Talk:Shakira Barrera
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
The notability of her character being gay[edit]
I reverted this edit. Lots of references discuss her character being gay. Whether her character's sexuality is important is really for the writers and editors of reliable sources to decide. Geo Swan (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Geo Swan: I'm sorry but that just doesn't really make sense to me.
Critics have noted she plays a gay woman
-- either she plays one, or she doesn't, I'm not sure why it matters that critics have noticed this too. Is there something unique or revolutionary about her character being gay? With WP:UNDUE in mind, I don't yet see the relevance of mentioning the sexuality of one character that she plays. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 13:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)- Our coverage is supposed to be fundamentally based on what RS say, not our personal opinions. I might think something is an absolutely trivial detail, you might think it is an absolutely trivial detail. But, if multiple RS focus on that detail, RS, VER and NPOV say we should ignore our personal opinions, and cover the thing we think is trivial. That is policy. I think I am familiar with UNDUE, and am perplexed over your reference to it here. When it gets to the point where the struggle of actual real life gay people to win acceptance is so successful that the gayness of fictional gay characters barely registers, that is when our coverage of gay character's sexuality should also fade.
Mayor Pete is still being described as the first openly gay politician trying to be a mainstream party's candidate for POTUS. The acceptance of gay characters in fiction, is ahead of the acceptance in real life.
- You used the phrase "the sexuality of one character that she plays"... Excuse me? Isn't this by far the most well-known character she has played?
- Trends in society are sometimes reflected in popular culture, or spearheaded in popular culture. I suggest this means when RS commentary on a work of fiction comments on a trend it is highly relevant.
Barack Obama is celebrated for being the first POTUS who was an African-American. But some critics assert that Morgan Freeman was the first African-American POTUS, when he played a very Presidential POTUS, in Deep Impact. There were many works of fiction that cast an African-American actor as very Presidential POTUSes, prior to Barack Obama. Are there article in the popular press, or academic journals, that specifically suggest white Americans were more prepared to vote for a black candidate after seeing multiple dignified actors play Presidential POTUSes? Maybe. RS that specifically said that would be necessary if we included this, in article space. But RS that don't go that far, that merely report on the casting of a black man as POTUS as remarkalbe is enough to make it notable enough to mention in the article on Freeman, or whatever other black actor RS noted was a black POTUS.
If I were ever introduced to Freeman, when I shook his hand I might say something about it being an honor to shake the hand of the first black POTUS.
I suggest that (1) the changing portrayal of gay characters; and (2) comments on the changing portrayal of gay characters; is highly significant. Maybe you haven't noticed, but there has been a rather rapid dramatic change in how gay characters are portrayed in popular fiction. Meanwhile, there has been a similarly rapid and dramatic change in how widely accepting young people are to openly gay people. I wouldn't say this, in article space, without RS to back it up, but I think I am far from alone in thinking the two trends are highly related.
Decades ago, gay characters (or characters implied to be gay) were always marginalized; were usually either villainous, or objects of ridicule - or both. They were usually caricatures, not realistic characters. Recently, however, gay characters are more fully realized; portrayed as normal; portrayed as fully integrated into society, not marginalized outsiders; and are frequently portrayed as heroic, or even the fiction's actual hero.
It is all noteworthy, IMO. Geo Swan (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Our coverage is supposed to be fundamentally based on what RS say, not our personal opinions. I might think something is an absolutely trivial detail, you might think it is an absolutely trivial detail. But, if multiple RS focus on that detail, RS, VER and NPOV say we should ignore our personal opinions, and cover the thing we think is trivial. That is policy. I think I am familiar with UNDUE, and am perplexed over your reference to it here. When it gets to the point where the struggle of actual real life gay people to win acceptance is so successful that the gayness of fictional gay characters barely registers, that is when our coverage of gay character's sexuality should also fade.