Talk:LGBT themes in speculative fiction/Draft

Request for feedback
Hi Yobmod. I saw your request for feedback[1] and thought I would give my two cents. Speculative fiction is fiction which includes science-fictional elements but which is perceived to fall outside that genre.[2] This article says "Homosexuality in speculative fiction (SF) refers to the incorporation of gay themes into science fiction or fantasy fiction." However, shouldn't it be "Homosexuality in speculative fiction (SF) refers to the incorporation of gay themes into media having science-fictional elements but which are perceived to fall outside science fiction or fantasy fiction genre." Also, are the gay themes science fiction themselves or real world gay themes? In the article write up about Star Trek, it says that no gay characters existed in the television franchise and that the "sexual experience" (e.g., same-sex kisses) were not gay same-sex kisses, but something else. Yet, the top of the article says "Such elements may include an LGBT character as the protagonist or a major character, or exploration the varieties of sexual experience that deviate from the conventional." The write up on Star Trek does not seem to meet either of these requirements. I don't think the scope of the article is clear from the lead paragraph and the name of the article does not seem to aid in this. There is a lot of good, well written, and well sourced information. As an improvement, I would suggest providing more detail in the lead paragraphs that provides a road map to the rest of the article and revise the rest of the article to adhere to that road map. Suntag (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your definition of speculative fiction differs from the wikipedia article, which is also cited. doh. It was coined by a science fiction author talking about science fiction - it doesn't refer to fiction that is NOT science fiction. It is generally used to mean Sf, fantasy, horror, maybe magic realism. (ah, checked out Jesseworld - many of their definitions are VERy dubious (they claim high fantasy = epic fantasy = sword and sourcery). Should i define the term as used here more in the lead? Or is the wikilink enough?

The star trek section illustrates that homosexuality has not been realistically represented - this lack of representation is notable (per sources). The same sex kisses appear to "explore the themes that deviate from the conventional" to me (having lesbian sex with an ex wife after being reincarnated as a woman doesn'thappen to me very often! An LGBT theme doesn't require the characters identify as LGBT.

But i will expand the lead much more to define the article scope, thanks!

Peer review

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for August 2008.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because… In the last few months it has had a complete overhaul. It is now: 1. Broad in coverage (broader than any of the print encylopedias used as sources)

2. Fully wikified

3. Referenced.

4. Well written (in my own opinion!)

5. Has free images.

So i'm hoping to submit for GAR soon. As i've written almost all of it alone, i want outside input, especially on the writing and overall flow.

Thanks, Yobmod (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to add more explanation to the lead image. Are these symbols conventionally and widely adopted in SF fiction? Or they have only been used in a single work or by a single author? Or created by a Wikipedian? Eklipse (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, changed the caption to show they are invented by the artist. Image will be changed to include women, once i figure out how.Yobmod (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But you still didn't answer WHO did invent them or WHERE were they precisely used. I suspect it is the work of a wikipedian, so it qualifies as OR. Eklipse (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not the work of a wikipedian, but a guy i know in the real world. They weren't used anywhere, they're just pretty (free) images. It seems easier to include copyrighted imaged as "fair use" than orginial art! -rmvd.

Ruhrfisch comments: Very briefly, here are some suggestions for improvement. If you want more comments, please ask here.
 * Interesting article - I agree that the lead image does not really fit though. There is no robot sex described in the article and very little alien sex - also by using male symbols, the figure excludes females.
 * Oki, the picture will be changed, to include women and exclude robots.


 * I wonder if it would make sense to change the title of the article to something broader - one problem is that many SF works that explore homosexuality also explore other types of sex - Odd John implies incest, Varley's Titan, Wizard, and Demon triloogy has lesbian protagonists, but features interspecies sex and the detailed centaur matings possible, etc. Alien sex is hard to define as homosexual, but may certainly require the reader to think outside the box - see Asimov's The Gods Themselves with its three alien species having sex (two using male pronouns, one female) or Varley's centaur variations above.
 * There is already an (extremely poor) article for Sexuality in SF in general, that article should cover SF approach to sex overall, with a summary of this article in the section there.
 * I thought the first section explained about alien sexualities being used as metaphors etc - i'll have to make it clearer. ::Anything more would be OR - as far as i remember, the aliens in The Gods Themselves reproduce by a method completely different from humans, so the gramatical genders had nothing to do with actual gender, no? Without gametes, the idea of binary sex soesn't exist, hence nor does homosexuality, except as a metaphor.
 * OK they do reproduce differently, although I would say without gametes robots can't have sex either. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought the lead focused a shade too much on the bad old repressed days of no sex at all in SF and the article could use more examples from recent works, especially the 1990s
 * I'll cut back on the repression in the lead, although for most critics this is the most notable thing. "Homophobia is no longer considered acceptable..." is about all the sources say.


 * Article needs more references, for example four of six paragraphs in Modern SF (post New Wave) have no refs. My rule of thumb is that every quote, every statistic, every extraordinary claim and every paragraph needs a ref.
 * All paras now have more than one cite. And all quotes.
 * Jepp - as SF got more accepting, far less people wrote about it! So the post new wave section will be trimmed and sourced.
 * Would it be possible to find people writing about a particular author's work, which could be quoted? Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

will do.
 * Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. cite web and other cite templates may be helpful. See WP:CITE and WP:V
 * Lots of short one or two sentence paragraphs and some vey short sections - these should be combined with others or perhaps expanded.
 * I'll combine them, are no real sources showing notability for the lesbian presses for example.

Done. Done the split - to List of gay SF. Never seen a sortable list on WP, so no idea how to change that, but is now a different article anyway. Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Will do. Thanks!
 * See WP:MOSQUOTE - son't use the cquote template here
 * I would split out the list and make it sortable.
 * Alpha Flight's Northstar - was he gay from day one or was it only revealed in 1983 (hints) and definitively in 1992? This needs to be clearer.
 * You are very welcome, thanks for an interesting article. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 02:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Automated Peer review
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?] They are not linked.

You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. [?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually) There is none

Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.[?] Titles with "The" are proper nouns

As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), please do not link words in headings.[?] moved links to texts

Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?] Already limited TOC

Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honor (A) (British: honour), behavior (A) (British: behaviour), recognise (B) (American: recognize), ization (A) (British: isation), programme (B) (American: program ), skeptic (A) (British: sceptic). Was a mix, now British is used.

The script has spotted the following contractions: Don't, Don't, can't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded. All quotes

As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?] Are after, except when needed within sentence

'''Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.) Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”'''- requested 2 copyeditors

'''Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]''' - requested 2 copyeditors

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Done

Thanks, Yobmod 13:26, 28 Aug 2008 (UTC)