Talk:Queerbaiting

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hrs4989. Peer reviewers: Hangpv.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 12 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Karsoncharbonneau.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 4 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stephanie.garcia98. Peer reviewers: Avillaaav.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2021 and 19 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xoberenicexo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:54, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Article is a blog post
So this article is not discussing this terminology as if it's notable. It is using bad sources including TV Tropes and Tumblr posts, and it does not read like an actual encyclopedic discussion of an LGBT issue but one person's angry blog post about Supernatural and Sherlock not featuring enough canonical slash. As it is, the article supposes that the only reason a show would include male characters is the intent to have them sleep together and to not do so means they are "queerbaiting." This needs a serious overhaul with real sources, discussing a real issue.

I ended up at this article from another and agree,it's all about subjects of fan speculation that popular characters are in a homosexualn relationship, projecting the fanfic type fantasies on writers motivation. There could have been discussion of entertainment using LGBT characters in a token and patronizing fashion to pander to a target audience for ratings. The article is reminiscent of "Seduction of the Innocent" suggesting comics were trying to corrupt children with depictions of homosexual relationships. Czarnibog (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Awful
This is a terrible article that sounds like a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B01D:9E7D:0:44:AB9A:FF01 (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Supernatural
I understand that there are multiple fans who do not enjoy Supernatural's inclusion in the examples segment. However, it is the most discussed instance of current queer baiting in media, and removing it from the article is like ripping a page out of a history book because you disagree with its depiction of a historical figure. This is not 'examples made by shippers,' it is the most highly sourced segment of the examples portion because it has been discussed by everyone from TV Guide to Spoiler TV to Autostraddle to Policy Mic. You are free to disagree with the conclusion, but removing the example and its sources is disruptive, and a single video of Jensen from JIBCon does not negate what is going on within the show (abundant use of romantic tropes and framing, establishing the characters as each others' motivations, I need you/I love yous, you did it all for Dean Winchester, what broke the connection, etc) or the years of commentary on Twitter, on DVDs, and in person from the showrunners that indicate that they want to keep the queer audience by leaving the subtext in but not 'define love' and risk alienating more conservative-minded audiences. That is queerbaiting. Exorcisingemily (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one that decided to take direction action on this issue. I was the one who removed it. Multiple sources for a single part of an article is literally agenda pushing. And you can not change my mind about that. Re-add it with basically a re-worded sentence and give a source and it'd be fine. But seriously... the single paragraph about Supernatural had.... nine? sources on the end of it. I mean its like it wasn't even hiding the fact its agenda pushing. Also everyone knows Sam loves Cas and Dean loves Crowley... and please dont take that joke as a legitimate position I made. 99.254.14.15 (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please review the editing history on the page. Those sources were only added after the segment on Supernatural was repeatedly blanked, to the point where it became an edit war and the IP doing so was blocked from editing. I did not write the description of Supernatural's queer baiting, I only added the sources after its validity as an example was repeatedly questioned. Exorcising Emily 14:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you really believe conservatives watch supernatural? This just shows how naive you are. An intolerant person would stop watching something like that,you believe every conservative is just out there screaming about what their children watch? It's not a boogie-man,the authors did that by their own will,they are not scared of losing audience,they just want to keep you into the show,by making you hooked on a romance that they let you eatoff every once in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.146.218 (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought "queerbaiting" referred to something other then the speculations of fanfic authors about who is secretly a gay couple. Czarnibog (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Lunatic.
This article is nothing but lunacy. It uses things like character relationships that don't end up in the desired way,and somehow makes it about an homophobic or bigotry issue.When there is just no proof that is the case. If something seemingly like two characters being very close,intimate and typically written in a romantic way,were to be dismissed,then that would be bad writing worth of criticism in the first place. Baiting the audience with romance has always been part of the climax that draws people into wanting to know more,it's a tactic that is used prevalently everywhere,with same sex and opposite sex couples,now of course there has been more explicitly close opposite sex couples,but that is just because it's merely a reflection of the world we live in. Authors can freely choose to put every kind of couple out there,or to no too of course. Believing there is some sort of malice behind it it's just lunatic,especially seen how the media is dominated by young fresh minded people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.75.146.218 (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Perspective is Required
To understand the issue, one really must understand this history of the lgbt community. This video is a nice synapsis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwrTU-FnGlw But there are plenty of books and articles you can read on the subject to get a far more in-depth view.

In summary: Thoughout much of history, same-sex relationships were either banned or would receive such negative blowback from the audience that most studios refused to release media containing them. This has lead to many filmmakers resorting to subtext to convay the relationships present. Alfred Hitchcock was notable for this, among many others. Although laws officially banning lgbt representation were mostly repealed in the 70's, most rating services today will still unapologetically strike works containing them with more mature ratings, and many studios still refuse to publish works outright containing them because it still would cut them out of a fair bit of their audience.

As such, lgbt people have gotten fairly good over the years at picking up on this subtext. The 'signals' and implications for it are fairly standard and recognizable these days. This is where 'queerbaiting' comes along: The intentional use of these subtextual flags and signals to imply a relationship or attraction in an attempt to draw in more lgbt consumers, while never actually canonizing (or even denying) the relationship.

The Examples section is subjective at best and should likely be repurposed into a section citing examples of the subtextual devices used to convay the idea of a relationship and other such things instead, as they are far more quantifiable and recognizable.

71.73.32.247 (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Voltron Edit War
There is currently an edit war regarding a canon gay relationship being added to this article which is about a trope that "baits" people into thinking a platonic relationship is gay. It really needs to stop. I have no idea what to do to report this, so I thought I'd put something here since the page to report things says you have to first. Ashfilledwords (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_page_protection.  Sandstein   09:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The article has been locked, but with incorrect information that sources an unreliable article with factual inaccuracies. The item of "Shiro and Adam" needs to be removed, as this is an explicitly gay relationship within the canon, and the page locked once it is removed to avoid further vandalism. Thank you! Nernicus (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've removed that specific item after a brief look at the source cited for it, which I'm not sure is reliable. That doesn't rule out the item being re-added if better sources are found, or if there develops a consensus here to re-include it. MPS1992 (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from adding it back. It's not an accurate example. It is a canon gay couple and literally cannot be queerbaiting based on the definition. Other LGBT tropes apply to it, but not this one. 2601:246:8200:E14:FC0E:FF59:4D77:298F (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * How about this source? It's clearly controversial, but that seems to be in the nature of this topic.  Sandstein   12:34, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to say I'm not sure. Not helped by that source using phrases like "ship wars that are more toxic than normal" which I don't understand. On the one hand, Comic Book Resources does seem to be a reliable source for the topic area, in as much as anything is. But, it comes to the conclusion that Voltron was not queerbaiting; rather, "fans" (unspecified whether a majority or minority) said that it was. So we have an apparently reliable source saying that some fans interpreted it as queerbaiting. Is that enough, or do we not, instead, want to list examples that a reliable source has said is queerbaiting? Because, after all, we also appear to have some other fans (on this talkpage) saying it is not queerbaiting. This is also all assuming that queerbaiting itself is notable as a topic, which I'm still not entirely convinced of. MPS1992 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * There's now also this from io9. Clearly opinions are divided about whether this was queerbaiting, but given the prominence of this controversy in fandom-related media I think an entry mentioning it wouldn't go amiss.  Sandstein   19:38, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Again, we've got "reliable source mentions (in passing) that some part of fandom made accusations of queerbaiting", not "reliable source says that there was queerbaiting". This i09 piece's more significant aspects seem to be about "boundaries", too, not about queerbaiting. MPS1992 (talk) 20:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Inadequate reliable sources
The sources used most heavily in this article in its current state are:


 * Scout, Emmett. "Please Do Not Bait the Queers". The Next. University of Washington. This is a dead link to an "editorial" where the domain name does not appear to have any connection with the University of Washington.


