Category talk:Non-heterosexual real world people

Concerns about citations
Much as I’m glad to see such a category - having even started working up a plan for this - I am rather surprised by the lack of citation for the vast majority of people who have been added to this category.

I believe it was noted when I first raised the matter of introducing such a category, that it would have to be handled with the utmost care with regards to citations such that we are entirely accurate in how we present real-world people, particularly in instances of people no longer with us.

As such; I’m wondering how we should approach this: Should all uncited individuals in the category be removed until they can be cited? Should they be given citation needed notes on their respective pages? JDPManjoume ☎  15:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't understand the need for categories like this? Why must we divide people due to their sexuality or gender identity? I don't see the practical need. Also, there are a lot of people who do not like to be labeled, myself included, how do we treat people like this? RadMatter ☎  17:02, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, as I created the Category, I will address the concerns.


 * @JDPManjoume, I added all the pages into this category by using Queer representation in Doctor Who; there, a lot of individuals are cited as being non-heterosexual, IIRC. These citations are simply just not reflected on the individual pages.


 * @RadMatter, while I see where you are coming from, there is a genuinely good use for this category, in my eyes. In the situation that one is researching the non-heterosexual individuals who contributed to Doctor Who works, having all the pages neatly collated in a category proves immensely useful; I've seen many a person research this type of thing, so I believe, just on these grounds, the category should be retained, though I am sure there are many more arguments to be made for this category's existence. 📯 📂 23:19, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think that is a good enough reason for the category's existence. If someone is looking for non-hetrosexual people surely they can research an individual person? We don't have categories for real-world people based on skin colour or race (to my knowledge) or many other traits, and I think that is wise. All this category does is divides people and - most offensively - acts as if hetrosexual is the "norm". RadMatter ☎  23:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While heterosexual isn't the norm, it is certainly perceieved as such. Regardless of that, while there are certainly more pages that could be added to this, the sheer amount of pages in it attest how little non-het (and similarly non-cis) people are even involved in big franchises like Who.
 * A bit "potAto, potatO", but what you call "divide" I call "uplift, highlight". A category like this is good because queer writers and authors will inevitably and often have the way the interact with their work influenced/nuanced by the fact that they're queer. There are essays (covered by this very wiki) on this subject. There are podcasts being produced by people on this category about this very subject.
 * As the person who's guilty of having added pages to here without sourcing the info, I apologize, and will amend this by tomorrow, if no one gets to this before me. But matter of fact is: a useful category it is. OncomingStorm12th ☎  01:43, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Well it shouldn't be perceived as such, and categories like this only reinforce that. Having a category that just clumps a whole bunch of people together based on something like sexuality is ridiculous. Especially as it highlights a certain individual who is seriously intolerant of others in the group/category. RadMatter ☎  12:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

As with all categories on this wiki, it does require inclusion in the article first. In this case, that also means sources. As for this coverage somehow being "intolerant", that's a complete misunderstanding of what labels are for.

(Those who don't actually need them like to imagine they're constraining. For those of us who do, it's both enlightening and empowering to know there are words for it. In any case, this is for self-identified cases.) 17:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (Oh I understand who you're taking about now. But we don't pretend someone's straight just because we don't like them. This is not an ideological category: it's descriptive. existing doesn't mean we throw the whole concept of transness out the window, for instance.) 17:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Just so we are clear going forward, I am a member of the LGBT community - not that I should have to state this - so the generalisation that straight people are the ones who would have a problem with this category while LGBT people would find it "empowering" is false.


