Talk:List of pre–Stonewall riots American television episodes with LGBT themes

Star Trek episodes

What reliable sources are there for the inclusion of the two Star Trek episodes in this list? Whilst I can sort of see where you're coming from, they're not cited to any sources at all; without those sources, including them is essentially Original Research and should be removed. If, however, there are sources for their inclusion then please add them as soon as possible - there are enough books on Star Trek, especially the original series, that this is bound to have come up at least once somewhere reliable. Skinny87 (talk) 20:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:PSTS, episodes of television series serve as sources for themselves. Anyone may view the episodes in question to verify the factual information. It is fact that the tribbles are described in dialogue as "bisexual" and it is fact that Janice Lester swaps bodies with Kirk and that "Kirk" begins acting effeminate. Otto4711 (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but per those guidelines, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." This combines with "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." You don't seem to have any reliable sources for either of the episodes. For example, without reliable sources, I could claim that Turnabout Intruder dealt with the issue of bi-polar or multiple-personality disorders. But I won't, because I have no reliable secondary sources for those claims. Skinny87 (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well no, you won't because there is nothing within the episode that supports the notion that bi-polar or MPD are involved in any way. There is indisputable and utterly reliable sourcing that Janice Lester switched bodies with Kirk. There is even a screen cap of it in the episode's article. There is indisputable and utterly reliable sourcing that Lester-as-Kirk exhibits feminine behaviour. It's in the episode. I have indisputable and utterly reliable sourcing that the tribbles are described as "bisexual". It's on the soundtrack of the episode. If it concerns you so much, why not Google it and add a source instead of complaining about it on the talk page? I bet in the time it took you to type these complaints you could have added whatever source you wanted. Otto4711 (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

But all that you've just said is, essentially, Original Research without a reliable source. And it's certainly not beholden to me to find a source for your claim - that onus is on you. I don't really have much of an interest in the subject, but I had a quick look at the article at random, and the inclusion of the two episodes confused me. Skinny87 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Tribbles

The tribble, however, being (supposedly, and of course there's no citation for that) hermaphroditic, has no place here. Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• The tribbles are described in the episode as being "bisexual". That they are a non-human species is irrelevant. We are after all talking about science fiction here. Otto4711 (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• McCoy certainly uses that word, but the context suggests he should have said "hermaphroditic"; of course one cannot tell either way. Do we have a citation from David Gerrold? Not that I can see. In any case assigning sexual orientation to creatures whose two emotional states seem to be contented eating/reproducing and screeching at Klingons is a stretch. If someone can come up with a citation from Gerrold as to his intent in using the word, it can go back in. Mangoe (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My 1970 edition of Webster's New World Dictionary lists three definitions for "bisexual", in order: 1) of both sexes, 2) hemaphroditic and 3) attracted to both sexes. My first reaction to the use of the term to describe tribbles as "bixesual", is that the meaning (or word) "hemaphroditic" was intended, and this would seem to be the more likely usage at the time. It would seem that regardless of the intended meaning of the word "bisexual" in reference to these creatures, it would be hard to see this as an episode with an "LGBT theme" as described in the article's title. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Otto, you're dead wrong, plain and simple. If you're to assert that there are LGBT themes in those episodes, you need reliable sources. "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation." Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll pop my gead in again and echo what I said in August; you need reliable sources specifically saying what you're claiming, Otto, ot this is nothing but OR. Skinny87 (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:PSTS the content of a TV episode may be sourced to and is verifiable to the episode itself. Anyone watching the tribbles episode will hear that McCoy identifies them as bisexual. Anyone watching any episode on this list can verify the contents of the episode. This continual insistence that the plainly spoken words on-screen don't mean what they mean is tiresome. Find something else to worry about. Otto4711 (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Otto, do you want to start an RfC on this? Will having a few more editors tell you you're wrong make an impression on you? Your ownership of this article is growing tiresome. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm also dubious as to how the Wild Wild West episode can be related to LGBT themes; having someone in drag seems to be reaching somewhat for a rather tenuous link. Is there a reliable source you're getting these episodes from, Otto, or is this just rather random - maybe using wikipedia pages themselves? Skinny87 (talk) 09:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC on Star Trek/Wild Wild West

Should certain Star Trek and Wild Wild West episodes be mentioned as containing LGBT themes? Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, TV episodes with LGBT content should be included on this list. Is there seriously nothing else in this encyclopedia that might be more worthy of your time and effort, that you;re spending this much time dithering over 40 year-old TV episodes? Otto4711 (talk) 02:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that they have any such content. Allow me to quote the relevant passage at WP:PSTS, in which I have highlighted the crucial passage:

"For example, an article about a novel may cite passages from the novel to describe the plot, but any interpretation of those passages needs a secondary source."