 * Bridges, Rose. "How Do We Solve A Problem Like 'Queerbaiting'?". AutoStraddle. This is a blog post on a website which describes itself as "a serious labor of love that started out as a group of friends" and "still run by a dedicated team of passionate weirdos" who have "thrown parties, arranged worldwide meet-ups and launched a very successful line of t-shirts, stickers, bags, tank tops, crop tops, hoodies, boyshorts and ‘zines".


 * Panigrahi, Kerishma. "Queerbaiting in Online Communities: Television, Fandom, and the Politics of Representation" (PDF). Wordpress. A Wordpress posting with no further information immediately available about its provenance.


 * Nordin, Emma (2015-01-01). "From Queer Reading to Queerbaiting : The battle over the polysemic text and the power of hermeneutics". Master's thesis. Like it says, someone's Master's thesis.

That's very much lacking in the sort of reliable sources we would like to see to establish notability of what may just be a neologism. MPS1992 (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Queerbaiting by real people (i.e., not in fiction)?
Should this article also discuss the use of "queerbaiting" to describe behaviour by celebrities in the construction of their public personae in order to court queer audiences? Some disagree with this term being used in this way, e.g., But there's clear precedent for this usage:
 * etc.
 * etc.
 * etc.
 * etc.

Thoughts? Umimmak (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * If all we have is the word being used to describe such behavior, then all we could give would be a dictionary definition such as "this is also called queerbaiting", which we shouldn't do per WP:DICDEF. But if we have sources that describe this as a phenomenon of its own, it might merit coverage.  Sandstein   19:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean, you can see the sources yourself. I'm not really sure about the distinction you're making though. The articles discuss the practice rather than just mentioning the term if that's what you mean? My point was that if people use "queerbaiting" in ways other than in relation to strictly fictional concepts (which they do), then the Wikipedia article shouldn't be written in a way that makes it seem like this is a phenomenon limited to fiction, imho. Umimmak (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

POV
The simple act of defining the word "Queerbaiting" in the first line of the article is far-left activism. Simply presenting the word and then defining it as "hinting but then not depicting same-sex romance" is already normalizing the notion that "Queerbaiting" is a common practice. It asserts the activist's opinion ("we're being queer baited") as if it were a fact.

They're opining, but using Wikipedia's voice to do it rather than their own.

Then the next section is entitled, "Audience reaction and consequences". This is a gimmick of these activists. The "and consequences" part is their way of implying that "Queerbaiting" is a form of violence. In their view, non-violence that they don't like "can cause harm" or "have consequences".

Simply reading the section shows that the author can't even name a "consequence" of "Queerbaiting". If they had just stuck with "Audience reaction", that would've been okay.

Notability/Third Party/Unreliable
Almost all of the sources are opinion/editorial pieces hosted on unreliable websites. Two of the sources are some college students' theses. This problem with the sources, coupled with the things I named as POV, presents the subject as far more notable than it really is. There aren't all these reputable sources writing about "Queerbaiting". Just activists opining about it and then this author citing their fellow activists.

There are only three sources in the article that could be taken as reliable, and they're all sources for the "Examples" section. But they're reporting on the controversies, not on "Queerbaiting" itself as a notable subject.
 * Advocate. (Used to cite an example, not to cite any claim. Seems to be unbiased reporting.
 * Polygon. (Used to cite an example, not to cite any claim. Well-known video game journalist website.)
 * Daily Dot. (Used to cite an example. Article says nothing about "Queerbaiting".)

Doing a google search myself, I could find two notable articles about the subject of "Queerbaiting".
 * Queer-Baiting: What is it and why is it harmful? (The Independent is a left-wing Partisan site.)
 * Queerbaiting - exploitation or a sign of progress?


 * If you believe the topic is not notable, WP:AFD is the way to go. Tags are meant for expressing concern, but if you're that sure it's not notable, it's better to directly make a deletionr equest.  Sandstein   13:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I'll try that! Amaroq64 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Your objection is spot-on. This entire article is more about queers wanting to see more portrayal of themselves in movies and wishing certain platonic relationships were sexual than about anything that exists in reality.

How To Fix: Rename The Article
As it is, with all of this in mind, this is not a neutral article about a notable subject.

However, you could possibly justify "Queerbaiting Controversy" as a notable/neutral-POV subject. Changing this article to "Queerbaiting Controversy" would set it up as what it was all along: an article about some activists' outrage towards certain media that they feel have wronged them. Then the biased sources would have a place as well, citing their side of the argument.

Unless that happens, imo this article has Multiple Issues: POV, Notability, Third Party, Unreliable.

I'm adding those tags in, and this is my argument to justify them.

Amaroq64 (talk) 03:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is appropriate. We could only have an article titled "Queerbaiting Controversy" if there were reliable sources discussing this topic as a controversy, i.e., describing how people disagree about the topic. But I'm not aware of any such sources. One editor disagreeing with the idea doesn't make a "controversy".   Sandstein   13:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


 * You're right, my intention was to suggest it could be an article "about a group of peoples' outrage over the subject", as opposed to what it is now: that group of people stating their outrage as a fact. "Controversy" was just the best word I could think of for it. Amaroq64 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