 * I am not suggesting that we should "pretend someone's straight just because we don't like them". I am saying that I would prefer everyone into a single real world people category and can't understand why people with an alternate sexuality have to be split off. RadMatter ☎  20:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I too am against categorising real-world people by sexuality and don't think it's any more appropriate than having a category for non-white real-world people. I can at least understand why we have this category for fictional characters, but I don't see any reason to mark and group people involved in the DWU based on who they enjoy having sex with. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  20:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't wish to go heavily on detail into this yet, as again, I'd hoped this was something we'd run rather thoroughly through in a Forum discussion one day... but to again try to contextualise this in whatever brevity I can, from the perspective of myself as a gay man of colour, whilst expanding on what Epsilon has said: I very much see a merit in having a category for much of a similar reason as I see merit in the real-world coverage detailed within the 'Sexuality' and 'Queer representation in Doctor Who' pages. Sexuality certainly isn't a be-all end-all of one's existence, and labelling accurately is a complicated matter (hence why my planned future proposal had settled with the 'non-heterosexual' phrasing for less complication... but it does serve an important purpose in the same kind of manner as the fictional character category. It provides for a handy reference list of these individuals under one category for anyone wishing to research the representative history of Doctor Who from a production perspective, and often provides suitable background context to either those individual's work (Patrick Ness, Paul Magrs and Scott Handcock come to mind as three immediate examples in which it's topical) or the work environment in which they were within. Or even in their wider life - Ian McKellen and Michael Cashman are two instances in which further expansion of cast biographies in future is likely to cover their founding of Stonewall in some depth. I rather feel safe to say that there is a definite measure of discussion and value in such a list, because this discussion has been somewhat touched upon in an official venue - with an episode of The Fan Show that focused upon this & featured Waris Hussein talking about the fact that there was a much more restrained situation for himself and other non-heterosexual production members in terms of putting that into their works. We, of course, aren't Wikipedia and nor do we exactly need to run by their example... but I would say that I have personally found significant benefit from their categories in this kind of vein. (And it would certainly be much nicer to categorise them, rather than just having to hammer all these individuals into the 'Queer representation in Doctor Who' page.)

Putting all that to the side, my point of questioning was re. the sourcing. This is because I am somewhat wary of how we approach writing biographies on real-world people. @Epsilon, I appreciate that clarification but I would think we need these things noted onto those pages too. Particularly as it will help fellow editors discern what has been added uncited from what has been added with citation. Peter Wyngarde and Dursley McLinden come to mind as two individuals currently within this category that are contentious without upfront citations. I feel we need that in two regards - the immediate matter of clarity for claim citation on real-world pages... and also because having those references upfront would make sense for the benefit of someone researching the topic as is. I am certainly happy to try and help with what ones I can. (I actually started some work a while ago on a Sandbox page to collate references of this nature, for future usage in a Forum discussion about this matter) JDPManjoume ☎  15:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC) PS - Apologies all for the textwall layout of my comments. It appeared as paragraphs blocked out when I previewed it, but now hasn't committed to the page that way. JDPManjoume ☎  15:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

An update on citation progress from myself. For the moment, I have removed all uncited or not sufficiently cited ones from the category until such time that they have been cited (as should be) [apart from RTD... but get to that further down this]

No citations at present I've found
 * Geoffrey Bayldon & Alan Rowe
 * Benjamin Cook (this may have been noted by him on his Twitter, but I am personally unable to check due to personal differences between him and myself)
 * Barnaby Edwards & Nicholas Pegg
 * Simon Fisher-Becker
 * Tim Foley
 * Alex Frost
 * Mark Gatiss
 * Roy Gill
 * Tim Leng
 * Ian Levine (all the tweets I could find were instead about confusion between him and the adult entertainer of the same name, and that does actually pose difficulties for citation research)
 * Joseph Lidster
 * Matt Lucas
 * Natalie Morales
 * Cyril Nri
 * Paul Rhys
 * Leonard Sachs
 * Ryan Sampson
 * John Sessions
 * Hugh Skinner
 * Peter Straker
 * Nathan Sussex
 * Sophie Ward
 * Robert Webb
 * Richard Wilson

Known possible leads to be examined
 * Dallas Adams (in lack of many in-print acknowledgements, JNT's memoirs apparently discuss this but need to be checked out)
 * Trevor Baxter (I've been told that this is mentioned in a BF Behind the Scenes extra on a boxset Trevor was featured in. Person can't remember which though)
 * Paul Clayton (I know he's spoken with the LGBTQ+ fan group 'Friends of Ace' about Mr. Colchester, and I believe it may have come up then)
 * Gary Downie (page itself notes an obit being used for page content?)
 * John Nathan-Turner (apparently also in an obit)
 * Nicholas Pennell (Mary Z. Maher has a biography about him that needs to be examined for viability as a citation)
 * Gareth Roberts (due to my reading of his Twitter feed for the matter of properly and thoroughly citing details for the transphobia part of his page, I am nowadays unable to access it to lift any of his tweets that would work as ample citation)
 * Caroline Tankersley & Ben Tedds (these should be easy Twitter ask verifications)
 * Sandi Toksvig (the sole citation of this, without digging through episodes of QI, seems to be a cost-gated Telegraph article. Still looking for alternatives.)

