Jump to content

Talk:List of fictional characters with disabilities

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

Literature

[edit]

I see a lot of contemporary characters from films and comics, but not many from literature even though disability in literature is a subject of considerable scholarly interest. How did we miss Quasimodo and Tiny Tim (A Christmas Carol) ? Mduvekot (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mduvekot Honestly because I was reading in the comics genre when I started it and so that was where I started. But it needs a HUGE input of characters. And I hope to collect and add to it now that it's live. Please do help! ☕ Antiqueight haver 19:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. If you're coming from a comics angle, perhaps you're interested in this book: Foss, Chris; Gray, Jonathan W; Whalen, Zach (2016). "Disability in comic books and graphic narratives". Palgrave Macmillan. It might be a good reference (I haven't read it). All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 19:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

[edit]
  • The "medium" column is inconsistent. Tyrion Lannister is listed as "literature and television", but Professor X is only listed as "comics".
  • Barbara Gordon is included on the list, but her paralysis was cured/undone in 2011. Is this list intended to include temporary disabilities? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should include characters whose disability has been a major facet of their character or prompted critical discussion, or both. If a character spends one episode (or whatever) in a wheelchair, then no, but Barbara Gordon developed a whole new hero identity because of her injury, so I think that counts. Particularly because in her case there has been a great deal of critical commentary related to keeping vs. removing the injury and how both options are bad.
With regards to the inconsistency in "medium" I'm not sure how to handle that for more complex instances. ASOIAF & GoT are both so individually big it feels like a reader sorting by either literature or television will miss out if we list him as either or. Plus, although Tyrion appears in both, those are the only two mediums he appears in (so far). On the other hand, comics characters like Prof X or Batgirl are usually heavily adapted into all kinds of properties like video games, cartoons, movies, etc. Too many to list all of them comfortably, I thought. So I kind of made a judgment call when building the list, but nothing's set in stone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of fictional characters with disabilities. 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:

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) 07:54, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stricter inclusion criteria

[edit]

I am worried that a list of all fictional characters with disabilities would be unwieldy or indiscriminate. Can we discuss a stricter inclusion criteria? I propose either "notable fictional characters with disabilities" or "characters with disabilities from notable works of fiction". BenKuykendall (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is being Asian a disability?

[edit]

IRDM added "Damara Megido is Asian" to the list of disabilities and was reverted by Dodger67 with the edit summary "Since when is being Asian a disability?" Editor replied that Damara is a member of a class which is disfigured and hard to understand, that this class is not named in-story, and that "Asian" is a simplified term for her class. A term coined and used by whom please? If not used in-story, what exactly is the justification for using it at all?

Either way and whatever the intention, the content carries the heavy implication that being Asian is a disability. This manifestly cannot stand as is, and I have again removed it until it is appropriately clarified. Captainllama (talk) 00:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[reply copy/pasted from edit summary]: ok fine Captainllama you win, i was trying to hide a joke in an article. just remember to use proper grammar when you kill fun. (missing conjunction))— Preceding unsigned comment added by IRDM (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual orientation and disabled characters

[edit]

