Talk:Queer representation in Doctor Who

Can we change the title to Queer Representation in the DWU? Currently, the title suggests only rep that appears in Doctor Who, when in fact, we are including spin-offs as well. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 19:57, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

While not limiting the title to just Doctor Who is not a suggestion without merit, I oppose Queer representation in the DWU because for good or ill, the way this Wiki defines the term "DWU" excludes quite a few things that we do also cover on this page on par with "valid" stories, since this is a real-world page. (The Doctor's bisexuality in The Curse of Fatal Death being only one example.)

Would "Queer representation in Doctor Who-related media" serve? It's a bit cumbersome, but the obvious phrasing one might use another Wiki ("Doctor Who franchise") doesn't actually apply to the Doctor Who Expanded Universe since it's, precisely, not a single business franchise/copyright owned by a single entity. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 20:17, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd work. Just wanted to get permission. Thanks. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 20:38, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

My phone accidently published it before I typed the whole edit summary. Please don't use "retitle" to change a title of an article unless it's for technical reasons (such as putting something in italics, adding underscores to the title, and stuff like that). OncomingStorm12th (talk) 20:48, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

On a related note, please note that only admins are allowed to actually rename pages. It you think a page requires a change in the title, use the {{rename}} template. OncomingStorm12th (talk) 20:50, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Sorry bout that. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 20:57, February 13, 2020 (UTC)

Rename

Given that the term used in the Fan Show video at the top of the page and that "queer" is not a totally accepted term - some, such as myself, finding it offensive - I propose moving this page to LGBTQ representation in Doctor Who. -- Saxon (✉️) 20:15, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

I suggest LGBTQ+, actually, to include ace people, gender nonconforming, those who don't like labels, etc, but likewise dislike "queer". Najawin ☎ 20:20, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

The matter was talked about early on, and the thing with the acronym is that it's very hard to come to an agreement on its "proper" form. People are dropping and adding letters to it all the time; signs of controversy (albeit mild) are already breaking out two messages in. LGBTQ representation in Doctor Who (and/or variations with different forms of the acronym) can and should definitely be redirects, but "Queer" is a vaguer and (in terms of how it should be spelled) less controversial, general term. And, if I may say so, much less ungainly as the first word of a page title that the increasingly-unpronounceable acronym.

Of course, if there is significant sentiment among our userbase/readership that the term is offensive to them, I'm not dead-set against using the acronym, but insofar as it's a matter of self-identification, I must say that for myself I much prefer "queer" to the unpronounceable hodgepodge of the acronym.

In terms of Doctor Who-related precedents, The Fan Show using the acronym is interesting, but I'd raise you Queers Dig Time Lords — not to mention one of RTD's big successes prior to Doctor Who having been Queer As Folk. Both terms definitely have tractions in Whoniverse circles — I think we can afford, one way or another, to make our own choice without worrying about that side of the equation overmuch. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:26, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

(I personally see no need to change, the usual term used in technical circles is "queer", hence "queer studies" and "queer theory". [Though technical terms are not always in accordance with what people in the LGBTQ community like, transsexual still being a term used, for instance, though in a very specific manner.] But I fully recognize that as someone who's straight my view doesn't count for that much on if someone is offended. My point is just if we do this, add in the plus sign.) Najawin ☎ 21:38, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

I'd be cool with LGBTQ+. No complaints from me. LGBTQ+ includes people who do choose to identify as queer, whereas just using queer puts all LGBT+ people who don't identify in a bubble in which they are not comfortable. It's true and perfectly legitimate for people to reclaim offensive words, of course, but I do disagree with its use here. -- Saxon (✉️) 21:46, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

Not my place to talk if it should be queer or LGBTQ+, so I won't chime in on this part. Just wondering if we could make it "in Doctor Who related media" as opposed to just "in Doctor Who", since we cover all of the spinoffs too as I mentioned above. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 21:51, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

Good point, though it should either be "in Doctor Who and related media", or else "in Doctor Who-related media" with the hyphen. --Scrooge MacDuck ☎ 21:57, June 12, 2020 (UTC)