Further citation needed
 * Max Adrian (Ray Diffen's book acknowledges that Max and Laurier were close & lived together, but it doesn't actually give acknowledgement in the way that most sources do...)
 * Jeremy Hoad & Paul Magrs

Other action
 * Russell T. Davies (his page is now fully protected as result of his showrunner announcement, so I have left an appropriate citation on his Talk section, for someone who has permission to edit to add in.)
 * Dursley McLinden (particularly contentious, should be left alone until there is some citable statement somewhere from someone with personal connection to him during his life)
 * Graham Norton & Paul O'Grady (both of these pages appear to be referring moreso to an in-universe counterpart so more discussion will be needed about those)
 * Oscar Wilde (similar to above, realworld page though... just not sure the best way to tackle. Especially as Dorian Gray as a work is closely tied to his sexuality.)
 * Sue Perkins (further discussion probably needed on how to handle, as Sue was I gather actually initially outed by an ex some years ago)
 * Peter Wyngarde (goodness knows how best to tackle this one; the man's name, DOB & sexuality all seem to be a messy debate... add to that a fanclub organiser who has taken on his name, a biography that has come under some debate regarding accuracy, and even chaos at times on his Wikipedia page; and honestly, I think his page will be a fullblown Forum discussion in every regard one day.)

Further ones to look at not previously added or raised here
 * Alex MacQueen
 * Gary Craig (I know this to be the case, but just need to deal with citations for this man in general. He still hasn't yet been able to receive a page on here because of those difficulties. I'm continuing to work on this one...)
 * Nicholas Mallet
 * David Winfield (Again, one I know to be the case, and has previously made known public but he's only commented as such on social channels that are now private, so citation will be a tricky one)

Additionally, I am aware that there is some discontinuity and confusion regarding was vs. is for personal life notation of this on pages of still-living people with long lasting precedents. I'm obviously no admin, but I know that's something that can't be thoroughly tackled until the Forums return. I've mostly notated using 'was', as per the advice of another editor, but of course, this may eventually be changed in a future Forum discussion. JDPManjoume ☎  20:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

A concern
Prefacing this by saying I do understand the level of nuance this discussion holds, and I have trepidations in further contributing to my admitted lack of involvement in the LGBTQ+ community; I try to do good, but I have seen that these categories I've created have faced a level of backlash, on-site and externally, so I am doubting my actions now.

We've had criticism of these categories on this very talk page, and also from Doctor Who creatives such as Felicia Barker on Twitter, so I would like to invite suggestions on how we could further improve these categories. I don't believe just deleting them would help, as it kicks out a useful resource for research, in my opinion, so perhaps, may there be a better name for this category and its sister?

I do hope I'm not speaking incorrectly here, considering I typically have little interaction with the LGBTQ+ community, even if several of my online mutuals belong to the community themselves. 📯 📂 19:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to explain how damaging this category is for quite some time... but it takes until someone on Twitter has an issue for people to realise this? No shade to Felicia, I completely agree with the hurt and disgust she feels.


 * The category literally treats LGBT+ people like some abnormality that needs labeled and categorised. Of course we should appreciate people with alternative sexualities, but this is not the way to do it. Not all LGBT+ people include LGBT themes in their work so it begs the question... why is their sexuality so important as to be noted in this scenario? Certain people don't want to be labeled either but making a category like this forces labels onto people.