It's either irrelevant or insulting to imply that a character's sexual preference belongs in a description of their disability 65.175.241.205 (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think its relevant enough to include. I'm not going to create a whole column for it, as that could get tricky, but I don't mind mentioning it in specific entries if it is relevant to that specific character. --Historyday01 (talk) 22:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 it may be relevant to the character, but not here. This page is only about the disabilities of characters, not any other characteristics. We don't mention any characters' height, race, language, religion, weight, baldness, lefthandedness, or nationality, so why are you insisting on mentioning their sexual orientation? There are a variety of pages where the sexual orientation of fictional characters is relevant, this page is not one of them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 05:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by including it, and since Wikipedia rests on consensus, you'll need a consensus to remove such information about sexual orientation, something which clearly doesn't exist from this discussion at this point. I would say that removing the information about sexual orientation would make this page MUCH less accessible to those in the LGBTQ community which use Wikipedia as a resource and it would further marginalize LGBTQ community on here. Apparently, that's the side you want to take, which is very unfortunate. I wouldn't mind including height, race, language, religion, weight, baldness, lefthandedness, nationality or any other characteristics if they were relevant to specific characters, as well. Wikipedia SHOULD be inclusive. Roger, your edits appear to be those in a long series of efforts to make Wikipedia LESS inclusive to the LGBTQ community. Since we are including the gender of characters, why not sexual orientation too? If we "need" to remove mentions of sexual orientation, then gender ALSO has to go as a category. That only seems fair. To not include BRIEF mentions of their sexual orientation (as it currently exists for the entries of Red Action, Amaya, Gobber the Belch, and Kerry Weaver), when relevant, would weaken the page as a whole. Apparently, that is something you want, which seems illogical to me. --Historyday01 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote to remove it, even if in good faith it draws up a gross correlation. It's not important to this list. ɱ (talk) 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ɱ, This discussion isn't about "voting" on one option or another, per WP:VOTE. It IS important to this list and I stand by that determination. My view on that will NOT be changing. And if there is a consensus to remove it (which there is NOT at this point, as there are many others who will likely weigh in on this topic as I posted about this on multiple projects in hopes of expanding the discussion), I'll honor that of course. If that ends up being the consensus, I will remove ALL LGBTQ characters (Red Action, Amaya, Gobber the Belch, Kerry Weaver, and Kazi) from the list (which will significantly weaken the list), which is not something I want to do, but will do if necessary. Historyday01 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Including sexual preferences here is immensely insulting, at least in my opinion. If the idea is to increase visibility of disabled LGBTQ+ characters I'd encourage a separate page or category being created, as I do think disabled queer youth would benefit from finding those they can relate to, but adding "and a lesbian" in the notes section here is in my opinion unwarranted. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you are saying, but I just don't agree. I see value in that information on this list. I definitely want to increase visibility of disabled LGBTQ+ characters, of course. At the same time, I feel that if I tried to create a page, someone would immediately nominate it for deletion and declare it wasn't "notable" or some other shit which always seems to affect LGBTQ pages. That's just my guess what would happen. Historyday01 (talk) 19:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't object to including a basic description of the character and their role, besides their disability, the sentences could use improvements: "Amaya is a deaf maternal aunt of Callum and Ezran who communicates in sign language and is in love with Janai, a Sunfire elf." I don't see any connection between the character communicating in sign language and their love life. These should really be two sentences, not one. Dimadick (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with that. The sentences definitely need to be improved. I only have so much time to fix the entries and very few other editors seem to dedicate the time to this page that I have at this point (hopefully that changes in the future). I'd much rather improve the existing article rather than splitting off LGBTQ characters into another page like A. C. Santacruz suggested. Historyday01 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered asking if WP:LGBT would be interested in having a List Taskforce to track and maintain these types of lists, Historyday01? Perhaps increasing the visibility of the effort that way would be helpful. