Talk:He-Man

Queer stuff overblown

Why is like of half of this article devoted to these theories about the supposed/purported gayness/queerness of the character? This is NOT and has never been a main aspect of this character (and most certainly not in official/canon materials). It is just a theory/interpretation apparently pushed by certain theorists of the gay subculture for their own agendas. So it looks to me to be completely unwarranted to grant such an overblown emphasis and representation to this fringe theory here, instead of talking about the actual canon/official stuff regarding this character and about its enormous impact in ʼ80s popular culture, which reached far beyond the gay subculture. 92.178.80.48 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"So it looks to me to be completely unwarranted to grant such an overblown emphasis and representation to this fringe theory here, instead of talking about the actual canon/official stuff regarding this character and about its enormous impact in ʼ80s popular culture, which reached far beyond the gay subculture". So you do agree that He-Man had an impact on gay subculture? Because if He-Man had such a huge impact on 80s pop culture, in a general sense, then this means that mutliple subcultures from this period would have been influenced by it.

Because regardless of whether it is a fringe theory or not, and whether the people making these queer analyses have their own agenda or not, does not change the fact that He-Man did have an impact on gay culture. Nor does it change the fact that—irrespective of agendas—a variety of sources have analyzed He-Man through queer lenses. Furthermore, given the fact these type of analyses have been going on since at least 2001, and include online publications, as well as newspapers, and scientific journals, they're not all that "fringe". One of the key traits of fringe theories is that they are pseudo-scholarly by nature. The fact that various peer-reviewed journal and academic publications have published such queer analyses of He-Man goes to show that this isn't a fringe theory.

Lastly, couldn't one also point out that the people arguing that He-Man isn't gay are equally guilty of having an "agenda"? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

How is there an agenda of "isn't gay", when the creator did NOT create a gay character & never once implied him to be gay later? That is the source material right? The creator didn't have an agenda other than making a cool barbarian looking figure. Everything else from there is a subculture taking to the extreme to DOMINATE this wiki. There is nothing wrong with being gay, no one is trying to refute or deny what some gay people looked up or saw something in the character, but gay folks only represents about 6% of the population, so having a whole section dedicated to it is enough to cover the demographic. The constant re-injection of the topic in the intro paragraphs is not needed. You could go to other parts of the WIKI and take stuff from there and put it in the intro and someone would say "hey this is already covered here or there", but under this "gay" topic, it is suddenly is a great idea to re-hash everywhere possible on the WIKI. It is common sense to see that is what a few people are trying to do. There is more discussion on being gay in this WIKI than that of characters or the influence on children, the moral ending re-caps and how it was marketed as "giving kids the power". Those are critical things, not hardly if at all touched on, by everything coming and going regarding gay theory is stamped all over this thing. 208.38.246.41 (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You do realize that after becoming the new Sorceress, Teela would eventually marry King He-Man, and give birth to a son named Dare. So why is the WIKI so dedicated to all the gay stuff when that is just fan theories and not actually the facts of the storyline? Bereasonabledude (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree, not only it's emphatic, it lacks sources. This must be edited out. Gianmariot2 (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I've made some reading on the sources for some of the claims in the article and flagged the ones I think are dubious, unreliable, or opinionated. It's not a complete review though, I'd appreciate if more people could verify the remaining references. I also tagged the article with an "unreliable sources" template until we figure out a better way of presenting the LGBTQ+ hypothesis. I don't mean to remove the section, but it's exaggerated and clearly biased as it is. We need to tone it down a bit and treat it for what it is: a hypothesis and an opinion. With some interesting points, yes, but an opinion nonetheless. Gianmariot2 (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, some statements made in relation/support of these theories are factually incorrect, as any well-versed MotU fan should know. It is said, for example, that He-Man “never dated” as if betraying heʼs a gay character. But Prince Adam has been portrayed very explicitly flirting with girls, and in the Filmation series there is a well-known, much talked-about, running subtext and romantic tension between him and Teela, plus he is also shown as attracted to the female character Sweet Bee in the notorious Filmation She-Ra episode Sweet Beeʼs Home (this being a significant and much talked-about aspect of that episode, as Frosta becomes noticeably jealous during the episode because she is very much attracted to He-Man but notices He-Man is attracted to Sweet Bee instead of her). 92.178.80.48 (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

"much talked-about" Could you provide sources for it? Dimadick (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

After becoming the new Sorceress, Teela would eventually marry King He-Man, and give birth to a son named Dare. How about that Canon? Is that enough to point out that all tension between the two in the cartoon was a love interest? So I agree that the Gay stuff is overblown, but a few of you just ignore it because obviously there is an agenda to keep the article about 50% on that subject. You guys are not being reasonable. Bereasonabledude (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Citations

@2403:4800:2454:9812:21C4:F081:9EC1:5C74: and @211.26.131.122: Have raised valid concerns about the article being a mess and containing multiple sections that lack footnotes or citations. So, I took the liberty of removing anything that wasn't properly sourced and cited. Furthermore, many other sections in this article—especially regarding the "Development" and "Appearances" sections—are attributed to reference that fail to meet even the bare minimum criteria for reliability, so they'll probably have to go too. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Queer section needs to be reduced