"Killing Eve"
, and I disagree about the inclusion of this content:
 * 22:43, 2 May 2020‎ Begaydocrimes talk contribs block‎ 19,804 bytes -1,274‎  If it's made canon, that makes it not fit the definition of queerbaiting and persisting to have it on this page because so called reliable sources that are really just citing tweets have called it such when it was really was just a slowburn makes this page a joke.
 * 06:46, 3 May 2020‎ Sandstein talk contribs block‎ 20,751 bytes +1,274‎  You misunderstand the purpose of the page - these are not things *we* say are queerbaiting, but things *others* say were queerbaiting. It is of interest to readers to know that "Killing Eve" was (perhaps overly hastily?) so characterized early in its run - perhaps this drove character development in season 3?
 * 19:59, 3 May 2020‎ 177.12.45.17 talk block‎ 19,477 bytes -1,274‎  Killing Eve is objectively not queerbaiting. Not even in seasons 1 and 2 did the show shy away from the fact that they're sexually attracted to each other and their relationship is much more complex than just "they don't kiss so it's queerbaiting". The criteria to define queerbaiting cannot be whether the characters have gotten physical when one of them is a psychopathic assassin. It's called being complex and multilayered and the show has never pretended to be about simple romance.
 * 20:03, 3 May 2020‎ IdreamofJeanie talk contribs block‎ 20,751 bytes +1,274‎  Reverted good faith edits by 177.12.45.17 (talk): As per sources: see previous reversion (TW)
 * 22:16, 3 May 2020‎ Begaydocrimes talk contribs block‎ 19,477 bytes -1,274‎  I think that including Killing Eve on this list is actually harmful to queer readers who might skip watching this show because they think it's queerbaiting when it is in fact a slow burn between two canonically queer characters, one of whom is undeniably queer in the first season, in a cat and mouse tv show where of course the romance takes a back burner.

I would like to move this discussion here. I would like to recall that the purpose of this article cannot be to list examples of what we as Wikipedia or Wikipedians think is queerbaiting. Our policy WP:NOR forbids us from making this determination. Rather, per WP:NPOV, we must follow the views of reliable sources, which in this case characterized Killing Eve as queerbaiting in seasons 1 and 2. In documenting these views, we allow readers to come to their own conclusions (such as that this assessment by these sources may have been wrong, or that it may have been justified back then), but it is not our job to make this determination for the readers.  Sandstein  11:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Having an "example" on here which critics have recognized to not actually be an example, having jumped the gun to label it queerbaiting after a total of 16 episodes is problematic and brings the credibility of the page down.Begaydocrimes (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , the purpose of this article is not to provide an authoritative list of which works are or are not engaged in queerbaiting. We are in fact forbidden from doing so by our policy WP:NOR, which disallows us voicing our own views, but restricts us to following what reliable sources publish. Moreover, what we treat here is not only queerbaiting as such, but also queerbaiting as an aspect of fans' and professional critics' analysis of fictional works. In this context, it is very valuable for readers to see how critics' opinion about what is or is not queerbaiting can change over time, and it can indicate that works that are now labeled queerbaiting may not be so labeled in the future, or vice versa. We do our readers a disservice if we omit to treat how opinions can change over time.  Sandstein   16:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

No mention of Xena?
I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , the argument has been made that Xena wasn't queerbaiting as the term is now understood (the promise of queer relationships with no payoff), but rather an attempt to actually portray a queer relationship to the extent then possible on TV, see e.g. Mika A. Epstein. This could possibly be discussed in the article if good sources can be found.  Sandstein   10:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

"Ambiguous sexuality"?
The section of the article titled "Societal Shifts" under "Assessments" describes both David Bowie's and Elton John's sexualities as "ambiguous." This is objectively incorrect, as both were openly members if the lgbtq+ community. Not only is the description of their sexualities as ambiguous incorrect, but it also erases their experiences and is harmful. Furthermore, it suggests that they were themselves practicing queerbaiting by identifying as such. I wish to discuss possible ways of rewording this. ChaosTheory05 (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm. The problem is that the BBC article itself says that...

Grande's new song, a collaboration with friend Victoria Monét called Monopoly, claimed the number one spot on the iTunes chart 24 hours after its release. But a particular lyric, in which Grande sings of liking "women and men" has added scrutiny to the customary buzz that now follows the American singer. Some fans have celebrated it as an expression of bisexuality. Others, however, have levelled charges of queerbaiting, which is the practice of using hints of sexual ambiguity to tease an audience...But others see in the very existence of queerbaiting an improvement in the media representation of gay relationships. "It's only because LGBTQ representation has improved that people would accuse producers of queerbaiting," says Prof Ng. "It's progress. Ten to fifteen years ago, the majority of female fans would have been super psyched if an artist like Grande or someone of her stature said something like that." It's why sexually ambiguous artists of the past managed to dodge some of this intense scrutiny. The sexuality of David Bowie, Elton John and Madonna was not examined to the same degree, says Prof Himberg. "LGBTQ audiences were hungry for representation and those stars provided it. We live in a different moment today."...David Bowie was one of the first artists to be sexually ambiguous"


 * Looking at David Bowie, he first called himself bisexual in 1972, but then 1983 called this the "biggest mistake" he had ever made, only that he had "interest in homosexual and bisexual culture" but then in 2002 he said he didn't believe it was a big mistake anymore, calling it tougher in America than Europe, saying he had "no problem with people knowing I was bisexual" but did not want to hold banners for the bisexual community. However, that section also quotes a biographer who says that Bowie was probably "never gay, nor even consistently actively bisexual" and another who said that the singer and his first wife had "created their bisexual fantasy," and one person for BBC who talked about "Bowie's androgynous challenge all those years ago." So, I don't know if its cut and dry. However Elton John says that Elton John came out as bisexual in 1976 and in 1992 said he was "quite comfortable about being gay." So, yes, that section should definitely be rewritten, for sure. Historyday01 (talk) 21:55, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

What is with this article?
As someone who is a firm believer that queerbaiting is nothing more than a term used by shippers who have hijacked the actual problems of queer representation, this article is doing a piss poor job convincing me otherwise by listing a bunch of popular slash couples who were never marketed as being in a same-sex relationship. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 03:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean, I think queerbaiting is a thing and yes it is often used incorrectly. But if you have ways you'd like to improve the article, by all means feel free to propose some ideas here. --Historyday01 (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I would get rid of that list for starters. 72.208.178.248 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Why?  Sandstein   19:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I already told my reasoning, none of these couple were ever marketed as being gay. 03:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)72.208.178.248 (talk)
 * That may be your opinion, but in Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, which in all cases in this list say that fans have accused the respective works of queerbaiting. That's what we list here. We don't say that this view is necessarily true. If there are reliable sources that say otherwise, we should cite them too.  Sandstein   15:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Queercoding vs Queerbaiting
There is a related term in the LGBT world called Queercoding, which is basically where a gay or bisexual relationship is implied Without actually stating it directly but unlike Queerbaiting, it's donme to hide the queer relationship from attack by conservative media critics. For example, Queercoding might be done in a childrens show to avoid conservative moral gaurdians complaining about alledged attempts by gay writers to convert children to homosexuality. We should explain how Queerbaiting is differet from Queercoding. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well there is already a page for coding, titled Queer coding, along with some recent Insider articles here and here about it. But, maybe that could be more integrated into this page? I mean, I think that would be a good idea. Also, I really like your name, as a fan of Charlie Chaplin myself. Historyday01 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , because queer coding is something entirely different than queerbaiting, I fail to see the need to link these two concepts here, unless there are any sources that do so?  Sandstein   16:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason I brought this up is several articles on the Disney animated film "Luca" mentioned the debate over whether the film was Queerbating or Queercoding, and they go on to explain the difference. Thats why I think it deserves a mention in this article. We don not need to combine to the two topics but the differences between the terms deserves a mentioned here for those confused on the semingly related terms. See the following articles:


