Talk:Queerbaiting

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)

I disagree with the statement that the article is lacking in reliable sources to prove notability. The first article does have a connection to University of Washington. per the archived version of the page cited in the article. As for the second one, I think it's fine, honestly, as she also wrote for Anime News Network, Bitch, and elsewhere, according to her bio on the site. The third one, I've put a note on it to ask for a better source. The fourth one is fine, as I see no issue with citing master's theses here, especially since that source is only cited once in the entire article. Historyday01 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Re: Sherlock

I agree with the commenter in the archive who asserts the claim about Sherlock is poorly sourced. I've seen the show several times and love it; it depicts a friendship between two men; there's no queerbaiting at all. I think the confusion arises here because the depiction of actual friendships between men is so rare. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure which commenter in the archive you are referring to. BigNole said "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"." while Czarnibog said incorrrectly that the article "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" (the article has changed since), and rambling from an IP address which is not comprehensible. I'd argue there really hasn't been a substantive discussion of those who say Sherlock is queerbaiting, or not. Presently the sources on whether John and Sherlock are queerbaiting are: The Daily Dot, YouTube (cast denying it), Autostraddle, and The Next. Even so, I would argue that there is enough evidence at Johnlock#Accusations of queerbaiting to justify keeping it here. If so, we need to improve the sourcing of this claim, and attribute it appropriately, as saying the series is queerbaiting is only one interpretation, as others like yourself note that there is no queerbaiting. Historyday01 (talk) 05:11, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

@Viriditas, the article does not (and should not) claim that Sherlock is queerbaiting. It merely documents that "some critics have described the depiction as queerbaiting". This assertion is well sourced. I don't think that we have the sources needed to come to a conclusion, as Wikipedia, whether the allegation of queerbaiting is correct. Sandstein 20:23, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Exactly right. You said exactly what I was thinking as well. Historyday01 (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Stranger Things: Byler

I think that rather than depicting Sherlock as the queerbaiting frontman it should be changed with something about Byler-gate that was arguably the most elaborate and impacting queerbaiting of recent times. Way more notorious and important than ever seen Tancristo (talk) 17:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

For Wikipedia to write about the Byler queerbait, we need proof that it is notable! We need to link articles about Byler being a queerbait. As of now, I haven’t yet found any, but I have found articles about Stranger Things giving poor romantic arcs for queer people. Like this one, and this one! ~2026-66612-5 (talk) 17:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I can agree on that. Previous sourcing on this was not good, which is why it was removed. We need reliable sourcing about possible queerbaiting in Stranger Things. Historyday01 (talk) 12:47, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Neutrality

Hello! I have a question. Do others feel the lead on this page is written from a neutral point of view? If queerbaiting is defined as a marketing technique, in my mind that would mean that marketing professionals are consciously, explicitly using it, with that label, in their work. But the rest of the article gives me the impression that queerbaiting is a term used by those who critique the practice, not those who engage in it. Please let me know your thoughts. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I don't think marketing professionals are going to openly say "oh, we are queerbaiting, that is what we do," as they'd receive backlash, but they will do it, either consciously or subconsciously, just as people don't, usually, openly say they are racist, transphobic, etc. It is a term to describe what marketing professionals, and others, do. Historyday01 (talk) 17:23, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I have rewritten the first paragraph in an attempt to make it clear that queerbaiting is not a set-in-stone practice that is always clearly occurring in a certain way, but rather is subjective, as various people will perceive (or not perceive) it in certain ways. I invite further discussion on this issue, but I was hoping to offer a version of the lead that more clearly illustrates my concerns. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2026 (UTC)