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:50, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A. C. Santacruz, I mean, I posted about this discussion on WP:LGBT already, so people can participate in this discussion that way. I fear that a split of content off to a page about LGBTQ characters in disabilities could open a whole other can of worms, as it would imply that EVERY other character on the page is straight. I'm a little wary about calling for a whole List Taskforce as that could involve a whole other commitment of effort to this site and I had been, and continue to plan, on lessening the amount of time I spend on Wikipedia, after reading articles like this, which isn't exactly what I'm experiencing, but I also want to avoid overcommitment. I mean, I had all sorts of plans to create a rash of pages last year... and I never ended up doing any of it. Then again, there is a Person Task Force. So, I don't even know if any one else would care enough to join a task force because they might be overcommitted themselves, or lists of LGBTQ characters aren't their "focus" or something, as happened with the proposed Transgender and intersex task force in 2017 and an earlier attempt at an Intersex Task Force in 2007 got folded in with another project. Even a task force for Cheers never happened and neither did a proposed Transgender task force in 2016. On the other hand, there has been a LOT of chatter about LGBTQ characters on the LGBT studies WikiProject over the years from a quick search I did this afternoon, so maybe there would be interest? Who knows. Historyday01 (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the matter and the above discussion, I do not think this information is warranted in this list of a particular scope. The "Notes" column seems best limited to identifying the disability that the fictional character has. We don't even know the stories behind the characters, along with other generally classifiable details, so sexual orientation seems out of place here. As someone else already mentioned, a cross-section list of characters with disabilities and queer identity could be possible, if it can meet WP:NOTESAL. As a side note, this list could benefit from list-based reliable sources to more apparently satisfy WP:NOTESAL. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{{1}}} Historyday01 (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Such a list will survive if there are sources to justify a standalone list. Even someone coming up with "some justification" to delete it won't immediately mean deletion. Other editors apply policies and guidelines to determine whether a list of any sort is warranted, and that would happen with your hypothetical list. For what it is worth, I think to pursue that cross-section list in a way that is similar to this list would potentially be too much. From what I can tell, I am not seeing a Wikipedia article about the queer disabled community (or whatever the most appropriate name would be). There seem to be sources about that as a distinct intersection, and I think that article should be created first. That article could have a section within it identifying examples of some fictional characters that intersect both, in a few lines, using reliable sources. Maybe that section will be enough, maybe an embedded list would work too, and if truly warranted, that can be split into a standalone list of characters like this one. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point, but it would require time to gather sources for the standalone list and to expand it beyond the six entries. And I can agree that a "cross-section list in a way that is similar to this list would potentially be too much." I don't think there is an article about the queer disabled community either. I think an article would be good, but I'm not sure what it would be called. Maybe something like Disability and LGBT identities similar to the Autism and LGBT identities page? It might be a herculean effort to make such a page, however. Such a page could even be summarized and/or linked to on Disability in the media page. Historyday01 (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An article about the intersectionality between disability and LGBTQI+ is certainly possible, and not hard to do as there are more than enough good sources, starting with Alison Kafer's seminal work. (BTW I rescued the Kafer article from G13 deletion, so I'd really appreciate it if editors would refrain from impugning my motives here.) However, I'm not sure if it would extend to fictional characters.
That said we need to pull this conversation back to the original question - whether it is apropriate to include sexual orientation in this list. I'm still convinced it is a mistake to do so in this list. The content of lists are literally (and narrowly) defined by the title of the list. I'm not the first or only reader to react with "since when is being gay a disability?" Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I concur that it's not appropriate to include that here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to, personally, believe that it is worthwhile to include sexual orientation on this list and I stand by that position. It would be unfortunate if that information was removed from the list. At the same time, I do have to thank Roger for sharing that page. In terms of creating a new page, while I feel it is "certainly possible," the likelihood is that I would be the person who creates that page, resulting in more time and labor to create the page. As a result I predict that I will end up being the only editor, for the most part, who cares enough to edit and update such a page. That is just my educated guess of what would happen based on what happens to a LOT of LGBTQ pages I have on my watchlist. While saying all of that, as I said before, I'm fine with following the consensus on here, although I'm not seeing any clear-cut consensus at this point, with not even ten users participating in this discussion as of yet. Historyday01 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have no new posts or any new participants joining this discussion for several days, so it's done.