 * https://theconversation.com/luca-disney-and-queerbaiting-in-animation-164349
 * https://bookriot.com/what-is-queerbaiting-vs-queer-coding/

--Notcharliechaplin (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, the two topics shouldn't be combined. I think there should be something along the lines of "Do not confuse with queer coding." (i.e. at the top. That's my thought at least. I don't know if we want to say any more than that. Historyday01 (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Examples section lacks credibility
The examples section lists open-ended interpretations of fictional works and cites blogs and media sites as sources. I think the whole section needs a rework; it reads way too opinionated for a Wikipedia article. Cmajorix (talk) 04:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the examples section is important to have and it makes sense to have it. As Sandstein said above, "...in Wikipedia we follow reliable sources, which in all cases in this list say that fans have accused the respective works of queerbaiting. That's what we list here. We don't say that this view is necessarily true. If there are reliable sources that say otherwise, we should cite them too." But, perhaps it needs some better sources, I'd be willing to grant that. Citing "media sites" or even "blogs" is fine, depending on the exact source, of course, as not all media sites and blogs fall under WP:RSPSRC, or more broadly WP:RSP, for instance. --Historyday01 (talk) 12:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Came to the talk page to say basically this. A lot of these are cited only to one or another fairly obscure site which are basically blogsites for people to write whatever about pop culture for ad revenue. Those are WP:UNDUE. Wikipedia is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE in what it includes. We are not here to document, say, people being mad that their slashfic pairing or ship isn't canon. We should stick to reputable sources and examples that got meaningful traction as exemplified by being noted in reputable, broad sources. Crossroads -talk- 05:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding If there are reliable sources that say otherwise, we should cite them too: The problem with this is that the other side by and large does not notice what some listicle or obscure blog-ish site says about this or that. And there are tons of 'ships' out there. If the vast majority are ignored by indisputably reliable sources, then we should ignore them too, not give them a POV boost by being on Wikipedia. Crossroads -talk- 05:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , sure, if there are examples cited to unreliable sources, we should remove these.  Sandstein   08:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Haven't read the article (only here because of a notice on the project board), but we have guidance for blog type sources. See WP:BLOG. I'll skip to the end for you, but "largely not acceptable as sources." The exception is when "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Thus, if there are blogs on this page, then they all have to go unless you can show that the author is an expert in the field (and not a self-described expert). If third-party sources are not talking about a certain thing, there's a good chance that it shouldn't be included.    BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If there are any examples cited only to a blog, I'd support removal. I didn't see any but I barely looked. If someone wants to restore a blog source based on the 'expert' exception, I'd say the burden is on them to justify it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Several entries are sourced exclusively to this article from the blog "Autostraddle". It's unclear to me where that site falls in the spectrum between WP:BLOGS and WP:NEWSBLOG. But I assume the goal here is to have a list of central examples of queerbaiting, rather than any couple that has ever been described by any writer as queerbaiting. I'm not sure what the best way to achieve that would be in terms of list criteria. I suppose we could require that the label is applied by multiple RS. I think it would also be sufficient if we have one quality RS where the text makes it clear that the instance is widely considered to be an example of queerbaiting - rather than the writer offering their own personal opinion. Colin M (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Colin M, I think it might be ok, maybe, to cite Autostraddle one time, but it is definitely cited too much there and that should be reduced. --Historyday01 (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Something I'd recommend is creating sections or subsections for specific universes. This could help provide context while also giving an opportunity to avoid having to list every single possible pairing. I'm mildly concerned that some of these seem to be reliant on only 1-2 sources when I try searching using the specific term "queerbait". The MCU and Star Trek universes could have their own sections entirely, to be honest. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  17:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And if MCU did have its own section, I'd expect some sort of general commentary about what the specific conditions that lead to (possible) queerbaiting are—it's a very international franchise, they feel they can't show LGBT characters because of the backlash they'd get in some countries, but maybe writers are having ideas censored/rejected or maybe they think it's better to have this tokenism to queerness or maybe they're mostly from countries with growing numbers of LGBT characters. Anyway I'm not an expert but we should be focusing more on explaining the underlying concept and how it arises, and examples are a vehicle to do that rather than an end in and of themselves. — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with lists rather than prose: they encourage cruft. We shouldn't be listing any characters/shows without explaining what the supposed queerbaiting is, who thinks that, whether anyone disagrees and whether anyone involved in the show responded to the claims. To take a random example that's actually not in the list, The Good Places Eleanor and Tahani should not be included on the strength of Syfys "much of the relationship between Eleanor and Tahani reads like queerbaiting", but if you found this in at least three different websites of similar quality then I'd say that's good enough to include with a basic description of why people consider it queerbaiting or don't do so (Eleanor is bisexual and makes sexual comments about Tahani, but is only in relationships with men; others might say the main cast's relationships are quite fixed and limited so it's not strange for Eleanor to never get a storyline dating a woman). — Bilorv ( talk ) 18:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Bilorv, Is there some other way you think would be more effective to convey the content than a list? I mean, I think it is worth having the section, but I'm not completely sold on the list, but am willing to tolerate only if entries on the list have reliable sources to back them up.Historyday01 (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: see also this discussion at WikiProject Television. Crossroads -talk- 02:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * , I disagree with your deletion of the entire examples section and have reverted it. If specific entries are poorly sourced these can and should be removed. But the discussion above misunderstands the purpose of the section: it makes clear that this is not Wikipedia's opinion of the occurrence of queerbaiting in fiction, but rather a list of cases where fans and critics have asserted that queerbaiting exists, as documented in reliable sources. It is therefore as much a documentation of actual queerbaiting as a documentation of the tendency of fans to see queerbaiting wherever a ship they like doesn't become canon, and we don't take a view about which interpretation is the more likely...  Sandstein   06:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Sandstein on this one. I think cases where queerbaiting exists and it is documented in reliable sources should be kept. Historyday01 (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the two discussions, it looks like consensus is against this philosophy of 'it goes in if any marginally-reliable source calls it so'. Many of the sources there are still not RS. Regardless of the ostensible purpose of the section, it's a serious issue of WP:WEIGHT. Crossroads -talk- 03:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with stopping the removal, only on the proviso that reliable sources be used. I think some of the sources, like The Advocate, The Independent, The Guardian, CBR, ANN, The Wrap, Washington Post, .them, Den of Geek, Screenrant, BBC, Vox, and Cosmopolitian are generally good, but more of my concern is that almost half of the television list seems to derive from one source (this Autostraddle article). So, maybe that part should just be removed? Regardless of reliability of Autostraddle (which I'd say is a discussion which should be on RSN), I seem to remember guidance against citing those sorts of list articles, if my memory serves me right on that.Historyday01 (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can at least agree that listicles like that, thin on serious analysis, are poor sources and should be removed. Crossroads -talk- 04:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, those listicles are usually pretty thin on analysis and are poor sources for sure, I agree.Historyday01 (talk) 15:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Changing the Queerbaiting page
@User:NHCLS, while I appreciate your edits on the queerbaiting page, and I can see what you were trying to do, I think there should at least be some discussion on here about them, before making that change. I know the page obviously is not perfect, but I prefer its current form of talking about queerbaiting more general than having sections for specific networks like CW, Disney, or shows like Sherlock. My problem with organizing it that way is that it would mean that some shows are said to be more important, while everything else is thrown into an "Other examples" category. Your edit also creates to "other" categories, which really isn't too great. I personally would be totally fine with completely getting rid of the list altogether, and reformatting the whole thing, as I'm not totally sold on the list idea. Looking at the page as it exists now, the list has has shows on FOX (9-11, Glee), BBC (Line of Duty, Sherlock, Killing Eve), ABC (Once Upon a Time), The CW (Riverdale, Supergirl, Supernatural), TNT (Rizzoli & Isles), PBS (Seasame Street), MTV (Teen Wolf), Disney+ (The Falcon and The Winter Soldier, Black Panther, Captain America: Civil War, Luca, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker, Thor: Ragnarok), Netflix (Voltron: Legendary Defender, The Yin-Yang Master: Dream of Eternity), and others like Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, Pitch Perfect, Izetta: The Last Witch, and Sound! Euphonium, along with Katy Perry's 2008 song "I Kissed a Girl", the clothing label Calvin Klein, and Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. So, perhaps there could be categories for the networks with more shows, like BBC, the CW, Disney, and Netflix, with others in another category? I think it could either be organized by networks, or keep its current organization by medium (television, film, or anime primarily). In any case, I do appreciate you trying to make the page better, but I just wanted some discussion about it before barreling ahead with it, since Wikipedia is about consensus after all, and there have been previous discussions on here before. --Historyday01 (talk) 16:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and the page should stick to well-supported examples if examples are used. There are an enormous number of relationships that someone, somewhere, in some outlet that passes RS for entertainment, has described as 'queerbaiting', because interpretations are so subjective, and the identities and life experiences of those doing the interpreting are so different, and that affects the interpretation. (For example, many straight men are baffled by the claim that Bucky and Steve or Falcon from the MCU have 'queer subtext' or what have you, while to some LGBT people, they do relate to it in that way. And then there are the straight female shippers...)
 * So, I'd stick to the most prominent publications, and examples that (preferably multiple) sources verify as being widely regarded as queerbaiting. It's hard for me to get more specific, since every situation is different, but I feel that this is a good general approach to have. Too many examples can also lead to reader fatigue and people going TL;DR. Crossroads -talk- 20:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, I totally agree it should only stick to well-supported examples. I do think that at times, the word "queerbaiting" is used incorrectly by some, and I'd be fine with paring it down to more prominent publications, as there has definitely been some academic articles about it as well and books on the topic as well. But, yes, too many examples could lead to fatigue from readers. Historyday01 (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Edits
I will be adding additional background information to the opening section and a "critiques" subsection. Fairyzizi (talk) 21:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Queer baiting as anti-gay violence
There should be something in here about the older meaning of the term queerbaiting involving real life deception such as at a gay bar where someone lures a person of gay orientation from a public place like a bar to a private place to inflict harm or death on them. Such as the media discussion that occurred around Matthew Shepard. Or there needs to be a disambiguation page for the two drastically different usages. 72.182.108.214 (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok, but this page is focused on how queerbating is a "marketing technique for fiction and entertainment." So, in that way, it is different from what you are talking about. Historyday01 (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Needs higher standards because the term's definition is being watered down by these horrible examples.
How can you include with a straight(pun unintended) face "Falcon and Bucky Barnes"? They are never shown to have a friendly, amicable or even barely positive relationship across their entire appearances in the MCU outside of the cheesy happy ending of TFATWS, which doesn't even involve the characters as a pairing but rather makes a "haha the white guy got 'invited to the cookout' ain't that funny?" type of joke in reference to Black Twitter in-jokes that were popular several years before the show (ie. when the show was being written). No serious person believes these two to have romantic feelings for one another; they don't even show friendly feelings. Be serious.