Voicing my support for LGBTQ+ representation in Doctor Who and related media. Though the examples of Queer in past usage are valid and I wouldn't personally take offence if kept as Queer representation, I would say that outside of an academic landscape... LGBTQ+ does tend to be the more frequently used term when its comes to referring as a community/umbrella-ing term. Queer has tended to be more of a personal term of identification. (though not always, as Queers dig Time Lords shows). Either way, we land on whether to keep Queer or change LGBTQ+, we definitely need to amend in Doctor Who to in Doctor Who and related media, as we now have notable examples of representation from Class, Torchwood, The Diary of River Song and in some manner, solidified what was planned to be an instance within Sarah Jane Adventures. JDPManjoume ☎ 00:16, September 4, 2020 (UTC)

I agree on the need to change the name to ...Doctor Who-related media. I think Doctor Who and related media is a little too broad. With the hyphen at least we're still holding it within the Doctor Who universe.

In situations like this I sometimes look to how other wikis deal with things like this but have struggled a little bit to find any wikis that actually have a page like ours. Wikipedia's page wikipedia:Media portrayal of LGBT people is very clinical likely to seem a bit not inclusive.

Looking to other wikis there's the Riordan Wiki (of the Percy Jackson & the Olympians series etc) they also just go for LGBT in their intro have (also known as LGBTQ + , LGBTQA +, LGBTQIA +, LGBTQIA2S + , or LGBTQIA2P +).

Going with the Fan Show's LGBTQ is perhaps the best way out for the naming and then putting something like the Riordan wiki has at the top of the page so we can cover everything, while still having a workable title. --Tangerineduel / talk 14:37, September 17, 2020 (UTC)

James Dreyfus

I have been hearing from different, unreliable sources that James Dreyfus has been booted from his role as the Master in the Big Finish audios in response to his transphobic views. I just wanted to know if there has been any official word on the matter?

On a semi-related note, would this be grounds enough to create a new section on the page detailing situations like this, since Dreyfus would now be the second individual involved with DW to be called out for this sort of behaviour, after Gareth Roberts? WaltK ☎ 17:34, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

I've shadow browsed the internet for a bit, and I think that https://www.bigfinish.com/news/v/equality-and-diversity-at-big-finish?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=equality_and_diversity_statement&utm_content=news is the closest I've gotten. But yes, the general vibe seems to be, "We're not gonna say anything, but we are subtly gonna move him over here and not put him in anything else."

As for the section, sure, I'm down. Always good to be honest. Two questions though: What should we define "called out" as specifically? Does it have to be a news outlet or can it be a twitter post?

Question two: Should we include a subsection for those who used to hold those views, but later seemed to go back on them? (Davies: Wrote Sally Salter, Barrowman: Did some fundraiser for a charity, I think.) Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 17:57, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

Davies and Barrowman had anti-trans views? When/where? WaltK ☎ 18:27, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

USED to, apparently (I'm going off some internet sources, so bare with me). Davies, well, Cassandra. Barrowman, made a bad joke at a con once. To be fair, both have done stuff to show that they've moved on (although I'm not the one to judge). But back to the main point, what's your critera for calling out? Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 18:37, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

... How was Cassandra transphobic? She mentioned being a boy once, but that's it. And hearsay doesn't seem good cause to slander John Barrowman. -- Saxon (✉️) 18:41, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I'm not trying to slander them. I love both of their work in the DWU and such. If I was trying to slander them, I would've just said they're transphobic and left it at that. It's clear that both have largely moved on and are at least showing some support. Now PLEASE, can we focus on technical aspects and such? Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 18:45, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why the calling out of cast and crew would belong on this page. -- Saxon (✉️) 18:51, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

I was clarifying something for WaltK. And again, it's not a call out. It's me saying, "Hey, these guys did something iffy once, but they're improving". If anything, I'd actually be angry if someone tried to compare them to Roberts and Dreyfus. Hell, my username is based off Torchwood, which I love to bits. Now please, may we focus on the editing of this page now? Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 18:59, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I don't see why this belongs on a page about LGBT representation in the Doctor Who Universe. -- Saxon (✉️) 19:00, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

By rights, Dreyfus should have been brought up on the page even before the transphobia stuff, by virtue of him being an openly gay actor who played an incarnation of a certain reoccurring Time Lord. With that in mind, perhaps just bringing him up with a paragraph with a similar format to the one about Roberts would suffice? I would also suggest taking the part about Derek Jacobi and combining it into a sweeping "The Master has notably been portrayed by two openly gay actors" paragraph, with the part about Dreyfus' transphobia being brought up at the end. Although mentioning Jacobi (who's done nothing wrong) in the same breath may not be appropriate.