 * The best reason for the category to exist is that it makes it easy for people to research LGBT+ creators... and that just showcases how little respect is being given to those LGBT creators as the researcher can't even be bothered to put the time into researching them and needs a quick and easy list. RadMatter ☎  20:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Here's a little comparison as to why we're finding this offensive. On Family Guy, Peter Griffin is interviewed by a news reporter and the caption on the television lists him as "local fatty". It is played off as a joke... but here at the TARDIS Wikia we're actually doing this for real. LGBT+ artists are providing their work and being listed by their sexuality without it having anything to do with the price of fish. On Family Guy it was meant to be an, albeit funny, joke... but here it is a reality and is ridiculous. RadMatter ☎  20:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I was against the in-universe Category:Non-heterosexual individuals, but I am and have been STRONGLY against categorising real people by their sexuality. I think it's irrelevant and not beneficial in any way. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  06:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * At this juncture, I think the categories should just be deleted. The cons greatly outweigh the pros.
 * However, @RadMatter, in response to "and that just showcases how little respect is being given to those LGBT creators as the researcher can't even be bothered to put the time into researching them and needs a quick and easy list." I feel I ought to remind you that we are volunteers. It isn't about lack of effort, mate. I, for one, have actually quite a busy schedule with college, having several large projects running simultaneously, so I often don't have the time to do extreme research into each and every person. So please don't just assume laziness. 📯 📂 13:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Your comment was about having a list of LGBT+ people so that it was easier for researchers, not that it was easier for those of us who who contribute to this site. Therefore I stated that we shouldn't have to create a convenient list for researchers who are too lazy to actually bother to research LGBT+ people themselves without having the information spoon-fed to them. RadMatter ☎  14:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Would you, by that rationale, for instance suggest a removal of the "People interviewed in Doctor Who Confidential" category & its subcategories, because people could go and watch the episodes of DWC or each of the episode pages rather than having an easy category list that would allow them to easily and swiftly look through and go "Ah yes, Jason Gill was interviewed on DWC... let's check their page and see what episode that was, so I can begin to research them & their work."? Because I'd always seen that sort of thing as the reason for utilising categories. JDPManjoume ☎  15:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't know what reason you or anyone else would need a list of LGBT+ people? What business is it of yours? Let us uplift people based on their work and talent rather than who they'd like to bed. RadMatter ☎  14:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * To take things in order, my understanding of Felicia's issue with the category seems to largely be that of a personal concern about the possibility of her own page in terms of being listed within this category. (and indeed, her own page in general)


 * She was not listed here at any point, nor did any citation of her sexuality & gender identity get raised to me. As it is, I have removed her social channels from her page (to fit with what seems to be a pre-existing issue with that) as well as left a Talk page note regarding her personal wishes, so as to guide future expansion of her page if any.


 * Beyond that, I take issue with the general notion being raised by her and on here that a category for this academically-beneficial purpose is a bad thing by nature of being a reference list. Admittedly, I am tended to that belief by long-standing personal interaction with working on the LGBT categories and sub-categories on Wikipedia, which have shown notable benefit in such a way. (for instance, Matt Lucas as an example has been listed on Wikipedia under several of the categories we have there for a long-time and it has been of benefit for those looking at the history of non-heterosexual talent in the comedy space) And I am further concerned about the implication off-Wiki in discussion of this category that mentioning non-heterosexuality in a 'personal life' section should not be done if there is no personally noted issue or other prevailing concerns [again, thinking about Sue Barker], which reads to me as leading towards the idea of calling that we shouldn't be a resource for this at all. Which would have substantial impacts upon 'personal life' sections, as well as the 'Queer representation in Doctor Who' page. The dismissal and arguable erasure of sexuality in such a way would not sit well with me at all.


 * Regarding Epsilon's question about renaming the categories... I am not sure that we can. Indeed, one of my prevailing thoughts regarding the naming of this category (and something I intend to work on other Wikis) and a point I believe I've made before is that not everyone listed will necessarily fit into a category marked "LGBT". (For instance, though Ryan Sampson had shown he has a boyfriend, we cannot make any presumptions in writing page content about his specific sexuality/sexual orientation... and nor can we assume that it would be one of the labels marked out by LGBT or LGBTQ. Pansexuality and asexuality come to immediate mind as instances for which it was, in my mind, better to name the category "Non-heterosexual". Indeed, I believe this very same conclusion was also reached for the in-universe category as well. (For instance, though Charlie Smith and Matteusz Andrzejewski are a couple, only Matteusz explicitly notes himself as gay, whereas Charlie does not.) I am open to hearing rename suggestions, but I do think past discussions tended towards "Non-heterosexual" for a reason.