I'm not going to write an easy on why 80% of the examples are ridiculous since doing one was already exhausting, however this page desperately needs to develop some standards for the fictional examples. The sources should include writers and directions and actors lying and/or misleading fans during interviews and press tours about the nature of the relationship within the fictional media, or if the only reasoning is going to be the fictional media itself, then the "queerbait" better be incredibly obvious because most of these examples do not cut it even close. 24.130.193.136 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The article lists examples of fictional relationships which have been interpreted as examples of queerbaiting by at least some reliable media sources, and notes that This interpretation is not necessarily shared by all critics or fans. In populating that list, we're predominantly concerned with what reliable sources say, not our own personal interpretations of any precise definition of queerbaiting (which would only invite a lot of unnecessary editorial conflict). I'd be more concerned about creating strict inclusion criteria if the list was growing exponentially long with extraneous examples, but that doesn't currently seem to be the case. For exceptionally notable or archetypal examples, it might be best to explain those in paragraph form. Regards, RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk · contribs) 19:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly. I'd be fine with explaining specifically notable examples in paragraph form, as well. Historyday01 (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01
— Assignment last updated by WGST320 (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-02
— Assignment last updated by ACHorwitz (talk) 18:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Xena warrior princess?
Isn't Xena warrior princess the first tv show to queer bait? 104.235.152.113 (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean, if there is a reliable source which shows that to be the case, it can be added, as there is a whole section on Shipping (fandom) page about Xena: Warrior Princess. Historyday01 (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