In the case of the tribbles, you are interpreting "bisexual" as having one particular meaning, when context allows, if not suggests, that another meaning was intended. It is an act of interpretation to choose which meaning was intended. Neither of the other cases is even that clear; there is no overt statement in the screenplay in either case that non-heterosexual attraction is involved. The putative themes can only be found in interpretation, which requires a cited, secondary source.Mangoe (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But there are enough secondary sources on how Trek has affected society over the years, and people do like writing journals on that aspect - Otto, surely you can find something to back up your OR? Skinny87 (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your claims that the words spoken on-screen suddenly become OR doesn't make them so. The dialogue is verifiable by watching the episode. I am unclear why the information available by watching the episode is causing you so much puzzlement. Otto4711 (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As has been pointed out several times, your interpretation of primary sources requires a secondary source to back it up, or it;s simply OR. Skinny87 (talk) 08:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's take the secondTrek episode this time, Otto, because the problem in that case is clearer. OK: in "Turnabout Intruder", do any of the characters say anything about homosexuality? lesbianism? bisexuality? transgendering? Can you provide a quote to back that claim up? I remember no such reference, and that's what you're promising to provide in using "the words spoken on-screen" as justification. The plot synopsis you provide instead requires interpretation, so it isn't good enough on its own. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, all three of those episodes are unsuitable for this page. Regarding the justification that the tribbles are described onscreen as "bisexual" being it's own reference, that still requires applying your own (modern) interpretation of the term "bisexual" to make it appropriate to this page. As another editor above quoted from a dictionary closer to that era, it had a different meaning then (and the context of the quote certainly reinforces the hemaphroditic/"of both sexes" meaning). To assume that McCoy was speaking about the tribbles' sexual attractions requires an application of the current definition of the word (and doesn't make sense in context of the episode), rather than the prevalent meaning at that time. Otherwise we'd have to add Flintstones on here as well, because in the same era they were "[having] a gay old time", which we can 'obviously' cite as proof that Fred and Barney were gay lovers. Afterall, it's verifiable for anybody to watch an episode... ;-) (Disclaimer: I don't think that Fred and Barney were gay. I was using sarcasm to make a point. Please don't add Flintstones to this list.) --Maelwys (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Flintstones comparison is incredibly apt. Roddenberry was adept at inserting controversial social issues into Star Trek but he was never subtle about it. If there had been homosexuality-related content in pre-TNG Trek, it would have been obvious and undeniable. Powers ^T 15:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No shows should be added to any lists unless there is a reliable source to indicate how the "theme" should be understood. After all, who's to say that any episode does or does not have LGBT themes? What about The Doomsday Machine (Star Trek: The Original Series)? In the original TV broadcast, the monster looked like a giant cigar and not so much like [1] current visualisations look like. One might argue that Decker was a suicidal closeted gay rushing to his death against the phallic symbol monster. And guess what? You would neither be right or wrong - not verifiably anyway. How would one be able to make the determination? Is there really that many reliable sources out there on these kinds of topics? I'd say this all falls under Wikipedia:Fancruft and should be steered away from. 7390r0g (talk) 03:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

OR tag

Part of the tag that keeps getting added directs those with concerns to address them on the talk page. Despite repeated requests the person adding it has not explained hir concerns. I can only conclude that there is no material in the article for which a good faith belief of original research exists and that the tag is therefore not needed. Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You mean apart from the OR that has been pointed out to you multiple times in the above sections? Simply stating that it doesn't exist won't solve the problem - you need reliable sources citing what you're claiming. Skinny87 (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The OR concerns alleged above remain as nonsensical today as they were when first made, inane Flintstones comparisons included. A few editors got together and decided that a couple of episodes weren't in their opinion gay enough and I got tired of wasting my time trying to persuade people who have contributed nothing to the article not to rip chunks out of it. The tag was repeatedly added to the article after the three episodes were removed and I'm sure that the cabal that wanted them removed would have addressed other episodes on the list at that time had there been any. Meanwhile, someone who has made no edits to this article nor apparently to any other LGBT-related article -- thus demonstrating no interest in or familiarity with the subject matter -- slaps a tag on it and ignores all requests for clarification. If you're so bloody concerned that every episode have a citation despite the contents serving as their own source then go look them up yourself or tell the editor making claims of OR to do some research. Otto4711 (talk) 21:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Otto, two things. Number one, consensus here seems to be against you. It's not a cabal, it's just editors applying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the content of this article.

Number two, why do we need familiarity with the subject matter? If the article is well written, it should be right there in front of us. Alastairward (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

You have repeatedly tagged the article for OR and have ignored multiple requests to explain what you believe is OR. You've been doing this for the last three weeks. If you can't offer examples of what you believe is OR for three weeks, it seems pretty clear that the concerns are unfounded. Otto4711 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really need it then... "The Sniper", is it the case that Miss Brant is specifically described as a repressed lesbian? Google lists this as the top hit for saying yes and precious little else. "The Last Testament of Buddy Crown", Buddy isn't specifically identified as gay, but is that the theme as per this article? Alastairward (talk) 00:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible LGBT POV?

This appears to be non-neutral. I think we need to work to make this more neutral than swinging to either side.--Editor510 ^{drop us a line, mate} 20:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• What are you talking about? It's a list of episodes that share a theme. What about it isn't "neutral"? If specific suggestions are not forthcoming immediately I will remove the tag. Otto4711 (talk) 21:46, 30 July 2010 (UTC)