As for Davies and Barrowman, I'd argue that maybe we should only bring up bigotry among the cast and crew if said cast and crew are openly and unapologetically intolerant (like Roberts and Dreyfus), and not times where individuals were not aware nor had consciously intended any harm. WaltK ☎ 19:25, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm on board. Never Forget The Day The 456 Arrived ☎ 19:29, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

That seems far more reasonable. -- Saxon (✉️) 19:36, July 8, 2020 (UTC)

Max Adrian and Hartnell

Lifted from the page and moved to here; "The fact that his character never shared any scenes with the First Doctor in the serial sparked the myth that William Hartnell refused to work alongside him because of his sexuality (as well as the fact that he was Jewish). Their lack of scenes together were purely coincidental, however, and no record exists of Hartnell possessing such intolerant views."

It is highly worth having sources pinned down before recommitting this to the page. We currently have no source for such a myth, or a source to state that any such myth was sparked by the lack of scenes, or indeed any such perceived rationale of bigotry within such a myth. Additionally, we don't have any sources to commit the negative either with any certainty. As such, it is dangerous ground to have this uncited in entirety, both in respect to Hartnell's estate and Adrian's estate whatever the case may be. All I've seen is that DWM 482 is cited as the source that Hartnell became "difficult during production, refusing to speak to actors Max Adrian or Francis de Wolff". Which means it looks at present as though we are the sole source of claiming such a myth and any pushback against a perceived myth. JDPManjoume ☎ 10:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

My apologies. The rumour was first cited within the "myths" section of the page for The Myth Makers, and it's been on that page for years without objection. I know that's not an excuse for the lack of sources, but my (clearly incorrect) rationale was that "if it's good enough for that page, then it's good enough for this one". WaltK ☎ 15:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Fan Criticism Section

Let me preface this by saying that I am not a member of the LGBTQ community so take what I say with a grain of salt. While I think it's fair to acknowledge the feelings of fans, I am concerned that this section leans too heavily on the opinions of a handful of people on twitter. Anyone can go on twitter and say whatever they want but it doesn't mean they represent the opinions of a majority of fans. Not to mention that people can tweet anonymously without having to prove they are a member of whatever community they say they're from. Were the twitter accounts this page links to vetted to make sure these people are who they say they are? I just think if we're going to have a section like this, it should be held to a high standard. Otherwise, anyone can link to any random tweet they come across and say it's a legitimate criticism. BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 23:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Having reviewed the section, I don't think there is cause for concern about the usefulness of the whole section: on close inspection, only the last paragraph appears to be cited to "random" Twitter users, with most other statements linked to essays and the like, which are very much acceptable sources for this sort of thing. But that doesn't mean you aren't right to flag potential misuse of the section to give undue weight to individual Twitterites, yes. If it becomes necessary to use tweets to cite "fan opinions" (as opposed to the opinions of specific people of interest), a minimum requirement should be to have multiple people saying the same thing, thus forming a sample of evidence that this is an opinion shared by a wider group of people. The statmeents currently cited to individual tweets should either be edited to be better-sourced, or removed.

All that being said, as a side-note… this isn't really relevant to the main thrust of the discussion, but it really isn't the done thing to question/ask people to "prove" that they are a member of the queer community. Queerness is a matter of self-identification, so by definition, someone identifying themselves as gay, genderqueer, etc. should be understood to be, and treated as such, incontrovertibly, until such a time as they themselves state otherwise. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 23:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand. I did not mean to imply that we should go around asking people if they really are part of the queer community. But if we are going to cite someone's opinion, it does help to know for certain that they are representative of how a large number of people in that community feel. BastianBalthazarBux ☎ 12:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)