This is ridiculous
This is absolutely ridiculous, the story of Sherlock holmes has been around for many years, I’ve never seen one comment on the relationship between Watson and holmes on any film or the most recent tv series suggesting they are in a romantic Rship never mind “queer baiting” 911 the comedy?? What?? And can we have a link or a name or anything to show “many fans” concerns ? Basically the author of this page seems to have decided that any program or movie that has two men or two females as main characters is queer baiting if they as much as cuddle or step near each other but don’t end up coming out as gay. I am 100 percent in favour of gay rights etc but this is lunacy and really shouldn’t be allowed to stay up. If the writer of this page wants to write fan type fiction there’s plenty of sites to do so. 2A02:C7E:189B:4700:CD3E:ADD5:4BDE:F0DF (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * In terms of the Sherlock Holmes example, that was included because there were reliable sources to show that some critics believed there was queerbaiting in that series. I haven't watched that series, but what I'm saying is in line with previous discussions on here. Historyday01 (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Is Doctor Who and Yasmin Khan an example of queerbaiting?
Is Doctor Who and Yasmin Khan an example of queerbaiting, as presented in this edit? signed, Willondon (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to note the header of that section reads: "The following characters, or relationships between characters of the same sex, have also been interpreted as examples of queerbaiting by at least some reliable media sources. This interpretation is not necessarily shared by all critics or fans."
 * This necessarily means that the question of "is this really queerbaiting" on each individual entry is moot--the question is "is this considered queerbaiting by sources". The entry specifically includes sources that back this up, meaning that it is indeed considered queerbaiting by at least some sources. It is a valid part of this article regardless of whether parts of the fandom agree with it or not. 2600:8800:280:33A3:94D7:C7E6:B279:47AC (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the inclusion of "The following characters, or relationships between characters of the same sex, have also been interpreted as examples of queerbaiting by at least some reliable media sources. This interpretation is not necessarily shared by all critics or fans." doesn't necessarily make it better, as the page itself presents them as examples of queerbaiting. Instead, might I suggest re-writing that section as "Examples of relationships that fit the definition provided above", which would be far less misleading, and there isn't room for misinformation. misleading presentation.
 * Also, there are far more sources of media praising it, than sources calling it queerbait. You can't give something as an example, technicalities aside, when it doesn't even fit the definition. It's not about a fandom agreeing or disagreeing, it's about misleading potential readers and trying to de-legitimise a proper same-sex relationship.
 * https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/doctor-who-yaz-the-doctor-twist/
 * https://bleedingcool.com/tv/doctor-who-how-shippers-saved-the-show-with-thasmin-love-story/
 * https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/television/doctor-who-finally-confirms-thasmin-queer-romance-in-latest-easter-special/
 * https://qnews.com.au/doctor-who-fans-cheer-as-doctor-confesses-love-for-her-companion/
 * Just because the characters don't kiss or pursue the relationship by properly dating, doesn't mean it's queerbait, especially when both 'Eve of the Daleks' and 'Legend of the Sea Devils' has the relationship as a central focus/plot-point. Especially when one character is a 2500+ year old alien from outer space who has had more friends (and more) traveling with them than I can count.
 * If it doesn't fit the definition, so it shouldn't be on this page, and this whole discussion is an argument as to why the "examples" section needs to look at being reformed HughDoesStuff (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not a numbers game, it's simply accurately reflecting the fact the example provided has been criticized on this front. Which it has. Your disagreement does not negate that reality.
 * To actually delve into the example itself--though as I have stated, the specifics of this example are irrelevant to the simple fact that it has been criticized by sources--the fact that the relationship gets brought up in Eve only to be immediately shut down as a possibility in Legend and subsequently ignored in Power, is pretty close to the definition of queerbaiting. Especially when the marketing surrounding Power amped up Doctor/Yaz content with the clear implication the episode would deal more with it, which it ended up not doing. You have every right to disagree with me on this point, but the fact I think one way and you think another is not valid ground on whether it be included on a list of relationships that have been criticized by sources as queerbaiting. The entire thrust of this article is based on general usage and consensus, and will necessarily include examples that are controversial as it reflects the way people have used the term. Appealing to a strict dictionary definition is just a fallacy.
 * Moreover, this is petty fandom bickering disguising itself as concerns about article integrity. Not for nothing was this example untouched in the edit for months until it was shared on twitter today, and suddenly three different users all try and remove it from the page within a couple hours. This is ridiculously immature and the people adamant that this example be removed need to accept the fact that criticism of the show exists and it is valid to report it here. 2600:8800:280:33A3:94D7:C7E6:B279:47AC (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it hasn't been brought up before, because people didn't notice it. The circumstances surrounding a large group of people being frustrated and trying to correct this is irrelevant. The question isn't regarding a fandom, it's whether or not it's queerbaiting, and it isn't even close to it. For something to be queerbaiting it isn't confirmed, this was confirmed, so regardless of your opinion, it isn't queerbaiting.
 * Having articles from "some reliable media sources" doesn't excuse it. If I had articles arguing that the earth was flat, would that justify putting that on the science page as long as I included a "these are just interpretations"? Also, Legend of the Sea Devils was co-written by a queer woman, and them not ending up together would happen with any companion, the Doctor and romance always ends in tragedy, which is the whole damn point to why the two characters don't pursue a full-on relationship.
 * Of course questioning the integrity comes from a place of concern for this particular issue, but it is a valid concern, regardless of where it comes from. Wikipedia isn't a dumping ground for your personal criticisms with the show, it's about facts, and putting anything that isn't objective, or fits the definition below "examples" is at best misleading.
 * "Appealing to a strict dictionary definition is just a fallacy"... what? It's objective, factual, whereas this is misleading. To have so many people frustrated with it should itself be an indicator that it's wrong to mislead potential readers, regardless of which ship or character is the subject or instigator of the conversation. You say that this is "petty fandom bickering", yet you saw this on twitter, and clearly have watched the episodes, so you're no different! So don't take the high road because the 3 people (myself included) are fans of the show, when you're no different.
 * Do what you want, just know that it's misleading at best. HughDoesStuff (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Hugh! Regarding your comment "If I had articles arguing that the earth was flat, would that justify putting that on the science page as long as I included a "these are just interpretations"?", this would likely constitute acts of vandalism that go against RS.
 * It is the reliable sources policy that seems to be the most relevant here. In this case, the following passage feels as if it should guide how we handle examples of queerbaiting listed on this article (and would also actually mean including arguments in favour of a flat earth on scientific articles is against Wikipedia policy!):
 * "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content."
 * In this case, we are most likely looking at media commentators/reviewers independent of the production who have either criticised a queer relationship in a given TV show/film, or simply cited it as an example of "queerbait".
 * This said, an article such as this does need to be careful regarding Point of view. The relevant paragraph here is perhaps going to be:
 * "Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements."
 * Given that the article already says that the examples listed have been called queerbaiting by "at least some reliable media sources," and that "This interpretation is not necessarily shared by all critics or fans," it seems fair to say that the article adheres to NPOV and is not stating contested assertions as facts but as opinions. Brentus Maximus (talk) 07:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I didn't mean to come off as abrasive or rude, and if I did, I apologise. I just think that it's somewhat misleading that's all, as people won't read the proverbial 'fine-print' and will jump to the examples themselves, or could be taken out of context.
 * But yes, it does technically adhere to NPOV. HDS (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Hugh, I recommend looking up the appeal to definition fallacy to understand where I'm coming from with this article. The tl;dr of it is that the dictionary does not dictate meaning, usage dictates meaning which the dictionary reports on. This is especially true of coined terms like "queerbaiting", where the specifics and nuances are pretty constantly in flux and liable to mean different things to different people. The entire purpose of including an examples section in this article in the first place is to demonstrate what the usage of the word is by including a host of examples that people have pointed to. That's why the examples are included, and that's why the header for the section explicitly points out that these are not univocally shared opinions.
 * To you, the fact feelings are mentioned in dialogue does not make it queerbaiting, to others the fact the show brings up a queer relationship just to shoot it down (especially in a show where the main character has been engaged at least three times on screen) does qualify. This article does not exist to hammer out that disagreement, it merely is pointing out that it does exist. Cheers. 2600:8800:280:33A3:94D7:C7E6:B279:47AC (talk) 03:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair point regarding appeal to definition fallacy, I still do have an issue regarding the somewhat misleading layout of the page.
 * For clarification it's got nothing to do with the fact that 'feelings' were mentioned in the dialgoue, it's the fact that Yaz's attraction for the Doctor has been a running plot point since at least series 12 (as it was after series 11 production wrapped that it was implemented), then in series 13, 13 and Yaz's relationship was a key focus with Yaz wanting nothing but to be there for the Doctor, and the Doctor being closed off. By the finale, we see the Doctor begin to open up to Yaz, making way for the 3 specials. It was a consistent exploration, not just a conversation of feelings in the final 3 episodes. The inclusion in the script being something that has been spoken about at length by members of the production team.
 * Letting my inner-fanboy out for a sec (skip this if you'd like lol), there are multiple issues with the in-fandom points just brought up. For example, heterosexual relationships have been brought up before and shot down, Martha's entire time on the show was that, Amy and Clara both tried to be with the Doctor (one already being engaged) but both times it was shot down, because the Doctor is a 900 year old time lord. Rose ended in tragedy, because the format of the show simply doesn't allow for an extended relationship outside of guest stars such as River Song. As for the engagements, 1 of those was a running gag about Queen Elizabeth, 2 were one-time gags about Marilyn Monroe in series 5, and one in season 1 (1963) when he accidentally gets engaged to Cameca by drinking a cup of cocoa. The only engagement that actually worked properly as a plot point was River, because she was a time-traveller and the daughter of the Doctor's friends. Their paths crossed so often that their marriage was entirely possible.
