Garethfw

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, Garethfw, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Your first article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
• Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
• and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Mason (talk) 23:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

List of gay characters in television

Re your 12:47, 23 August 2024 edit: please read the hidden instructions that appear at the top of each alphabetical section when the Visual or Source edit screen is opened. Also, the Notice in the Talk page specifically states: "This list is only for characters specifically identified as gay. Characters must be supported with published reliable sources that confirm the identity. Please read "user-generated content" for sources that are not acceptable. Characters that do not have reliable sources cannot be included in the list." Please familiarize yourself with WP:RELIABLE and WP:V. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 10:56, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Slightly confused. So the character is not gay, even though they are written as gay, unless someone other than the author says they are gay. Forgive me but I am struggling with that logic.

What if a character is ginger but they can't be ginger unless someone identifies them in a "reliable source" as ginger?

This character is gay. He falls for another boy, who is not gay. He tries to kiss him, they talk about their sexuality, but we are never sure if the other is suppressing feelings because he is waiting for a call from his dad as to whether or not to kill him. But that doesn't matter unless someone writes this up?

Sorry if this sounds at all snippy, but I hope you see my point.

Have a lovely day and a fabulous Pride. GRF (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

There's no reason for confusion. The requirements are crystal clear: "verifiability means people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it."
For this gay-specific list the sources must state that the character is gay (or homosexual) — and the sources must be reliable, not social media or fan sites. If an editor wants to add a gay character to this list they need to provide published reliable sources that verify the character is gay. If an editor cannot find sources that confirm "gay", the character cannot be included in the list. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 09:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Have you considered peer reviewing? So if a character is gay and yet has not been written about, simply because not every gay character gets written about. Would two or more opinions be enough to verify whether a character is gay or not? Better (BBC Drama) is an interesting example as I can't find any independent sources, maybe because in the UK at least being gay is becoming so mainstream in TV drama and film it's being written about less. In the case of this programme the only referencers were memes about the characters, the kiss, naked swimming, declaration of their sexuality... all fairly obvious things, done by people of their generation who no longer write about these things, they re-purpose them and share them instead.

I'm only raising that simply because in the UK at least things like sexuality, pride etc. are all becoming so mainstream people are now focusing on other things like gender identity. And if the characters in drama that are Gen Z, then their peers are no longer using the same methods of communication we are. I'm Gen X and I love an article or a blog. Just a though that this example may indicate that the criteria being used will start to become out-of-date or out-of-touch with Gen Z or Alpha?

Have a lovely Day! GRF (talk) 10:03, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

"Have you considered peer reviewing? So if a character is gay and yet has not been written about, simply because not every gay character gets written about. Would two or more opinions be enough to verify whether a character is gay or not?" – What Joe and Jane Blow know and believe about a character is irrelevant if they are not opinions published in reliable sources.
Why are you resisting the guidelines and policies every Wikipedia editor needs to abide by? Everything about Wikipedia has been, and will continue to be, determined by consensus: "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it....All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable....All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution....The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article."
As a Wikipedia editor, I have many times been unable to add characters to a list because I could not find acceptable sources to cite. You roll with it and move on. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 09:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. That is actually very helpful and thank you for letting me know that it's not just me.

I'm learning on job so to speak. GRF (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

September 2024

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Moulin Rouge!, please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 12:45, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to emphasise. You need to stop spamming categories into articles and actually stop and think if the article supports the category and especially if it is defined by the category. Just because a film, or whatever, has a character with a disability, that does not make the film about disability, or define it as about disability. For instance, an example among your edits, in what way is the film Scrooge & Marley (2012 film) about disability? There is no mention of any disability anywhere in the article. Someone dies, and someone is ill, but does that make the film about disability?

Please also use edit summaries. None of your edits explain what you are doing. Nor do they justify why you are categorising each article in this manner.

Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I will add more information. The subplot of A Christmas Carol is all about empathy and responsibility brought on by Scrooge's guilt when he realises that is actions directly impact those who are most vulnerable in society, embodied in the character of Tiny Tim. I thought that was Charles Dickens 101 stuff, but I will spell it out. This is why Mark Gatiss updated the script in his version to tackle the underlying ableism in Tiny Tim's portrayal.