Only one participant has expressed clear support for including sexual orientation in this list. Five participants are clearly opposed to such inclusion, and one participant has not expressed a clear preference either way. Thus the consensus is against including sexual orientation here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incorrect assessment. There has not been a consensus, per what is noted on WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, WP:EDITCON, WP:CONLEVEL, and WP:PROPOSAL, at this point. I would rather wait until further users have contributed before coming to a determination. That means that the status quo of the page remains in place. There has been no agreement on what to do with the entries of LGBTQ characters currently on the page, whether to remove them outright, as per WP:REMOVAL, or split them to another page. While participating in this discussion, my opinion on this matter has not changed. And lets not forget there is no deadline to updating this page, so we shouldn't rush it. We should leave the discussion open until there is MORE participation than the small number of participants so far, as this important per WP:PIECE. I had hoped that posting about this on various WikiProjects would engender more participants, but it has not as of yet. Historyday01 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like either party in this discussion is going to move on their stance, and I can definitely see the merits of both arguments. I agree queer visibility is important, especially in already marginalised communities such as people with disability. Perhaps a compromise would be to split the column into "Disability" and "Character Notes". This way the central information for the list (disabilities) is separate and easy to see, while the extra character information and background has its own column. Would this be acceptable to everyone? tamasys (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I would be fine with splitting the column that way as it would allow people to sort characters by specific disabilities, which could be very helpful. Thanks for proposing the compromise, Tamasys. It is MUCH better than trying to split off the information to another page... I could ultimately create that page, but I am trying to limit my time on Wikipedia this year as compared to last year, as it can become a bit a black hole at times. Historyday01 (talk) 04:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Would be good to hear from @Dodger67 as well, and I'll have a go at separating it out this evening if everyone is happy. tamasys (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamasys I'm afraid @Historyday01 is misrepresenting the consensus. Xe is the only editor of this article to ever add mention of sexual orientation, and did it in a way to imply that being gay is a disability.
There is an entire category of lists devoted to LGBTQI+ characters in various forms of fiction. For disabled characters there is only this solitary list.
The topic of the intersection of disability and sexuality already has an article, of which I wrote substantial parts, though the LGBT section could do with expanding. There is certainly scope for an article about the intersection of disability and gender too. These matters are far too complex and nuanced to simply force the issue in a list page where it is basically impossible to introduce the proper context. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Dodger67, I definitely see what you're saying and agree there's large scope for more intersectional information in this area. I don't think that negates what seems to be a larger issue with this list, which is that disabilities (the focus of the page) and all other character information are lumped in together in the one column, which reduces readability and makes it unclear what is being listed as a disability and what is simply background information. This is particularly unhelpful for disability visibility when, as you say, this is the only list of its kind.
I think separating these into two columns would have a larger benefit beyond this particular debate, as I can see there have been similar discussions on this talk page about the inclusion of race as well. Separating background information from disability information might not completely resolve this debate but should at least go some way to making the page clearer and avoid misunderstandings about the intent of edits.
Would you have a particular issue with a main column just for identifying the character's disability? While it makes sense to me for ease of use, I don't have a disability so will defer to you if you think it would be inappropriate to have such a column. tamasys (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dodger67, I know what you are saying, but I also don't see any issue with including it either. And adding mentions of sexual orientation only seemed logical to me and I never did it to imply that "being gay is a disability." Its not that I am "misrepresenting" the consensus, its that I would argue there is not a consensus at all. I appreciate that the Sexuality and disability page exists, although from the tags at the top it appears to need some work. And when you say there is only "this solitary list" for disabled characters, I'd have to differ as the List of autistic fictional characters and List of fictional characters with bipolar disorder pages exist, with autism and bipolar disorder are also disabilities (they would be considered disorders according to various laws as well), specifically neurological disorders. And as I've said before, I don't disagree with creating "an article about the intersection of disability and gender," its just I feel that would be a lot of effort, even with the existing resources available. If someone else wants to create such a page, all power to them, but I'm not going down that road because I have enough page-building and editing right now. I won't be bullied into accepting a reported "consensus" among users for this page which you claim exists, Dodger67. Even after going through this whole discussion, my views on this topic have not changed. I support the proposal Tamasys has floated, which is honestly the only good idea that has come out of this whole discussion, and I would prefer it much more than anything else. I will say that this discussion is growing increasingly tiresome in part due to the intransigence of Dodger67, sad to say, and all other users (except for Tamasys) seem to have given up and not attempted to make any more comments here and I don't blame them. Historyday01 (talk) 14:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize that this issue is important to you, but the Wikipedia model means that all of us sometimes have to accept changes we don't agree with. Agreement among five editors with one dissenter (or six and two) is a clear consensus, and I don't think it is appropriate to describe simple recognition of that consensus as "bullying". Nor is it "intransigence" to decline to continue a discussion once the result is clear.