 * To comment on RadMatter's thoughts, I would again first note that many of the individuals who have asked me about the possibility of this category existing as a further more navigable and comprehensive extension of the 'Queer rep.' page are themselves non-heterosexual. And that noting us non-heterosexuals in such a manner for valid research purposes is in no way dehumanising. (Just as the existence of the 'Queer rep.' page is not dehumanising, and nor is the in-universe category dehumanising - so to speak - in relation to characters detailed with said category.)


 * "Certain people don't want to be labeled" - hence the phrasing of the category as 'non-heterosexual' to maintain neutral on the exact specificity of an individual's personal labels or lack thereof.


 * "The best reason for the category to exist is that it makes it easy for people to research LGBT+ creators..." - Real world-based categories are surely always meant primarily as an easy starting point for research of a particular aspect? As it is, I would also add that this category acting as a cited category has also provided the benefit of illustrating lacking areas in our coverage of this nature. (For instance, in working pages through citation, it's become apparent that the claim Max Adrian and Laurier Lister were together is not as definite as we thought it was, based on what we currently have cited. And that the long-standing claim on the Wiki - and elsewhere as a result - that he was openly gay is not at all yet backed up by any sources. [Previously, it used to include an even more surprising element of what may have been fan hearsay that Hartnell was prejudiced towards Adrian as a result of this openness.] And that we're shockingly lacking in citation for JNT and Gary Downie being gay & partnered together. A notable lacking for the page of someone of that significance in Who production to have such uncited statements for so long.


 * "and that just showcases how little respect is being given to those LGBT creators as the researcher can't even be bothered to put the time into researching them and needs a quick and easy list." - I will politely note that as a gay man who has spent considerable spare time researching these pages such that they could be actually included in the category, there most definitely has been respect put into this matter. And I would hope my concern & carefulness about citations through the process of each addition & potential addition evidences this well enough.


 * Further to that, I'd like to counter that categories are by their very nature - here and on other Wikis - meant to be precisely that. A quick and easy list... which allow someone to identify that category with relative ease, such that they have a foundation laid for research. There are plenty Who contributors within the LGBT categories on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia doesn't cover everyone notable to Who like we do, thus there is an evident space that we can provide for here where they do not.


