Talk:List of 1970s American television episodes with LGBT themes

Link formatting
Re the Marcus Welby, M.D. episodes: I believe the correct formatting in articles is for the quotation marks or italics to be placed outside the link brackets, and I also think the disambiguator for the episode should be by the actual, complete title of the show. Why were these changes reverted?-- Shelf Skewed  Talk  15:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because quotes outside link brackets looks ugly and "(Marcus Welby, M.D.) is unnecessarily complicated. Articles are now in place. Otto4711 (talk) 15:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may think it's ugly, but it is contrary to the existing guidelines; see Manual of Style (titles). And I still think disambiguation should be done by the full title of the series. Other series with even more ungainly titles are dabbed this way. But it's not a biggie--I won't press it. -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  15:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful job
This is a remarkably comprehensive list. Kudos! One question about Three's Company: Since one major premise of the popular program revolved around Jack pretending to be gay, might a footnote saying as much be helpful? Of course the character wasn't really gay, so in that sense most episodes were not LGBT-related, but it was a groundbreaking program in the sense that the word "gay" was frequently uttered and so forth.

Also, I'm surprised Soap is not mentioned at all. Major character Billy Crystal played Jodie Dallas, an openly gay man. The theme therefore arose in many episodes. Moncrief (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a seperate article about shows with LGBT characters. It might be a bit much to include dozens and dozens of episodes of Soap. Czolgolz (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Current edit war
This warring needs to stop. Please explain why you feel your version is correct. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, I've read the supposed sources and they do not say what it is claimed they say. Citing a source that does not say what it is claimed they say is wrong. Removing material that is unsupported by reliable sources is right. Support doing right things. Stop supporting wrong things. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 07:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * With exceptions that do not apply here, repeatedly reverting and refusing to discuss issues is the "wrong thing" here, even if you are right. Edit warring leads to blocks. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You'll need to explain which ones you feel are not correctly cited. I began checking them, immediately found the first two (pages 280 and 296 for Here's Lucy and Sanford and Son respectively) immediately. The source seems to say exactly what the edit claims it says. Am I not understanding what you are saying? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All the source says for Here's Lucy is that a particular actor appeared in it. The presence of an actor does not make the episode LGBT-themed. All the source says for Sanford is that they moved a gay guy's piano. Moving a piano in the absence of further information doesn't make the episode LGBT-themed. There are hundreds if not thousands of episodes that include gay actors or passing references to homosexuality. Including them based on the sort of "reference" cited here would dilute these lists to the point of useless trivia. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Your edit summaries are far less nuanced than your discussion here. That's the limitation of short edit summaries. You seem to be able to reasonably discuss the issue on a talk page. I'd suggest it works a lot better as well. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there some reason you're threatening to sanction the only person actually discussing the situation but not the anon IP who isn't? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I gave them this warning the same time I gave you the same warning. When I reverted their last change without discussion, I immediately took them to 3RR.
 * Incidentally, I was tempted to take you there when you reverted without waiting for discussion. That's really bad form when you're under a 3RR warning, especially so shortly after a 3RR block. Slow down. There's no deadline here. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I had no idea any such warning had been given. I haven't looked at my talk page for over a month. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, SummerPhD. I realize I'm a little late in this discussion. I planned on writing this last night but I got preoccupied. Just wanted to assure you that I have fully cited my sources and jerrypepsi has been reverting them for quite some time now (which is disruptive). All of the episodes that have been added apply to the topic.71.230.71.243 (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * As you reverted after the 3RR warning without discussion, you are still up for discussion at the edit warring noticeboard. You may very well be blocked by the time you read this.
 * In any case, you will need to discuss the issue. Jerry has now stated that s/he feels the sources are insufficient to show that the episodes have "LGBT themes". All that you have said is that you have "fully cited (your) sources". Please explain why you feel the sources are sufficient.
 * Here's the situation in a nutshell: At this point, Jerry is offering a weak generalization that s/he feels the sources are weak. The IP merely says the sources are there. ANYONE contributing something more to this discussion would clearly tip the balance. Figure it out. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

So, here we are. No consensus and very limited discussion. At the moment, the IP is taking a brief vacation for edit warring. After their return, we'll need to work this out, unless there are other problems to work out... To help move things along, it would be helpful if would spell out their objections to the source a bit more clearly. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. The IP is still blocked for edit warring and now Pepsi is blocked as a sock of a banned editor. I came here to stop the edit war and have no interest in the actual outcome other than that. But I'm now the only one here. Time to walk away. We can revert Pepsi's edits as vandalism (per WP:DENY). So pretty much anyone can do as they wish here, being aware, of course, that socks often return. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 11:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