FWIW, I would favour replacing the Notes column with one focussed on each character's disability, and removing the extraneous character details. I think adding a separate column for a general character description would make the chart too large; the focus should be on "fictional characters with disabilities", as the title says. More information is not always better. Depending on how readers are accessing the information, including using screen readers, a more concise display of information is much more accessible and effective at communicating what it is intended to communicate. To that end, I would also suggest removing the gender column, as that is not the focus of the table.--Trystan (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the Wikipedia model and have said that I will respect the consensus (even if I do not agree with it), but I do not believe there is clear consensus due to lack of participation in this discussion. I have said, and will continue to say, there should be more input in this discussion, considering the importance of this page as Dodger67 has pointed out. In terms of "bullying" and "intransigence," I am specifically referring to the comments by Dodger67, not to comments by any other user on here, to be clear, and will not be pulling those comments back. And with that all being said, I can agree with the removal of the gender column, and changing of the table to be more inclusive. As I've said before, Trystan, you are the only one who has proposed any good idea in this whole discussion. All the other ideas are total garbage (like the idea of creating another page when Sexuality and disability page exists, as Dodger67 admitted pointed out), and not workable. Historyday01 (talk) 17:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The record speaks for itself, the only WP:Badgering is by Historyday01. Further Historyday01's accusations that I am somehow anti-inclusion of minorities is patently nonsense. I did not "admit" that the Sexuality and disability article exists, I stated that it exists - the context of the statement is clear to anyone who can competently read and parse English. The term "admit" implies an element of shame, I am proud of my contribution to that article and many others like it (which is obvious to anyone who cares to look).
Anyone can see from my track record that I (1) am one of the founders and by far the most active member of WikiProject Disability and (2) my commitment to Wikipedia is unquestionable - I joined back in 2007, became an admin and recently logged my 100,000th edit. (3) I am also quite active at the Women in Red WikiProject.
I have no further interest in interacting with Historyday01 who has demonstrated clear failure to AGF right from the start of this issue. Don't talk to me, don't talk about me. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you don't want to participate in the discussion, that's totally your prerogative, and no one is questioning your commitment to Wikipedia. I do feel that not including LGBTQ identities on here is anti-inclusive and I stand by that comment. I'm not saying you are against inclusion in general (and hence why I withdrew my comment in the RfC discussion about your stance toward inclusion) and I'm not making any accusations here, none at all. And I admit, now, that you didn't "bully" anyone into a consensus, but at the time I believed it was the case, partially because I was annoyed because I was mainly on the defensive for much of this conversation. However, it STILL seems wrong that you declared on February 2 that "there have no new posts or any new participants joining this discussion for several days, so it's done," prematurely saying that there was a consensus and that the discussion was over, even though I had repeatedly said that there should be MORE discussion. All I'm saying that not including LGBTQ identities on this page specifically, not any other pages, is a stance against inclusion, in my opinion. "Admit" was perhaps the wrong word, but I was making the point you pointed out that page existed yet there were calls to make a new page focused on the same topic, which you embraced at one point, saying there is "certainly scope for an article about the intersection of disability and gender too." Even if the RfC doesn't result in the inclusion of such identities, that's fine with me, as I'm just glad the discussion was continued. Sometimes its hard to assume good faith when someone is coming to the discussion dismissing inclusion of LGBTQ identities off the bat, then comparing it to including "any characters' height, race, language, religion, weight, baldness, lefthandedness, or nationality," and saying it isn't necessary because there are other pages "where the sexual orientation of fictional characters is relevant." I still don't get WHY it isn't relevant on this page. You never really explained that. I still believe you are wrong in saying that "for disabled characters there is only this solitary list." That is not true. Neither is it correct that including LGBTQ identities in this page is "far too complex and nuanced" and that it is being "forced" and it is apparently "impossible to introduce the proper context," all of which I have to strongly disagree with. You can say I'm badgering, but I'm not trying to dominate the conversation and am only pointing out flaws in your arguments, although I could perhaps do a better job of that. I am trying to remain involved, especially with pages about disability, LGBTQ topics, and more. Isn't that what you are supposed to do on this site (or least that's what we hope for)? Isn't it good to be passionate and involved in topics? It seems you never made an attempt to realize where I am coming from in this discussion and I find that very unfortunate, to say the least. If you had done that, then perhaps this discussion wouldn't have reached this point. Historyday01 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Historyday01 I know you feel like you need to answer to every point raised against your opinion, but at this point it is bludgeoning. You are literally responding to every single vote in the RfC below posted after your own, which is completely unnecessary. Roger has already asked you not to talk about or to him, so please follow that request. I've made an unnecessary effort to bring about a more nuanced, widespread discussion of some points I felt were not being covered in the previous discussion due to how antagonistic this thread got through the RfC. Your comments are being generally unhelpful towards that, and "only pointing out flaws in your arguments" won't convince anyone you're right. Just write an eloquent, well-argued vote based on policies (perhaps pointing to some FLs that mirror what you suggest) and let the discussion flow naturally. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I felt a response was necessary, while clarifying that I wasn't trying to attack Rodger. Sigh. At this point, it is way too late to post a "eloquent, well-argued vote." I'm not a magician, I can't just solve stuff my waving a wand, and I'm not some academic. I would not say the effort has been unnecessary, and I would say the discussion so far has been nuanced and widespread already. I suppose I'll just delete ALL my comments from the RfC so I'm not "unhelpful" and "antagonistic." I no longer stand by any of my comments, apart from this one, and I am withdrawing from this discussion, this page, and the WikiProject Disability. This page and that WikiProject are too toxic for me to participate in for the foreseeable future. I shouldn't have participated in this discussion to start with. Looking back, I profoundly regret it, as much as I regret even posting on your talk page or requesting the RfC in the first place. Another mistake in a long line of dumbass mistakes. Historyday01 (talk) 00:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on how this article should deal with characters' sexuality, gender identities, and other identities