 * I understand that the page goes off appeal to definition fallacy, and wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. So while I do still take issue with the somewhat misleading layout of the page (e.g. potentially putting the disclaimer in bold) HDS (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If the opinions presented aren’t congruent with the concept illustrated in the rest of the article and themselves don’t help illustrate the concept with their inclusion, one questions the wisdom of including them to begin with. The article isn’t about the disagreement, and the examples don’t provide a nuanced look at the subject. ChimaFan12 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * until it was shared on twitter today. Oh, is that what happened?  I was wondering why we had such a large influx of new editors all interested in the same thing.
 * The sources currently used for Doctor Who seem decent enough to me at first glance, so I'm not seeing an obvious problem with the content. Personal disagreement with the position taken by a source is not a reason to disregard that source.  Squeakachu (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, it just doesn’t meet the definition of queerbaiting set in the article. It may be better to omit the section overall because none have justifications or help to explain what queerbaiting is, because as it is all the list is doing is causing confusion and argument. It isn’t really serving a purpose in helping anyone understand queerbaiting. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:43, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the wisdom behind having that section in the first place? It seems as though it’s a somewhat abstract and debatable list to begin with that ranges from good examples to examples that seem to go against the definition of queerbaiting provided in the article in some cases and romances that weren’t even implied in the text of the script in other cases. I can think of very few articles that lay out a concept so clearly and then has a section devoted to listing things that fall on all different sides of the spectrum in one place. The fact that we have that disclaimer of “these are things only some sources consider queerbait” suggests to me that the section isn’t definitive or helpful, especially as none of the things listed provide justification for their inclusion in the body of the article itself. It also evidently is inviting fandom wars, which is the last thing we need.
 * May I suggest then, we devote the article simply to illustrating the concept, and if any example lends itself to actively explaining the concept, we could include that in the body without devoting a section to it. ChimaFan12 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this is the best solution. And well argued.  signed, Willondon (talk)  01:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Removal of the list under “examples”.
As things are, the examples section is split into two. We have one portion highlighting media companies using queerbaiting as a marketing tactic, and the article covers this in a way that illustrates why these examples constitute queerbaiting. Then we have another portion, which, judging by this talk page, has been problematic for nearly a decade, which merely lists examples of characters that, the article itself disclaims, may be viewed by some as queerbaiting. None of these examples justify their presence on the page in the body of the text and clearly lend themselves to being grounds for fandom wars more than anything else. To anybody who is not firmly in these fandoms and is less likely to have a stake in it as a debate, the list of names simply lack any meaning. They don’t illustrate what queerbaiting is or why they qualify as queerbaiting in the article itself. What I propose is scrapping the list portion altogether and reincorporate significant examples such as Supernatural into how they have influenced the discourse and definition around queerbaiting. The kinds of problem this page has faced in the last 48 hours because of that list realistically date back 8-9 years, and it just doesn’t seem worth it because the section isn’t remotely helpful. ~ ChimaFan12 (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support but ONLY if it is turned into a paragraph, which I think is what you are proposing, if I'm reading what you are proposing correctly. In such a paragraph, you could note that certain reliable sources have described specific shows as queerbaiting. The only reliable sources I've seeing in the "Television", "Film", and "Anime" sub-lists within the "Fiction" subheading (which is then within the "Examples subsection) are:
 * AfterEllen (deemed a reliable source on Reliable Sources Noticeboard) in regard to Once Upon A Time and Rizzoli & Isles
 * The Guardian (noted as a reliable source in summary on on list of reliable sources, as neither of these is a blogpost, as both are by reporters/correspondents, it seems) in regard to Line of Duty and Killing Eve
 * The Independent (noted as a reliable source on summary on WP:RSPSOURCES) in regard to Stranger Things and Killing Eve
 * The Advocate (noted as a reliable source in discussions here, here, here, here, to name a few discussions) when it comes to Teen Wolf and Supernatural
 * Digital Spy (noted as a reliable source on summary on WP:RSPSOURCES) in regard to The Falcon and the Winter Soldier
 * Polygon (noted as a reliable source on summary on WP:RSPSOURCES) in regard to Voltron Legendary Defender and Supernatural
 * CBR (as this isn't a listicle, which has lower reliability, and are generally reliable as I noted in a 2022 discussion) in regard to Killing Eve, Black Panther, and The Yin-Yang Master: Dream of Eternity
 * Den of Geek (as noted in discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here, here and here) in regard to Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald
 * TheWrap (noted as a reliable source on summary on WP:RSPSOURCES) in regards to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker
 * Washington Post (noted as a reliable source on summary on WP:RSPSOURCES) in regards to Thor: Ragnarok
 * Anime News Network (noted as a reliable source on a summary on WikiProject Anime and manga list of online reliable sources) when it comes to Yuri on Ice
 * I would argue that The Gamer is also reliable, when it comes to Thor: Love and Thunder, despite this short discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard back in 2019. Also relevent is this essay on reviews as sources.
 * Not sure about the reliability of others like Slash Film, Fotogramas, Cosmopolitan (to be decided on a case-by-case basis, as stated on the summary on summary on WP:RSPSOURCES), TCNJ Journal of Student Scholarship, Bustle (in this case, as the summary on WP:RSPSOURCES states that Bustle's "reliability...is unclear and that its reliability should be decided on an instance-by-instance basis."), | Daily Dot (its reliability remains contentious with "no community consensus as to whether or not the source is generally reliable, but..rough consensus that the source should be used with attribution" in certain cases), while Autostraddle has unsure reliability as per discussions here, Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 145. Not sure about sources like The Next, Teen Vogue, Georgia Voice, or Them.
 * Taking the above into mind, the list should be turned into a paragraph which mentions queerbaiting, as noted by the above listed reliable sources, in: Once Upon A Time (AfterEllen article), Rizzoli & Isles(AfterEllen article), Line of Duty (Guardian article), Killing Eve (articles in The Guardian, The Independent, and CBR), Stranger Things (article in The Independent), Teen Wolf (article in The Advocate), Supernatural (The Advocate and Polygon articles), The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (Digital spy article), Voltron Legendary Defender (article in Polygon), Black Panther (article in CBR), The Yin-Yang Master: Dream of Eternity (article in CRB), Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (article in Den of Geek), Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker (article in TheWrap), Thor: Ragnarok (article in Washington Post), Yuri on Ice (article in Anime News Network), and Thor: Love and Thunder (article in The Gamer). All other sources, and text associated with those sources, should be removed. It could be even be merged/incorporated with the "Companies and brands" section, which has some overlap. Historyday01 (talk) 20:29, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that’s in line with what I’m thinking. I think, for instance, Rizolli and Isles, Supernatural and Sherlock are fundamental in understanding what Queerbaiting is in part because of the high quality sources we have associated with them, in addition to how formative those examples were in queerbait discussions, could either fit in a shared paragraph, or be spread throughout the body. Obviously it’s not an exhaustive list as you’ve provided other things that should be there too, but the gist of what I believe is that their presence should help illustrate queerbaiting in the body of this text instead of just being a list of things that may or may not be queerbait (a list which has the potential to never end). The Wednesday example should also be moved to the companies section. ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There should be no list, only prose examples that say "these critics stated that this was queerbaiting because..." or "a commonality to many instances of perceived queerbaiting is..." The aim is not to provide an exhaustive list of every time a critic has used the word. It is to illustrate typical cases of queerbaiting in different genres and across time. — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I totally agree. I've been critical of the list for a while, but nothing has changed and it has remained. That's why I think a paragraph with prose examples in the way you formatted would be MUCH better. Historyday01 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed completely, Bilorv. Examples with little support should be removed as UNDUE, examples that are named as such in multiple high-quality sources can be explained in prose. Crossroads -talk- 20:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. As I noted in my above comments, there are a number of lines which have questionable sourcing, meaning that those examples should surely be removed. Historyday01 (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Pending converting the list into a paragraph, I went through and removed insignificant examples. I believe it was three or four total. I looked at the sources and kept or removed examples based on the following criteria:
 * - When was the source from? Early examples are particularly favored because they lent themselves to defining queerbait at a time around when the concept started being discussed. Anyone nowadays, especially freelancers on particular sites such as CBR or Slashfilm, can make any post regardless of quality or expertise, which is part of what we’re trying to avoid. As mentioned above, this isn’t meant to be a directory of every time the word queerbait has been uttered.
 * - How broad is the article’s scope? There’s one article that is cited in multiple examples on the page. That article is a high quality source because it uses these examples to illustrate queerbaiting as a concept and it shows that the examples aren’t mere arguments in niche corners of fandom, but more widely discussed and analyzed.
 * - Has this example received significant media coverage for queerbaiting? Riverdale, Supernatural, Supergirl and Rizolli and Isles are definite yes-es. Other examples that were here before, I google them and all that comes up are twitter arguments and low-quality Wordpress blogs that we can’t accept as a source.
 * ChimaFan12 (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Support  signed, Willondon (talk)


