9 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): HaleyHam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rlocker1. Peer reviewers: Cocobutter295, Oliviasalter12.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2021 and 7 June 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Uligrac.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Media portrayal of LGBT people of color

Not much to say about this other than the fact that this section uses outdated references and is no longer current information Justintimefordinner (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, I wouldn't doubt that. I think that even if the page had enough sources, preferably those with better and more recent sources, and was strong enough, it could even be split off into its own page. --Historyday01 (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hello @Amadeus1999:, regarding the edit that you reverted on my end. I altered the wording of the article to the way it was worded on a previous revision, and retained the meaning and sources. Mainly I removed the word "Trope" as it is a context heavy word that does not relate to the article in a broad sense. I understand if you don't believe this should be done but can you tell me how it is pushing a POV? June Parker (talk) 01:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

What are the grounds for returning to the previous revision? It seemed to me like the edit in question purposely minimized the serious/cruel nature of what the LGBT characters portrayed in some media go through, hence why I included NPOV. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That was never the intention, I was only replacing "Cliche" with "Trope" outside of direct quotations and altered the surrounding sentences to adhere properly on a grammatical sense.

I think the way I altered the first sentence made it seem like a negative, but I assure you it is not. I can avoid altering it an a new revision. June Parker (talk) 01:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. My issue wasn’t so much with ‘trope’ vs ‘cliche’. Editing that is alright and probably good even. I agree ‘trope’ has its own negative connotations attached. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:17, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

That was already my idea, you still havent told me what makes you think I was pushing a POV. June Parker (talk) 01:22, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I did and we resolved that..? It was indeed the first sentence that mostly seemed seriously off to me 😅 ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 01:25, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay then, have a nice day June Parker (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)