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus for Option 4, with "Disability" instead of "Notes". This consensus emerged as the result of productive discussion from editors throughout this RfC. There is pretty strong agreement that Wikipedia should not mention gender/sexuality in relation to disability, especially in the context of this list where it may imply that either is a disability. Therefore, Option 4 is ultimately the best available option as it removes the unnecessary column for gender, and also clarifies the disability column. ––FormalDude talk 01:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]


Wikipedia's interests in increasing the visibility of both disabilities and LGBTQ+ identities while diminishing the possibility of demeaning or hurtful presentations of these minorities sometimes may cause tension that is difficult to resolve. Issues arising in this area must be addressed with a high sensitivity to the competing concerns and editors must remain civil and continue to assume good faith from others in the discussion. This RfC is an effort to address such an issue on this page. A previous discussion happened above in this section, but an involved editor disputed the consensus from this discussion based on how few editors were involved. Thus, I have started this RfC to gain more involvement as low participation is a valid concern.

  1. The list should not include this information and limit itself just to describing the disability of the character(s); (Table 1)
  2. Add an additional column to the list titled "Character Notes" to include this information and other character descriptors that readers might find interesting or relate to, keeping the disability information in a "Disabilities" column; (Table 2)
  3. The list should include this information in the "Notes" section (status quo) (Table 3)