 * Additionally, this might well actually benefit the editing of Wikipedia too, to be more comprehensive for individuals they do have pages for. (For instance, our citation we now have here on Paul Clayton that I was politely pointed to is something they lack and can now be further added to their coverage. If editors on external Wikis wishing to improve their coverage - just as we sometimes look to them to improve ours - on non-heterosexual category accuracy, this category provides a compelling resource to aid in that.) JDPManjoume ☎  15:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * At the end of the day two people on here and one person on Twitter (who received many likes on their comment regarding the complaints) have expressed severe discomfort regarding the category. As Epsilon conceded, the cons far outweigh the pros. I still fail to understand what you so desperately need this category for? Why do you need to know the sexuality of certain people? Again, what business is it of yours or this Wiki's as a whole? RadMatter ☎  15:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If I were to suggest a compromise, it would be to delete the categories but leave the citations alone. BastianBalthazarBux ☎  22:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Just want to point out that comparing this category's appropriateness and usefulness to that of category:People interviewed on Doctor Who Confidential and its subcategories is not a valid comparison for making this decision. The DWC categories relate directly to DW. What is at issue here is whether this category is related enough to DW to include on the wiki. Shambala108 ☎  02:50, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wanted to share my perspective about this topic. As a member of LGBTQ+ community living in a country where queer voices are under threat of being put down, dismissed and being brushed under the carpet, Doctor Who franchise as a whole and the fan community was always a safe beacon of inclusion, championing a great variety of voices. The fact that this is an important issue to many people within Doctor Who world is clearly shown in different reference sources, such as webcasts, publications and podcasts - this category's point is not labeling everyone for the sake of it, this is rich history of LGBTQ+ community and its deep connections with Doctor Who being represented in encyclopedia form. When this Wiki finally decided to include such article as Queer representation in Doctor Who and create categories for in-universe and the real world - it was a major victory, finally Wiki was able to stop ignoring the community and connect all the people, characters and stories, and represent their place from every perspective. I find it deeply disturbing that somebody may think this caterogy is redundant, because on a personal level it's the epitome of honesty, support and openness about the contributors - and shows exactly what this Wiki is supposed to be doing, representing information about Doctor Who in all its forms. Dmitriy Volfson ☎  08:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Putting a bunch of real world people into a category because of which gender they like to have sex with in their private life is, I think, the opposite of progressive. Sexuality is a normal, boring, everyday thing and I don't see it as a victory that all of these people have been arbitrarily "connected", as you say, because of this. These people have contributed to the Doctor Who universe in various ways and sticking them in a category which serves no purpose and offers no information of the rich history that you speak of doesn't represent "honesty, support and openness" because they themselves have had no say in it. In fact, a few have spoken out against it. In my view, this isn't want the wiki is supposed to be doing. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  09:35, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * On this talkpage alone my sexuality was being denied by an admin who suggested that only straight people would have a problem with this category, but as can be seen with many others coming forward this is not the case. I have no problem with the Queer representation in Doctor Who page, nor do I have a problem with a person's sexuality being noted on their own page (on the condition that it is relevant to their work - such as Paul Magrs' who includes a lot of LGBT+ themes - and that person is comfortable with the information being listed). Bundling a large group of people together into a category simply because of who they like to have sex with is as far from progressive as you can get, especially as certain people in the category are actively against the rights of others in the same category! RadMatter ☎  10:23, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think the categories are untenable, but given that some of the people therein (though not all!) are against being categorised as such, they clearly are less than functional. And while there are real possible benefits to having them, none of them are benefits that you can't get with fewer downsides from the page Queer representation in Doctor Who alone. My vote goes to the deletion of the two real-world-people categories. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Since it is evident what the direction is here, I will, with a heavy heart, relent on the matter, stand aside on the deletion, and move on. JDPManjoume ☎  12:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Despite my opposition to this category, I do admire the work you've put into finding sources for all of these people. Jack &#34;BtR&#34; Saxon ☎  12:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I must preface this by saying I am not a member of the LGBTQ+ community, so I surely have a different perspective. But I do agree these categories seem somewhat unnecessary at least, and harmful at most. It seems such categories are more likely to upset people than instill a sense of pride for the community. While I also appreciate the work put into finding sources, I think it's much better to apply these findings to Queer representation in Doctor Who (or whatever that page may be renamed). The truth is, a category or list of people does just seem like a label based on an aspect of their personal identity. Wikipedia more arguably has reason to have such categories, since it is a general knowledge encyclopedia that covers everything, and covers the extremely broad topics of film and TV, genres, acting, etc., but also sexuality, gender, the LGBTQ+ community, etc., and then the overlap between. So, I don't think these categories serve this wiki well, but the page about representation does because it is clearly in relation to this wiki's focus of Doctor Who rather than an apparent label. I also don't think it's bad idea to mention on these people's pages if and only if they are clearly comfortable with it and it is also relevant to their work or career.


 * Furthermore, to JDPManjoume I hope this does not significantly upset you, and wish you well since you have decided to leave the wiki. Chubby Potato ☎  08:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I feel like it could be time for an admin ruling? With the severe upset quite a few people have expressed over this category I personally think that the discussion has been open long enough. RadMatter ☎  01:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Some might argue the opposite. There are very strong feelings on both sides of this issue, which means we should not take any rash decisions, but rather, make sure we are giving all points of view their fair shake. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 01:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Completely disagree. Anyone that has expressed an opposition already has either a) already conceded or b) not returned to the discussion despite being active. This thread has been open for two months, and has been inactive for almost two weeks. The harm that these categories are exposing people to does not go away while we sit in limbo waiting for people to defend the indefensible. RadMatter ☎  01:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the discussion started in January was a discussion about citations. The current (sub-?)discussion, springing from concerns expressed on Twitter, was only begun a little over two weeks ago. I grant that you have been pushing for deletion for longer than that, but it has not officially been the main point of discussion at issue for that long.


 * Accordingly, the fact that e.g. User:Dmitriy Volfson has not "returned to the discussion" since last posting here should not somehow be construed as a "surrender". We are talking about a post less than two weeks old! And besides, even if Dmitriy should never return to this conversation, he still made points, which have not necessarily been adequately answered. Consensus isn't a "last person standing" contest — whether people cease interacting with a discussion has no bearing on whether their points made earlier in the discussion should be voided!