If jerrypepsi wants me to explain the reason for me adding the episodes, here it goes (reviewing the source alone should be clear enough but o well....). In the 1960s, seeing an openly gay character on television was extremely rare. In the beginning of the 1970s, gay characters began to appear on hit tv shows and even though eventually this barrier was broken down, it was controversial back then and each episode that has been added contains a self identifying LGBT character or a prominent LGBT theme The only one that was added that did not is the episode of "Here's Lucy". The reason that this episode was added was because because a well known female impersonator was featured as the guest star. To avoid any kind of dispute, I have removed that episode from the list. All of the episodes have been cited. 71.230.71.243 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have a proposal for you. (I just rolled you back.) You get to find consensus for your edits (maybe has an opinion) and stay away from the article until you get that consensus, or I will block you for much longer than before. Take it or leave it. (That Pepsi was blocked as a sock has no bearing on this matter.) Drmies (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * IMO, Drmies has the right idea here. Both the IP and Pepsi were wrong in their approaches and neither one should benefit from that. I (perhaps stupidly) jumped in here to stop the edit warring. That task momentarily accomplished, I feel compelled to stay out of it. Perhaps raising the issue at the two Wikiprojects would be worthwhile. Other than keeping half an eye open for new incidents here, I'm gone. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * IP, I thought Summer's expertise might carry the day, but apparently she doesn't really care for LGBT issues. Ah well--we can't all be as open and liberal-minded as me. Of the editors who've been active on this talk page, only is still around, I think, and perhaps you can drop a note on the project pages. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have looked into the four episodes which were added in the IPs edit. Of the four, three are supported by the source given, The Prime Time Closet, so I have restored those to the list.  The fourth, the Taxi episode, may be listed in the printed version of that source, but it is not listed in the Google Books version, as those pages which would include Taxi are missing.  I've done a Google search of the episode, and read the description given in several places. None of these would probably qualify as reliable sources, but the fact that noneof them support the version of the episode plot listed in the IPs edit is enough to convince me that there is reasonable doubt as to whether the description given there accurately describes the episode.  For this reason I have not restored it.  My apologies to Drmies for reverting his edit, but I believe that the source given is reliable, and that the episodes should therefore be restored to the list. BMK (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No apology necessary, BMK, though I have to tell you, it hurt when I saw that in my notifications. *snif* And you don't bring me flowers anymore either. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey! That's what my wife said to me last week! BMK (talk) 03:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Now that you two are getting a room, I will pretend to throw my enthusiastic support to BMK's call on this vitally important, not-at-all-backwater list of TV shows from 40 years ago as a crucial LGBT issue. Balance is restored. Now I can get back to my true calling: Scrubbing POV out of descriptions of Disney princesses ("... long, tomboy-like, curly, orange hair, blue eyes, a pale skin tone, and healthy fit body"? Not on my watch!). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We all know full well that the most important things in the universe are those things that you loved when you were 15. That's why I still watch reruns of Mary Tyler Moore and The Bob Newhart Show. (I haven't listened to a Moody Blues album in ages, though, I wonder what that means?) BMK (talk) 04:41, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Or the music we listened to. I'm pleased to inform you that my 8-year old has now mastered the lyrics of "Stargazer", claiming that the last line will give her nine years of nightmares. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have an article on my 10th grade math teacher. Yet. I suppose it'd be a COI. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Check up on him or her. If they're notable, I'll write the article for you. (And we could encode a love letter from your in the article, if you're still carrying a torch.) BMK (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Then write up my French teacher too. Ah how she swayed when she wrote on the blackboard. Though, if I ever fantasized, it must have been about the other French teacher, who was one of those tightlipped old-fashioned women. I wonder if she was married, and if she spanked her husband. (And I don't say this just cause I got a copy of The Story of O the other day.) Drmies (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's remarkable, some of the conversations one wanders into. ;-) Liz  Read! Talk! 21:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all about the encyclopedia (and laws and sausages). - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * (Putting on my pedant's cap} Actually him, according to this. BMK (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, normally I'd be right back at ya with a better source, but even though I moved 5 months ago, I still haven't bought the ookcases I need to allow me to unpack my books, so my 20 or so books of quotations are not available to me.  Shelves are supposed to come in 6-8 weeks, so until then, this NY Times article will have to do. BMK (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Obvious liberal bias. (And what are these "book" things you speak of?) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, my child, come sit closer to the rocking chair my WiFi-enabled electro-vibrating Barcalounger, and I'll tell you all about "The Old Days". We'll talk of books, LPs and 8-track tapes and telephones with wires, of magazines and newspapers and no credit cards for buyers. BMK (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, you kids today with your "magazines", "8 tracks" and flimity-flam. When I was your age, the only thing we had was some pretty pictures. I'm not sure if any of the subjects were LGBT. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "When you was my age? When my old man was my age, when my brother was my age ... You was never my age, none of ya! And the sooner you creeps get hip to that, the sooner you'll dig us!" Da Hip Youth of America (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)