Notifying previously involved editors: @Historyday01, Trystan, Tamasys, Dodger67, Erik, Dimadick, and Ɱ. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table 1
Year Character Gender Series/Franchise Author/Publisher Notes
1955-1980 Alice Female Hypothetical Jane Doe Alice is deaf.
Table 2
Year Character Gender Series/Franchise Author/Publisher Disabilities Character Notes
1955-1980 Alice Female Hypothetical Jane Doe Alice is deaf. Alice marries Barbara in season 4, and identifies as a lesbian.
Table 3
Year Character Gender Series/Franchise Author/Publisher Notes
1955-1980 Alice Female Hypothetical Jane Doe Alice is deaf. She marries Barbara in season 4, and identifies as a lesbian.
Table 4 (added to discussion 12 February)
Year Character Series/Franchise Author/Publisher Notes
1955-1980 Alice Hypothetical Jane Doe Alice is deaf.
  • Oppose addition, how is gender a disability? Seems unrelated to the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per my statements in the previous discussion, but I find this RfC unnecessary per WP:RFCBEFORE. The disputing editor got a third, fourth, and third opinion from others in the previous discussion, none which agreed with them. And while they're not happy about it, they haven't edited the list in the past few days and didn't launch this RfC themselves. We don't need a formalized discussion if that editor may have no involvement. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Status quo, if the character's sexuality is central to their identity and role; however, when included, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't unintentionally imply that their sexuality is a disability. For example, the current note for Kerry Weaver reads "Limp in her gait due to congenital hip dysplasia, and a lesbian." which seems to cast the character's sexuality as a disability. Rewriting that as "Lesbian hospital administrator with congenital hip dysplasia" would be better, although it reads a bit awkwardly to me. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 A brief character description that basically explains a character's role within the story. Whether that includes sexuality, religious affiliation, or employment history should be left up to the editors. Just avoid implying that their identity is reduced to being disabled. Dimadick (talk) 14:04, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/snow close, seems to be hashed out enough. ɱ (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A character's sexuality should be treated like any other detail such as occupation, race, or religion; neither required, nor prohibited, but included only if relevant. Most of the time it won't be, especially given that the "Notes" column currently focuses on describing the nature of the character's disability and its relation to the plot. If it's decided to also include a brief summary of the character's overall role in the narrative (which I don't think necessarily requires a separate column), then sexuality might be somewhat more likely to be germane (e.g. Alice is the main love interest to the protagonist, Brenda), but it should still not be automatically included as a matter of course. Colin M (talk) 18:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4, then 1, for the clarity, conciseness, and accessibility issues I raised in the above discussion.--Trystan (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added option 4, fewer fields Somehow there is a base assumption that gender needs to be in this table. Maybe it does, I am not sure, but can someone justify this? I removed gender in option 4 and tried to make a minimal table with only character, disability, and information to identify the work in which they originate. Is gender fundamental to discussing fictional characters with disabilities? I am a supporter of access to raising visibility of demographics for positive reasons, but space is limited, we cannot include everything, and Wikidata is available as a useful alternative where anyone can add as many demographic fields as they want. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice proposal, Bluerasberry, I hadn't realized how unnatural inclusion of the characters' genders is. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4: the list shouldn't try to go into detailed analysis of the character's gender/sexuality as it relates to their disability. It is not appropriate to mention in most cases. A brief description of the character's role in the medium is alright, but the relevant traits could be anything, per Colin M. There may be good intentions in mentioning sexuality because it relates to how someone experiences disability, but it is fundamentally non-neutral to select it as inherently more important than class or nationality or religion or whatever else. — Bilorv (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option4 (invited by the bot) Since the question isn't clearly stated (what is "this information"?) I'm have to take a guess at what the question is in which case IMO option 4 is best. BTW, it seems self-conflicting to make a list specifically for characters with disabilities and then be reticent to say what their disability is in a straightforward manner with a column. And in an effort to be overly sensitive, it is insensitive, as if to say there is something negative about a disability to the point that it can't be stated in a straightforward manner. North8000 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: Do you think disability should be a named column instead of putting it in notes? Maybe that makes sense. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. That's the subject of the table and article. North8000 (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4, with "Disability" instead of "Notes" -- per North8000 above.A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4. IDK whether the column should be called "Disability" or "Notes", but to avoid possible WP:FANCRUFT or unrelated info I think opting for "Disability" is better. —AFreshStart (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4. I feel I should make at least a small comment here, since I was part of the fruitless discussion which led to this, which got way too heated and led to unnecessary back-and-forth comments and mudslinging. It appears that the consensus is leaning toward this option and I honestly see no point in standing against that consensus. --Historyday01 (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 is the best option that balances it out the most. A specific Gender or Disability box is completely unnecessary, could just be in the notes instead.shanghai.talk to me 13:40, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 with "Notes" changed to "Disability" - I concur with the sentiment that the inclusion of a character's gender seems odd with their gender being completely immaterial to this list. I was originally going to vote for Option 4 as written, but I was swayed to encourage the change to Disability per North8000. Another supporting factor for changing the column name, I feel, would be to discourage unnecessary notes relating to the character. The entire column Character Notes, again, does not seem relevant to the list's purpose and a column simply named Notes would both encourage such additions further and make it more difficult to actually find what the disability of said character is (e.g imagine the Notes column having She marries Barbara in season 4, and identifies as a lesbian. Alice is deaf.). —Sirdog (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