Got the same sort of feedback about The Usual Suspects. This is a postmodernist film that completely relies on the biases of the audience towards the capabilities of a disabled man. Without Ableism, the film does not work.

The same in Logan. Charles was disabled but independent, but his dependency has grown and autonomy have gone in the film, so it's actually a film in part about the relationships between carers and family. This is "disability" rather than a person identifying as disabled.

I could go on, but instead I will be a lot better with my explanations and maybe update some of the texts, because it sounds like they need it.

Thank you and have a lovely day! GRF (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I will add sources too. GRF (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

You have some interesting theories here, but you're going to need to update the articles to include sourced discussion of those theories before it will be appropriate to categorize them as being films about disabilities. DonIago (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Please ensure that you source your changes. Wikipedia needs to show that reliable sources (i.e. publications, reviews, etc) define the article subject as being about disability. It cannot be your interpretation.

In the same way, you cannot attribute the focus of one production of A Christmas Carol to all others. Charles Dickens 101 says Christmas Carol is about poverty, greed and redemption. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 18:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

I get this now. There are some really interesting academic papers and articles on the subject. I'll make sure I'll add citations for everything from now on.

I'm writing my first "from scratch" article, and I am being super diligent on the use of sources. I'll probably only get one or two done a year, but I'll make sure they are well researched and supported.

Thank you GRF (talk) 18:36, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to The Boys Next Door (play), please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. The category being added must already exist, and must be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Please slow down about categorization. This is a play, not an actor. Mason (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

New category

Hi, I see you have created a new category; Where Non-Disabled Actors Play Disabled Roles. As with the discussion above, I am again concerned that you are not considering whether the category is defining.

It is not enough that;

• the category is accurate and true.
• it is an aspect of films that reliable sources have discussed in general.
• you to decide that this aspect of this particular film needs drawn attention to.
• you decide it should be grouped with others that share this aspect.

Reliable sources need to have already noted and defined this particular film by this aspect.

I would suggest that you first create an article that explains (with sources, of course) "cripping up" and start with a few examples there. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 07:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There's me doing this the wrong way around. I'll stop tagging and get the article finished first.

Thank you. GRF (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

On the positive side; Come as You Are (2019 film) has exactly what you should be looking for. In the reception section there is a cited discussion of exactly this issue. It would be a good example to use on an article about it. (Although you might want to check if there isn't already an article. There doesn't appear to be any mention of "cripping up" , but that could be because the term is new when the issue isn't.) In the Dark (American TV series) also appears to be a good example. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:14, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm calling the article "Cripping-up" and citing media references, but because it has only appeared in the last few years, I think the first time I came across it was a Guardian article in 2015 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/13/eddie-redmayne-golden-globe-stephen-hawking-disabled-actors-characters, I will instead focus the category on something more explanatory. There is a long history of non-disabled actors playing disabled roles, but only in the last 10 years, when there has been a growth in the number of available professional disabled actors, is this now seen as unacceptable. I don't want the category to sound like it is accusing what has happened in the past, only noting it.

There is also nuance in the articles as it comes down to embodying the lived experience of disability or just mimicking what it looks like, and there are interesting examples such as The History Of Everything or Better (BBC 2023) where the condition is progressive. One is played by a non-disabled actor and the other by a disabled actor who masks his condition and the reveals it. It's not a binary thing.