The edited section needs to be tidied up and reduced dramatically. It doesn't conform to wikipedias guidelines of "appropriate length" or "completely neutral or unbiased" commentary. There can absolutely be a sentence or two in the opening section of the page on He-mans impact on the queer community, but it should be general and kept in context with the larger impact of the character. There is already a subpage on the Queer interpretation and impact of the character so the bottom section of the page which speaks at length (in fact, it is just the sub-page copy/pasted back into the main article) needs to be dramatically reduced, again, to be kept in context with the broader impact of the character. There should be one or two footnoted paragraphs which refer the reader to an outline of arguments, similar to the other sections of the page under their respective subheadings. It looks like this isn't the first time this issue has come up. I will continue to edit the page until this is addressed or if not addressed here, I will open the page up to another peer review. Billdenbrough501 (talk) 00:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The queer parts of this article are still dominating, they make up almost half the page... As the previous person said, it doesn't feel neutral or unbiased. LeComicBookGuy (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Do it yourself. If you feel like the queer section is too big, then find reliable sources to enlarge the other sections of the article, such as the character's creation. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:DIY would also apply to trimming, though. Some articles (though not necessarily this one) might benefit from being trimmed and not expanded. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Why do they keep adding Gayness to the intro?

There's a whole section DEDICATED to it? Isn't that enough Gay coverage? Jesus H Christ. 208.38.246.41 (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The lede in articles is meant to act as a summary of the main body. Considering the substantial coverage He-Man has received regarding homoerotic subtext and whatnot, it warants inclusion in the intro. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

According to wordcounter.com this WIKI has about 5000 words and you will find almost 2300 of them are dedicated to Gay subject matter. People are trying to be reasonable pointing out this is WAY TOO MUCH, you don't think that taking a He-Man WIKI and makinig 48% about this one subject matter in the entire scope of Masters of the Universe He-Man is unbalanced? 208.38.246.41 (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It might be a bit long, but it's really not that much. I think some condensing, removal of redundancies, and a review of sources might help, just like any article, but I've seen much worse. I think other areas of the article could be expanded, and the queer section condensed a bit, but it's not all that bad, IMO. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, first of all, Wikipedia isn't a He-Man Wiki; this isn't Fandom. Now, as to balance. Maybe yes, one could argue that a large section of He-Man's character article focuses on the application of queer theory and whatnot. I'm sure there's a lot more ways that one can look at He-Man, and as you described, there's probably sources out there talking about how "good of a role model he is", or something along the lines of that. But the thing is, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that people contribute to as a hobby. It's not anyone's job or obligation to improve an article based on what someone else thinks or wants. If you feel like the article focuses too much on the character's queerness, you're always welcome to find sources that expand other sections of the article. Maybe some sources dealing with the character's creation or portrayal in the "Development" section. Alternatively, sections that focus on the character through feminist or post-structuralism lenses. Hell, if there are any specific sources you'd like to have access to, I could probably send them to you; if that's possible for me to do. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for the IP user but it seems like their concerns are that they DID attempt to edit the article by trimming, but that those edits are being reverted. Not all edits have to be additions. Editors should be free to be bold and trim content, if it's in good faith and they believe it's improving the article. If their edits are reverted, then they should come here, which it seems they did. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you. I have toned down a little the text in the intro. (Hopefully people can agree in keeping it simple.) Gianmariot2 (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

User:OldSkool01

@OldSkool01: you've reverted three different editors, each of whom have given reasons why your edits should not be allowed to stand. Please discuss your changes here instead. Seasider53 (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53: Are you serious? I was told to include links to reliable sources, specifically from an official Mattel site. And that’s exactly what I did on my last edit. I included a link to MattyCollector.com. So why was it reverted? OldSkool01 (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Still not a reliable source. Have read of WP:RS. Seasider53 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Lol. Then why was I told to use an official Mattel website? So now we‘re just moving the goal posts? How is an official Mattel website not reliable? Mattel is the company that created He-Man. I have a feeling that no matter what site I use, it’s gonna be reverted for being “not reliable”, right? This is unreal. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

See here. He-Ro was an idea from Filmation which Mattel rejected. Seasider53 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

You're also using an "official Mattel website" that is no long active. So the information that you're trying to add may or may not still be accurate. Add to that, your description of this as "official canon" was speculative at best, given how often various He-Man products and productions have changed the character and backstory. Rcarter555 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Seasider53: And then in 2012, Mattel themselves, not Filmation, created a He-Ro action figure, complete with a bio. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@Rcarter555:Fine. Then just remove the words official canon. As for the MattyCollector site, it shut down because they no longer sell figures on there. OldSkool01 (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The Power Sword is pretty much synonymous with He-Man. I propose merging the two. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:A0A5:D7A8:85CC:1EBC (talk) 21:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: Absolutely not. The Power Sword has independent notability as proved in this AfD discussion in 2022. The Power Sword is not just notable in-universe; it's also notable as a best-selling toy. Toughpigs (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  And why was it such a success? Because it was He-Man's weapon, and people could buy a super popular character's weapon. In some ways, it wouldn't exist without him. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:A0A5:D7A8:85CC:1EBC (talk) 23:30, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  In other words, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. 2605:B40:13E7:F600:7DF8:B5FB:97BB:71F6 (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

LGBT or gay section need to be taken out

Leave to LGBT to make something out of nothing!! ^##^#^ LGBT community 174.214.16.97 (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)