@Historyday01: I found the RfC statement a bit hard to follow. The numbered options use the phrase "this information", but there's nothing in the previous text of the statement that tells the reader what information you're referring to. (And even scrolling up to the earlier discussion, it's not easy to grok what's at issue. The first impression I got was that some editors were arguing that characters should be included in the list merely because they were LGBT.) Per WP:RFCBRIEF "Keep the RfC statement (and heading) neutrally worded, short and simple... The statement should be self-contained...". Perhaps you could replace "this information" with something like "information about a character's sexuality"? Colin M (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01 didn't even start the RfC. Another editor started it for them unprompted. They shouldn't have been humored in the first place. They got a WP:3O, a WP:4O, and a WP:5O, and that should have been enough against one person. This RfC is false hope for that lone voice, and we should move on to contributions that do not have a consensus against them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, you're right, I should have pinged A. C. Santacruz. Sorry for the confusion, Historyday01. Colin M (talk) 21:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Colin M I'll expand the question with some collapsable examples for clarity. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Colin M, I have just added some examples. I thought I'd leave them un-collapsed as they're quite short. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The opening statement of this RFC is fundamentally flawed. "Wikipedia's interests in increasing the visibility of both disabilities and LGBTQ+ identities" could hardly be more wrong. It is a fundamental principle that WP has no interest whatsoever in increasing the visibility of anything at all. The very idea that it does so violates several policies and rules. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:11, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historyday01 there's no need to put words in Roger's mouth like that. He's making a very valid point. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Representing" rather than "increasing the visibility of" probably would've been better wording. However, I think that the overall point of the sentence makes sense, Dodger67, in that representing minorities without demeaning them is sometimes hard to do when doing multiple ones at the same time as in the case of this RfC. I personally do think that it aligns with Wikipedia's interest to attempt to counter the systemic bias against disability and queer identities in fiction by mentioning it when possible and appropriate. This RfC is essentially about determining if such inclusion here fits that criteria of appropriate. I'm not entirely sure if my point comes across well, but alas. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see this RfC as a discussion as adjacent to this MOS explanatory supplement within the scope of the article, but understand others might see it in other ways. I feel that there's a much more nuanced issue underneath the discussion above and this RfC, but cannot find the wording or guidelines to link to, sadly. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Confusion of gender with sex

[edit]

This article currently has a column for the "gender" of each character, which is either "male" or "female". This is a problem because gender is a psycho-social construct, whereas "male" or "female" describe the person's biological sex. Mixing the concepts up like this just perpetuates the very old presumption that a person's sex is the same as their gender. In many cases they do coincide, but it is by no means universal. We need to either change the heading from "gender" to "sex", or else switch to the appropriate terms "masculine" and "feminine".--Gronk Oz (talk) 07:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The column is about gender. Sex is not a known characteristic of most characters. That gender is a social construct is not relevant, and moreover these are fictional characters, so every trait they have is artificially constructed. — Bilorv (talk) 08:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Bilorv on this. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it is not appropriate to use the words "male" and "female" - those are sexes, not genders. The terminologies to describe genders are "masculine" and "feminine", as well as non-binary cases. Treating sex and gender as if they were interchangeable does a tremendous disservice to all the people whose gender identity does not align with their biological sex.--Gronk Oz (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The terminologies to describe genders are "masculine" and "feminine", as well as non-binary cases – This is not correct. The words "male" and "female" describe the most common two genders, based on a person's internal sense of self. They can also refer to sex in some medical contexts. In contrast, "Masculine" and "feminine" are external attributes based on perception e.g. a "masculine woman" perceives herself as female and is perceived at least in some small way as embodying stereotypically male attributes. — Bilorv (talk) 11:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: You might care to read the opening sentence of Gender: Gender is the range of characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them. Equivalently in Sex you will find: Sex is a trait that determines an individual's reproductive function, male or female.... They are quite different concepts, and should not be conflated.--Gronk Oz (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not conflating anything. Gender and sex are different. A small snippet of a Wikipedia article, however, inadequately describes both. — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: - we are discussing how these concepts are best represented in a table, not in a detailed analysis. So we need to go with the best available terminology that conveys the concepts in the language that is most used. That has been discussed endlessly on the articles about sex and gender, especially when it comes to the summary that is in the lead sentence of both articles. You will never get universal agreement, but that is the closest we have.--Gronk Oz (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Character Addition

[edit]

I'd like to put forward a character for the literature section (I'd add it myself but to be honest I don't know how to navigate the table). Newt is a character from the Maze Runner Series (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Maze_Runner_(book_series)). He has a limp from a suicide attempt. 2A00:23C8:8886:BB00:5814:3A49:F475:98B2 (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Animals?

[edit]

This is probably a silly question, but I just wanted to make sure: would animal characters count for this list? (not anthropormorphic ones). I was thinking about Far Cry 6's Chorizo, but I don't want this to be a stretch either. NoonIcarus (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we could consider it if there is an en.WP article that substantiates the animal character's notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article about the chracter? --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_fictional_characters_with_disabilities&oldid=1214208787"