Having fun exploring it and I hope the article brings it together. Thanks for the link to In The Dark. That's one I hadn't come across, but Come As You Are did get hit by activists and bloggers as they made no attempt to cast disabled actors. Here's an example https://cripplemedia.com/come-as-you-are-but-only-if-youre-cripping-up/ GRF (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There's this list of shows https://www.imdb.com/list/ls541869888/?ref_=uspf_t_2 which I have compiled on IMDB. GRF (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I've created a page about the practice of cripping-up. It needs more work and it will be tidied up and more information will be added over the coming days. GRF (talk) 10:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Films Where Non-Disabled Actors Play Disabled Roles has been nominated for renaming

Category:Films Where Non-Disabled Actors Play Disabled Roles has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fram (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Category:Actors who are Wheelchair Users has been nominated for renaming

Category:Actors who are Wheelchair Users has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fram (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources

In general, you should only use reliable sources. IMDb is not a reliable source. In particular, you should never use lists you have contributed to a website (like IMDb here) to source articles you have written, like you did at Draft:Cripping-up and at Category:Films Where Non-Disabled Actors Play Disabled Roles. Fram (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I was using IMDB as a kind of scratch-pad for collecting data... point taken though. GRF (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll make the changes. GRF (talk) 11:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Done. I have a couple of good sources for the Academy Awards, so I'll turn those into a list with citations. GRF (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think that is all sorted now. I've made changes to the citations based on your advice and tidied up the Cripping-up article. I could develop the article further and still have a lot of source material to work through, but I'll hold back until it comes out of draft. GRF (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The page still reads way too much like a WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS essay, not a neutral encyclopedic article. Sources include blogs[1][2][3], opinion pieces[4], seemingly random Youtube videos[5] all espousing one position (non-disabled actors playing disabled roles is bad). You put into Wikipedia's voice statements not supported by the source, e.g. "produced a performance that was as convincing as Redmayne's, which re-opens up the possibility of disabled actors playing progressive conditions." is sourced to this interview with Zak Ford-Williams, not to an independent reviewer (by the way, the article should name him "Ford-Williams", not "Zak"). Fram (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Very useful feedback, thank you. I will re-edit. It's difficult to write about something so emotive in a neutral way, but I will do my best. Your guidance on this is greatly appreciated. GRF (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I've had another go. Removed as much of the emotive language, except in the quote which I think neatly frames the purpose of the movement, and it was in a leading news outlet. I've added lots of information about the response from the industry and changes being made, so it does not sound one-sided anymore, and improved as many of the sources as possible. I like the interviews with Daniel Monks and Zak Ford-Williams about their roles a Joseph Merrick, as their and other professional's processes are what are behind the change in creative practice. So much of what is being tried out is theoretical, so I'm trying to use citations from a mixture of interviews with performers, writers, directors, as well as academic papers, industry best practice guidance and journalism. I'm hoping that this article grows over time as new and interesting practices emerge.

I also don't want this to be a piece about guilt or shame. There is a history, but there were also few options, and so I'm attempting to put across the process of change and the circumstances by which it has and is happening.

I don't think there are two sides to this. It is something that the industry is proactively addressing, and it is learning at the same time. The lobby wants outcomes and the industry is working on how to manage that change. It's really hard to find anyone who has actively spoken for cripping-up. GRF (talk) 20:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to make it more like Whitewashing in film where there are strong parallels, which could equally fall into the same traps, but they are also using opinions, commentary etc because the act of whitewashing is moral, political and cultural.

I hope I have made it more objective and I have focused more on mainstream media, academic articles, policies/statements form production companies and broadcasters, and interviews with performers talking more about the act rather than the politics of portrayal. GRF (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

draft:Cripping-up

Good so far. I encourage you to work on this more. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I will. I have some positive examples of change and a few other edits. GRF (talk) 08:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added more to the page drawing out from dramaturgy practices what visible disability characteristics are in a fictional or non-fictional character. Plus I've expended the section on Stage because the examples were too obvious. Richard III and Tiny Tim are far from the only examples out there. I need to add some more links to examples where these plays have been cast authentically. I'm very dyslexic and have ADHD, which makes the act of writing feel a bit like punching myself in the face but I think this article will be very useful as it is a really tricky topic with a lot of nuance to navigate, both practically and politically. Any help with it's structure would be most appreciated as this is not something that comes naturally to me. GRF (talk) 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Is there anything more we need to do to the article to get it to the publishing stage? I know that there will be continuous updates needed as the firther I read into this topic them more `i'm learning about it's intricacies.

Any thoughts are welcome. GRF (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)