 * When both Dmitriy and User:JDPManjoume have argued, at length, and in a visibly heartfelt way, that it is the deletion of the categories which they would find backwards and hurtful, I find it rather question-begging to assert that the pro-category case is "indefensible". Indeed, one might easily construe your description of such a defence as "defending the indefensible" as a violation of Tardis:No personal attacks with respect to Dmitriy and JDP; at the very least it is bordering on that territory. You don't have to agree with their positions, but let us please keep our heads cool, and continue to assume good faith. Just because you don't agree with somebody else's opinion on this kind of complicated topic, doesn't mean you can't acknowledge the other point of view as a valid framing, worth taking seriously and addressing, rather than dismissing out of hand from a spurious position of moral authority.


 * This isn't some black-and-white, slam-dunk issue of bigotry versus progressiveness — we have queer people on both sides of the issue, on and off the Wiki, with strong, contradictory opinions. (And some queer people like myself flopping anxiously in the middle, unable to completely make up their mind.) Whatever we ultimately decide here, some good-intentioned people are going to feel hurt, or at least saddened, by that decision. The least each side can do is show some consideration for the other, show respect for their position and their potential disappointment should your side prevail instead. That you talk of the opposite side to yours "defending the indefensible" is a demonstration of just the sort of rash absolutism which I say we must stamp down before we can even begin to think about wrapping up this discussion.


 * But also: it's not all about us. This is an issue of great magnitude, and rather than the same three or four voices, I really think we need to hear from more of the community here. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 01:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I was the first person to reply in this thread and brought up my concerns about the category as a whole and every comment since has been in regards to that diversion rather than the original topic. Therefore it is correct to say that this discussion has been open since January and incorrect to suggest that it hasn't been the main discussion until two weeks ago. I also find it deeply offensive that mine and other user's concerns are not considered "official" until they were validated by someone complaining on Twitter.


 * I do find this category to be indefensible, but that isn't me dismissing other people's opinions (all of which I have acknowledged). I simply do not think that their defenses are valid in relation to saving the category as a whole and instead show that work needs to be done on pages like Queer representation in Doctor Who. None of the supporting opinions have, in my opinion, explained why a category dividing people by something like sexuality is necessary.


 * I find your potential attempt to silence my opinion by suggesting I have come anywhere close to personally attacking anyone to be bordering on a personal attack itself. You appear to have done this countless times when I have engaged with you in larger discussions to the point that I am left having to debate every single word carefully to avoid my comments possibly being twisted. RadMatter ☎  04:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you did not intend it as such, but calling someone else's opinion "indefensible" is a highly accusatory term. And the fact is that people are defending it. "Indefensible" isn't a synonym for "incorrect", it's something much stronger, which the contrarian in this discussion objectively does not warrant when we have multiple people indeed defending it in good faith. Good-faith discussions on this Wiki (or indeed elsewhere) should never involve calling a position that other, non-prejudiced people are earnestly defending, "indefensible". It's nothing to do with some attempt to "silence your opinion". If you find that I have warned you in multiple times in other discussions about your tone being too inflammatory, please consider that it is you who might have a tendency to get carried away and be less than civil, rather than I who have some sort of machiavellian agenda. (I mean, on the object level in this discussion, I currently agree with you that Queer representation in Doctor Who does the trick well enough! Why would I be trying to silence the proponent of a position that I share?!) This seems to me to be in of itself a further failure to assume good faith.


 * Also, it's simply incorrect to say that "every comment since has been in regards to that diversion". If you'll read the discussion up to Epsilon's "A concern" subtitle again, you'll find there was plenty of discussion of the intended main topic — the feasibility of citations for all this information — rather than your wider criticism, even if that criticism was discussed in parallel. The point about the subdiscussion started by Epsilon two weeks ago isn't that we needed the validation of somebody on Twitter for the discussion to be "real" — it's that only then was a discussion started, on this Wiki, that was officially about the matter of potential deletion. Previously, a user could simply have overlooked the discussion started by User:JDPManjoume, because it flagged itself as being about citations; someone with an opinion on the deletion, but not on a more technical issue of citations, would have had to read through the discussion to realise their deletion opinions were relevant, and I think it's plausible that many simply did not go as far as that. Thus, it's only been two weeks since there's been a reasonable expectations for other members of the community to weigh in. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 10:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)