 * Note: @RoxySaunders, @[ Crossroads, @  BIGNOLE     (Contact me) , @Colin M, @Bilorv, @ReaderofthePack, @Firefangledfeathers, @  Sandstein  , and @MPS1992 your comments in this discussion would be appreciated.Historyday01 (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree that it would be preferable to list examples in prose form rather than in list form to be able to provide proper context. But I do not support removing all examples, since their breadth illustrates how widespread the practice of queerbaiting (or the perception of queerbaiting) is in popular media.  Sandstein   12:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. There should definitely be examples, but they should be in prose form rather than list form. Historyday01 (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Support - My support of the removal of the list is primarily because it is really a lot of opinion and not verifiable information. The top of the page has Sherlock and Watson, with the disclaimer that everyone attached the show deny any romantic underpinnings, but because you can find some "critics" that view it as romantic you're making the leap that it is "queerbaiting". You define this page as "Queerbaiting is a marketing technique for fiction and entertainment in which creators hint at, but then do not depict, same-sex romance or other LGBTQ+ representation." -- The implies a level of knowing action, yet most of the examples contain no reliable sources that show knowing action. I see examples of fan shipping of characters. For example Finn and Poe. The are only shown as friends. The only place you can find references to them being romantic is in fan shipping, which the media then picks up and tries to make a thing. Finn is clearly shown having romantic interests for Rey, which aren't reciprocated. This article just comes across as a big original research page supported through synthesis of sources. The reason I'm saying this is because the definition requires knowledgeable efforts on the part of the creators, and having some "critic" or random literary decide there's queerbaiting doesn't satisfy the actual definition being displayed here. Any examples should be based on actual sources of interviews or comments from creators at least acknowledging ambiguity in relationships. There are better examples of queerbaiting and having this list just serves as a place to hold unverifiable information (based on the definition). Just as an example from Star Wars, instead of fans shipping Finn and Poe and then labeling that queerbaiting because the writers didn't write them to have romantic feelings, why not focus on the fact that marketing for the film included a lot of press about the "same-sex couple" that was going to appear in the film, yet what you got was a lesbian couple kissing for half a second in the background of the end of "Rise of Skywalker". That seems far more close, if not exactly, the definition of queerbaiting. Disney pushed something that barely appears in the film just to appease a community of people.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  13:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think some examples like Poe/Finn in Star Wars can be kept, but only with the proviso that it is clear that The Wrap describes it as queerbaiting. If there was a source which said it wasn't queerbaiting, that would be good as well. I would say that creators or actors may not, necessarily, state that something is queerbaiting, or even admit it. Due to the justified anger against queerbaiting, I doubt that many are going to openly admit they queerbaited. Historyday01 (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)